hi guys
sorry for the lateness getting back here,you would think its near xmas or something its been that busy!
thanks for all the info...i would like to believe that its ust the old drivers in the vtl design giving me the problems,but im not that smart enough to work it out...also i see the old enclouser designs have been posted but wasnt this vtl design also avaliable when the old spec jx92 was about?
it could just be a tl thing,a colouration,cant stand any boxy colourations..thats what living with magnepan speakers do to you!
about half way through the build on the 8litre enclosures....so ill see what results,sounds i get from them...heres hoping!
all the best
smithie
sorry for the lateness getting back here,you would think its near xmas or something its been that busy!
thanks for all the info...i would like to believe that its ust the old drivers in the vtl design giving me the problems,but im not that smart enough to work it out...also i see the old enclouser designs have been posted but wasnt this vtl design also avaliable when the old spec jx92 was about?
it could just be a tl thing,a colouration,cant stand any boxy colourations..thats what living with magnepan speakers do to you!
about half way through the build on the 8litre enclosures....so ill see what results,sounds i get from them...heres hoping!
all the best
smithie
Scott
Thanks very much for that. GM has mentioned a couple of times that the 31 would give the more accurate response and I was very interested to see it in graph form. (I'm a cartoonist and tend to think in pictures.)
I only know of one member of the forum who has built both the 48 and 31 and he expressed a preference for the 48, partly in terms of extension. Interesting, given how they model.
Given the differences between the JX92 and S-driver, I assume they would model differently as an MLTL - ie they aren't a direct swop.
It's frustrating not having access to the MathCad program, being on a Mac, although I'd probably spend way too much time on it if I did.
Smithie
Good luck with the 8 litre enclosures. How are the bass boxes coming along? A postscript to previous comments, if you built them as the 33 litre reflex, you could remove the port and plug to make sealed if the sound didn't suit your room.
Thanks very much for that. GM has mentioned a couple of times that the 31 would give the more accurate response and I was very interested to see it in graph form. (I'm a cartoonist and tend to think in pictures.)
I only know of one member of the forum who has built both the 48 and 31 and he expressed a preference for the 48, partly in terms of extension. Interesting, given how they model.
Given the differences between the JX92 and S-driver, I assume they would model differently as an MLTL - ie they aren't a direct swop.
It's frustrating not having access to the MathCad program, being on a Mac, although I'd probably spend way too much time on it if I did.
Smithie
Good luck with the 8 litre enclosures. How are the bass boxes coming along? A postscript to previous comments, if you built them as the 33 litre reflex, you could remove the port and plug to make sealed if the sound didn't suit your room.
hi collin
haha,this is cornwall,we dont move quick this end....so those bass enclosures are even further behind my 8ltr enclosure build....but ill get there!
was going to go with 35ltrs sealed to start with and take it from there!
still to prove im not a total waster i would like to state that the panels and bases have been cut in readyness!
all the best
smithie
haha,this is cornwall,we dont move quick this end....so those bass enclosures are even further behind my 8ltr enclosure build....but ill get there!
was going to go with 35ltrs sealed to start with and take it from there!
still to prove im not a total waster i would like to state that the panels and bases have been cut in readyness!
all the best
smithie
'Not a straight swap?'
Well, no, not quite, but you'd be surprised at how few alterations are necessary. MLTL enclosures are pretty flexible, assuming the parameters are not completely dissimilar of course. I've taken a leaf out of Greg's book (not for the first time, and I'm sure it won't be the last) and this one has the 2" x 2.75" port he used in his MLTL48. I've also reduced the area of So & Sm to 4.25Sd instead of 4.5Sd. length remains at 45", driver 11.25" down from internal top of the cabinet, 0.5lbs ft^3 of stuffing, port 4" up from the base.
Looks pretty good to me. There will by other configurations equal or superior to this of course, but the response looks pretty good by my reckoning.
Best
Scott
Well, no, not quite, but you'd be surprised at how few alterations are necessary. MLTL enclosures are pretty flexible, assuming the parameters are not completely dissimilar of course. I've taken a leaf out of Greg's book (not for the first time, and I'm sure it won't be the last) and this one has the 2" x 2.75" port he used in his MLTL48. I've also reduced the area of So & Sm to 4.25Sd instead of 4.5Sd. length remains at 45", driver 11.25" down from internal top of the cabinet, 0.5lbs ft^3 of stuffing, port 4" up from the base.
Looks pretty good to me. There will by other configurations equal or superior to this of course, but the response looks pretty good by my reckoning.
Best
Scott
Attachments
Thanks again - another option for Smithie if he's snowed in over Christmas ...
I've mentioned this elsewhere, but I recently got a copy of Ted's book from 1962 and was surprised at how comprehensively it covers things like TL and traditional quarter wave enclosures (though TLs are called ... pipes). The only type of box missing was the MLTL and, thanks to Martin's MathCad work, that's proving an amazingly flexible additional design tool.
I've mentioned this elsewhere, but I recently got a copy of Ted's book from 1962 and was surprised at how comprehensively it covers things like TL and traditional quarter wave enclosures (though TLs are called ... pipes). The only type of box missing was the MLTL and, thanks to Martin's MathCad work, that's proving an amazingly flexible additional design tool.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.