Markus
Could you not have rolled on a thick coat if you wanted a textured surface? And wouldn't this have helped to hide any substrate problems?
I have always wondered how a speaker would look if a very thick paint were roled on to create a textured surface. I know when sprayed on the texture looks great - why not role it?
Could you not have rolled on a thick coat if you wanted a textured surface? And wouldn't this have helped to hide any substrate problems?
I have always wondered how a speaker would look if a very thick paint were roled on to create a textured surface. I know when sprayed on the texture looks great - why not role it?
finely textured is OK
Thank you all for being with the me in this thread and special thanks to all of you that found positive words. Much appreciated.
Last but not least I would like to thank Earl Geddes for making the Summa speakers (Nathan, Abbey and Summa) available as real products and not just ideas flying around in DIY space.
I refused to report on how the Nathan sounds until now due to the fact that the loudspeaker (Nathan 10 plus subwoofers) and room is one system that can't be seperated. I moved in only recently so I first had to become acquainted with it. The room was far from being optimal and still has it's flaws but I think it's time for a few words on the sound quality.
To make it short: the speakers are awesome.
If you've never listened to a speaker that is capable of reproducing such a wide dynamic range without distortion (take any of the popular 2 way boxes) then you'll be amazed how lifelike e.g. a voice can be.
The lack of compression combined with a high directivity that minimizes disturbing reflections helps in raising intelligibility not only of voices but of the whole sound stage. Normally you would have to install absorbers matching the directivity of the speaker to reach that level of intelligibility.
Furthermore the directivity is very constant so coloration from the indirect soundfield is minimized. In spite of that I've installed absorbers behind the speakers because even a 15" woofer isn't capable of following the directivity of the horn down to the lowest frequencies.
All in all this speaker is very analytic and let's you really hear what's on a recording and what stereophony is capable of. Sometimes it hurts with bad recordings but most of the time it's just a big joy.
With all that said keep in mind that the Nathan is "only" a satellite speaker that needs to be complemented with one or more subwoofers. If you're looking for a stand-alone speaker then the Abbey or Summa maybe right for you.
Watch the "Setting up the Nathan" thread for more info and measurements.
Best, Markus
Last but not least I would like to thank Earl Geddes for making the Summa speakers (Nathan, Abbey and Summa) available as real products and not just ideas flying around in DIY space.
I refused to report on how the Nathan sounds until now due to the fact that the loudspeaker (Nathan 10 plus subwoofers) and room is one system that can't be seperated. I moved in only recently so I first had to become acquainted with it. The room was far from being optimal and still has it's flaws but I think it's time for a few words on the sound quality.
To make it short: the speakers are awesome.
If you've never listened to a speaker that is capable of reproducing such a wide dynamic range without distortion (take any of the popular 2 way boxes) then you'll be amazed how lifelike e.g. a voice can be.
The lack of compression combined with a high directivity that minimizes disturbing reflections helps in raising intelligibility not only of voices but of the whole sound stage. Normally you would have to install absorbers matching the directivity of the speaker to reach that level of intelligibility.
Furthermore the directivity is very constant so coloration from the indirect soundfield is minimized. In spite of that I've installed absorbers behind the speakers because even a 15" woofer isn't capable of following the directivity of the horn down to the lowest frequencies.
All in all this speaker is very analytic and let's you really hear what's on a recording and what stereophony is capable of. Sometimes it hurts with bad recordings but most of the time it's just a big joy.
With all that said keep in mind that the Nathan is "only" a satellite speaker that needs to be complemented with one or more subwoofers. If you're looking for a stand-alone speaker then the Abbey or Summa maybe right for you.
Watch the "Setting up the Nathan" thread for more info and measurements.
Best, Markus
devil in the details
Do you have any reference recordings you could provide insight re: low level clarity?
For instance, I've noticed on "Dark Side of the Moon" low level voices (at the end of the explosion in "Time", I believe), just b4 "Money" starts, that jumped out of nowhere when I relistened thru my dipoles after various changes that were previously a blur with other speakers.
Also, on Aaron Copelands "Appalachian Spring", "Fanfare for the Common Man", etc.. I can hear the musicians turning the pages in the concert hall, as well as feet shuffling, HVAC blower noise, etc. during quiet passages, all of these sounds are suspended accurately in the soundfield of my listening room. This at ~ 15' listening distance measuring ~ 102dB on average at lp in my roughly 15,000 ft^3 living room/HT.
Moussorsky's "Pictures at an Exhibition" also has various low rumblings and musician noises apparent during quiet passages. I often am startled into thinking my house AC or refrigerator has malfunctioned while listening to low level passages, only to discover the sound is in the music itself.
I'd be interested in any specific similar experiences you can relate from your listening.
I'm often especially startled by the clarity and localization of classic Bonnie Rait, Linda Rondstadt, Natalie Merchant, Carol King, Dianne Schuur, Barbara Streisand (ugh), etc. female voices, as well as solo acoustic guitar, William Ackerman, Michael Hedges, etc. (it's as if the performers are seated in the room), not to mention solo piano work, which can be epiphanous. I call this "jump factor" and with many recordings, it's very revealing of the effectiveness of the soundfield setup.
John L.
Do you have any reference recordings you could provide insight re: low level clarity?
For instance, I've noticed on "Dark Side of the Moon" low level voices (at the end of the explosion in "Time", I believe), just b4 "Money" starts, that jumped out of nowhere when I relistened thru my dipoles after various changes that were previously a blur with other speakers.
Also, on Aaron Copelands "Appalachian Spring", "Fanfare for the Common Man", etc.. I can hear the musicians turning the pages in the concert hall, as well as feet shuffling, HVAC blower noise, etc. during quiet passages, all of these sounds are suspended accurately in the soundfield of my listening room. This at ~ 15' listening distance measuring ~ 102dB on average at lp in my roughly 15,000 ft^3 living room/HT.
Moussorsky's "Pictures at an Exhibition" also has various low rumblings and musician noises apparent during quiet passages. I often am startled into thinking my house AC or refrigerator has malfunctioned while listening to low level passages, only to discover the sound is in the music itself.
I'd be interested in any specific similar experiences you can relate from your listening.
I'm often especially startled by the clarity and localization of classic Bonnie Rait, Linda Rondstadt, Natalie Merchant, Carol King, Dianne Schuur, Barbara Streisand (ugh), etc. female voices, as well as solo acoustic guitar, William Ackerman, Michael Hedges, etc. (it's as if the performers are seated in the room), not to mention solo piano work, which can be epiphanous. I call this "jump factor" and with many recordings, it's very revealing of the effectiveness of the soundfield setup.
John L.
Markus
Thanks for your post. I never had any doubt that you would be satisfied with the sound (from that piece of **** kit!), but I held my breath none-the-less
Some years back the design intent was to make full range speakers. The Summa was ported with a 15" woofer and went respectably low. But as I came to discover the speakers never reached their full potntial without multiple subs. LF extension alone is NOT the answer - multiple subs was. As time went on I could see that the ported designs were a compromise for LF extension that was pointless because LF extension was not the answer. SO I quite compromising on design aspects that extended the LF. I stopped using ports on any loudspeaker because closed boxes work better. There are two reasons for this 1) the air spring linearizes the normally nonlinear compliance of the driver - a small effect, but worth doing, and 2) monopoles have a better LF extension when summed with other monopoles 3) closed boxes limit cone excursion far more effectively than ported do.
So in short I don't really consider any of the Summa line to be full range designs. You will never get the kind of LF performance that matches these speakers without multiple subs. Thats the conclusion that I have come to and it is an assumption that is inherent in the design.
Thanks again.
Thanks for your post. I never had any doubt that you would be satisfied with the sound (from that piece of **** kit!), but I held my breath none-the-less
Some years back the design intent was to make full range speakers. The Summa was ported with a 15" woofer and went respectably low. But as I came to discover the speakers never reached their full potntial without multiple subs. LF extension alone is NOT the answer - multiple subs was. As time went on I could see that the ported designs were a compromise for LF extension that was pointless because LF extension was not the answer. SO I quite compromising on design aspects that extended the LF. I stopped using ports on any loudspeaker because closed boxes work better. There are two reasons for this 1) the air spring linearizes the normally nonlinear compliance of the driver - a small effect, but worth doing, and 2) monopoles have a better LF extension when summed with other monopoles 3) closed boxes limit cone excursion far more effectively than ported do.
So in short I don't really consider any of the Summa line to be full range designs. You will never get the kind of LF performance that matches these speakers without multiple subs. Thats the conclusion that I have come to and it is an assumption that is inherent in the design.
Thanks again.
For those of you looking for subs for your Nathans here are some "good" ones http://www.cepro.com/article/jl_audio_adds_fathom_f212_subwoofer/
I recommend three or four of them (NOT!)
Of course four of these might work too http://www.shopping.com/xPO-Yamaha-YST-SW216
I recommend three or four of them (NOT!)
Of course four of these might work too http://www.shopping.com/xPO-Yamaha-YST-SW216
What? You don't like marketing mumbo-jumbo? I just ignore all that stuff - its a 10" ported sub with 100 watts. What more do you need to know?
Hey, I'm not really recommending this exact speaker, only that there are a lot of reasonable subs out there. One does not have to pay $18,000 to get the bass right.
Of course you could give me the 18 grand and I'll do it right for you!!
Hey, I'm not really recommending this exact speaker, only that there are a lot of reasonable subs out there. One does not have to pay $18,000 to get the bass right.
Of course you could give me the 18 grand and I'll do it right for you!!
Earl, it is worth mentioning for anyone taking this Yamaha suggestion seriously that it appears, from the picture of the back panel and the "spec sheet", that the low pass is not continuously variable but is switched, with 40Hz and 140Hz the only choices!
Also the 100 watts appear to be marketing watts, as in 100W "dynamic power" to use Yamaha's own words.
Also the 100 watts appear to be marketing watts, as in 100W "dynamic power" to use Yamaha's own words.
I've latched onto Dr. Geddes' 'multiple, cheap subwoofer' advice, and have found a good assortment available through the local (Austin) Craigslist site, and Audiogon.
Started my collection with a perfectly nice, used, JBL PB10 for $75, and with the subwoofer volume low-ish and blended with the mains, and the crossover at 50Hz, it is a good addition. This is a small space, so one more cheap sub should do it, the next one having crossover filtered line outs.
Started my collection with a perfectly nice, used, JBL PB10 for $75, and with the subwoofer volume low-ish and blended with the mains, and the crossover at 50Hz, it is a good addition. This is a small space, so one more cheap sub should do it, the next one having crossover filtered line outs.
Yes, as a minimum the subs should have a variable LP filter. It should also have a phase switch if possible. But beyond that power and size aren't going to be big issues unless you have a big room, play very loud or don't use enough of them.
The $6000 subs do have everthing that is required.
The $6000 subs do have everthing that is required.
Could you pour Icynene or a similar expanding open-cell polyurethane foam mix into a waveguide to create an in-situ plug?
http://www.icynene.com/
http://www.icynene.com/assets/documents/PDFs/Spray_and_Pour_Formulas.pdf
http://www.icynene.com/assets/videos/Pour00301_640x480.avi
http://www.icynene.com/
http://www.icynene.com/assets/documents/PDFs/Spray_and_Pour_Formulas.pdf
http://www.icynene.com/assets/videos/Pour00301_640x480.avi
horn stuffing
If you have measurement capability, I would think you could use successively larger discs cut from fiberglass insulation, fibrefill, goose down, or any of the cellulosics until you achieve the desired density / attenuation of the modes in question. You'd have the luxury of "variable attenuation" by using different stuffing layers and or compaction.
http://www.crittercrafts.com/fiberfill.asp
John L.
454Casull said:
If you have measurement capability, I would think you could use successively larger discs cut from fiberglass insulation, fibrefill, goose down, or any of the cellulosics until you achieve the desired density / attenuation of the modes in question. You'd have the luxury of "variable attenuation" by using different stuffing layers and or compaction.
http://www.crittercrafts.com/fiberfill.asp
John L.
Marcus, I've been meaning for some time to express my admiration of your build. The white finish works beautifully with the black disks of the speakers, and the stand - as many have already mentioned - complements them perfectly.
A question for Earl: is there a reason the woofer is so close to the bottom of the cabinet? I ask because IMHO the aesthetics would be slightly better if it were raised a bit, so that the bottom "margin" was at least as wide as the space between the woofer and the horn. Of course, it's always difficult to judge from photographs as well.
In any case, a fine-looking speaker. Earl, I think your concerns (expressed some time ago) over the "industrial look" and WAF may be unnecessary.
Kudos to you both.
Aengus
A question for Earl: is there a reason the woofer is so close to the bottom of the cabinet? I ask because IMHO the aesthetics would be slightly better if it were raised a bit, so that the bottom "margin" was at least as wide as the space between the woofer and the horn. Of course, it's always difficult to judge from photographs as well.
In any case, a fine-looking speaker. Earl, I think your concerns (expressed some time ago) over the "industrial look" and WAF may be unnecessary.
Kudos to you both.
Aengus
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.