I have returned the Mangers to their owners with thanks,
and so I don't anticipate much more action on that front.
I like the loudspeakers very much; they have a very neutral
character and measure better than any other full range driver
that I've run across. I can't help but imagine how great it would
be if they could be made more sensitive and dynamic at the same
time.
and so I don't anticipate much more action on that front.
I like the loudspeakers very much; they have a very neutral
character and measure better than any other full range driver
that I've run across. I can't help but imagine how great it would
be if they could be made more sensitive and dynamic at the same
time.
aj_newman said:
QWTP means quarter wave tapered pipe, which if I understand
it correctly is one where the driver is mounted about 1/3 from
the pointy end. The F means folded. The ML is mass loaded -
frankly I'm not at all certain what that means exactly.
Anybody else care to correct or elaborate?
Thanks Gents,
I know HFNRR refered to folding Quarter wave TLs (1983-86?), and I think Martin Columns Hi Peformance Loudspeakers touched on them too.
I've always thought that TLs & Ports stored energy and were less likely to be Hi-Fidelity than a sealed system. If your spending so much dosh on the the Manger, I would have thought integrating a good quality, very light bass unit, to give you a directly radiated response from 120 Hz down to say 60 Hz would sound better (but maybe not quite as elegant).
Why not use the Naim patented idea of having a resistive membrane that divides the space behind the manger. At low frequencies .. the Manger sees a larger volume and increase its ability to deliver LF (ie its sensitivity). If you need more volume ... You could then use a second manger with a LP filter so that it could augment the LF output.
.. what about the Inifiniy system with 6 (was it 6?) Mangers in a vertical line. That would look fantstic. Bit pricey perhaps
Tuckshop
I know HFNRR refered to folding Quarter wave TLs (1983-86?), and I think Martin Columns Hi Peformance Loudspeakers touched on them too.
I've always thought that TLs & Ports stored energy and were less likely to be Hi-Fidelity than a sealed system. If your spending so much dosh on the the Manger, I would have thought integrating a good quality, very light bass unit, to give you a directly radiated response from 120 Hz down to say 60 Hz would sound better (but maybe not quite as elegant).
Why not use the Naim patented idea of having a resistive membrane that divides the space behind the manger. At low frequencies .. the Manger sees a larger volume and increase its ability to deliver LF (ie its sensitivity). If you need more volume ... You could then use a second manger with a LP filter so that it could augment the LF output.
.. what about the Inifiniy system with 6 (was it 6?) Mangers in a vertical line. That would look fantstic. Bit pricey perhaps
Tuckshop
Even though the MSW has an x-max of +- 3.5 mm I wouldn't use it in multiples or isobaric just to get enough bass out of it. "Real" woofers do this better at much much lower prices. Since the MSWs can be crossed over quite low this can be done with minimal x-over impact on signal.
I am also a member of the closed-box camp when it comes to woofers for pairing with an MSW.
Regards
Charles
I am also a member of the closed-box camp when it comes to woofers for pairing with an MSW.
Regards
Charles
what about a spherical enclosure? Long, a fair bit to read.
IIRC the Manger is a 10 inch driver? No it's 210 mm.
If you simply added a baffle step shelf compensation circuit, say IN the pre-amp, or at line level, would you risk overdriving it in the Manger's bass range? Their X-max is?????
WHY?
Just at present, a friend wants me to come up with 'better' drivers, than the Australian made Audiosphere 3's which I own, and he now has a pr of.
The OEM driver source in the 1970's was Foster (now Fostex), an 8 inch w 38mm VC, and a 35mm shallow/vestigial horn dome.
Go here for piccies of the spheres, and a bit of info.
http://www.theanalogdept.com/tim_bailey.htm
NB this is NOT my site. anotheer 'page' by me, is
http://www.theanalogdept.com/susp_tim_bailey.htm
and/or read the attachment to this post, which is a bit out of date, BTYGo.
I listen to mine in pretty much the near field.
I bought them, 'instead of' several still highly regarded models, a long time ago.
I have done a LOT of tweaking, with clay and lead shot on the drivers, an RC Z rise nwetork and putting the HP only xover in jiffy boxes on the floor, dry sand added just last yr.
They don't do / do a lot of things other spkrs do / can't.
They disappear, they are 'quiet' * for a 2-way big-dome tweeter design, they are fast, they are analytical and pull MMPPMono recordings apart, yet let the music through, they are excellent at expression, nuance, ensemble/interplay, and they play LOUD on few watts.
My friend likes biggish 50 to 100 watt tube amps, which would cope with the Manger's lowish efficiency.
We'd probably only get upper bass even with a shelving-up circuit.
I could see having to build a pr of BIG + efficient driver subs (EBS's), or IB's in the floor loaded by the crawl space.
And then there's integrating them! ^@#*&^%$!!!!
I have been pondering the Mangers- in a sphere context - for a long while. A sphere, apart from being quiet and having good diffraction performance, also has the largest possible baffle area for a given volume, pushing the baffle step -3db point further down.
* And, I like 'quiet' - in the sense already covered in this thread, IE less TND, less HASH.
I would probably put a rear lossy labrynth - progressively stuffed, on the back of the sphere, similar to B&W's design on the N801.
And, round the baffle forward to > 10 inch, with layers of MDF so as to meet the Manger driver's edge neatly.
Thoughts?
IIRC the Manger is a 10 inch driver? No it's 210 mm.
If you simply added a baffle step shelf compensation circuit, say IN the pre-amp, or at line level, would you risk overdriving it in the Manger's bass range? Their X-max is?????
WHY?
Just at present, a friend wants me to come up with 'better' drivers, than the Australian made Audiosphere 3's which I own, and he now has a pr of.
The OEM driver source in the 1970's was Foster (now Fostex), an 8 inch w 38mm VC, and a 35mm shallow/vestigial horn dome.
Go here for piccies of the spheres, and a bit of info.
http://www.theanalogdept.com/tim_bailey.htm
NB this is NOT my site. anotheer 'page' by me, is
http://www.theanalogdept.com/susp_tim_bailey.htm
and/or read the attachment to this post, which is a bit out of date, BTYGo.
I listen to mine in pretty much the near field.
I bought them, 'instead of' several still highly regarded models, a long time ago.
I have done a LOT of tweaking, with clay and lead shot on the drivers, an RC Z rise nwetork and putting the HP only xover in jiffy boxes on the floor, dry sand added just last yr.
They don't do / do a lot of things other spkrs do / can't.
They disappear, they are 'quiet' * for a 2-way big-dome tweeter design, they are fast, they are analytical and pull MMPPMono recordings apart, yet let the music through, they are excellent at expression, nuance, ensemble/interplay, and they play LOUD on few watts.
My friend likes biggish 50 to 100 watt tube amps, which would cope with the Manger's lowish efficiency.
We'd probably only get upper bass even with a shelving-up circuit.
I could see having to build a pr of BIG + efficient driver subs (EBS's), or IB's in the floor loaded by the crawl space.
And then there's integrating them! ^@#*&^%$!!!!
I have been pondering the Mangers- in a sphere context - for a long while. A sphere, apart from being quiet and having good diffraction performance, also has the largest possible baffle area for a given volume, pushing the baffle step -3db point further down.
* And, I like 'quiet' - in the sense already covered in this thread, IE less TND, less HASH.
I would probably put a rear lossy labrynth - progressively stuffed, on the back of the sphere, similar to B&W's design on the N801.
And, round the baffle forward to > 10 inch, with layers of MDF so as to meet the Manger driver's edge neatly.
Thoughts?
Spheres.
Yes. They do sound good in spheres.
+ I suggest you raise the spheres off the ground a bit - eg slouch level, ear height.
+ If you clamp the spheres from behind you also avoid an early bounces of sound
+ I think the 20" sphere from the links should have been more 'death star' looking to avoid edge defraction.
I used Teak for mine ... and got slightly castigated by Mr Overkill.
Next time I'll try and find something in greater abundance!
Tuckshop.
Yes. They do sound good in spheres.
+ I suggest you raise the spheres off the ground a bit - eg slouch level, ear height.
+ If you clamp the spheres from behind you also avoid an early bounces of sound
+ I think the 20" sphere from the links should have been more 'death star' looking to avoid edge defraction.
I used Teak for mine ... and got slightly castigated by Mr Overkill.
Next time I'll try and find something in greater abundance!
Tuckshop.
... Not quite 'Aliens" ... but this were the beasts that I concocked last year. The Head unit in picture is one of the prototypes made from Mango wood (or at least I think it was mango?!).
I've gone for something a bit more geodic for the final Teak versions.
I reckon they will appeal to those with mild astigmatism =)
Tuckshop
I've gone for something a bit more geodic for the final Teak versions.
I reckon they will appeal to those with mild astigmatism =)
Tuckshop
Attachments
I was initially interested in the MANGER, but after listening to a pair commercially available, I was disappointed. The pianos don't have the transient dynamics necessary.
After further looking at the data plots, the impulse and step responses were done at very low voltage levels, not realistic in music conditions at all. These would be somewhat misleading.
If we could see the same responses at 0.5 volts and above driving level, then it might be a better representation.
I wonder why they didn't use oval shaped diaphragms to break up the natural modes?
After further looking at the data plots, the impulse and step responses were done at very low voltage levels, not realistic in music conditions at all. These would be somewhat misleading.
If we could see the same responses at 0.5 volts and above driving level, then it might be a better representation.
I wonder why they didn't use oval shaped diaphragms to break up the natural modes?
phase_accurate said:
Ah! Yes, the coils!
It seems that the star shaped dampers are very critical to how the drivers will really sound. I can't recall what material it is, wonder whether humidity might effect how much damping occurs or whether it would attribute to how the driver sounds.
George