zeppelin in the Audio Nirvana

Status
This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.
i've serched around. answer are certainly out there, but they are never enough and never in the same place. hope this will turn someway useful to Audio Nirvana owners out there.

i bought a pair of Audio Nirvana Super 8" drivers some months ago. gone trought two type of enclosures:

1. Bassreflex: Minimonitr project from audionirvana site. simply no bass, too shouty.
2. Spiral Horn: The japanese one, some words going on other threads of this forum. "sometime" bass. muddy sounding... and Led Zeppelin remaster absolutly inaudible!!! flat as the most flat thing you can think of... bad bad bad.

So looking for a solution i thougt starting a home to discuss of the various enclosures possible for the audionirvana drivers.
i think all the 8" drivers (standard, super w plug, and castframe) should beahave quite the same.

so i invite everybody to share their experiences here about these drivers and give suggestion, in particular:

@Martin J King, would a quarterwave enclosure suite for a "led zeppelin" use of the drivers?? do you have any hints for the project before i run into filling the sheets? (thank you for your patience if you are reading)

@everyone there, is a good BLH horn design to suite the AN 8"?? something possibly less bigger than the Sachiko... lowther style enclosures? solo 206??


thank you everybody. love this forum.
 
Speaking not so much to speakers as the CD's:

I had a similar experience when my stepson came over to audition my Lowther MLTL's. Not Zepplin, but U2.

He put on an older CD - mid 90's of U2, I know not that. We listened to it and he was amazed at the detail and precison of the DX3's. He heard things that he never heard before. Then he put in a current CD, I think a 2008 release and again I know not what. The noise that came out ot those speakers was stunning. Garbled, severly clipped, anything that could go wrong did.

Same speakers, same amp. Same volume setting. The old CD was well mastered with good dynamics. A pleasure to listen to. The new CD was fully compressed to maximum loudness. We could lower the volume of the new CD until the worst of the distortion was gone, the the performance was lifeless and weak.

I'll give you a dollar to a donut the same thing is true with your Zepplin remaster. It is mastered for maximum loudness and will be unlistenable on ANY quality speakers. Throw it away.

Funny thing. I have a copy of "Mothership", and while I only use it for demos, I don't find it too bad on the Lowthers.

Bob
 
indeed the remaster tracks seems to be poorer than the ones from the albums...

but that's just part of the problem... really i think this drivers deserve a better chance... that is a want to find the enclosure they belong.

i've now seen that MJK has removed access to the worksheets, so the question turns into has anyone already designed an MLTL for the AN super 8"??

and what about a BLH design?? have no one give AN a chance in that application? its T/S seems perfect for horn loading...


PS given the BSC, and then the loss in efficency, is there really a difference hearing to a MLTL than a BLH??
 
I would concur with what Bob says....I have never managed to get the remaster zep to sound good on any of my set-ups...and I've tried a few..with some experience of production I would say there are some compression issues on that disc, enough to upset good music systems and discerning ears.......put it in the:

a) dustbin
b) the car
c) the garage boom box

I would suggest you find another reference point for 'tricky to play'

Ed
 
ok, the remaster is already spinning down the dustbin...

now let's talk of possible solutions for AN,

let this thread become a list of the good options, to stay for everybody searching the forum to save their AN drivers.

i think that many had gone my route into hi-fi (that is, buyed a t-amp, than wanted a better sounding pair of speaker than the Sany ones to let it sound, and found the site of commond-sense audio full of promises)



@saxophone, i did already stumbled on your site. indeed i cannot consider it as a ready solution since it needs two pair of drivers...
 
Super 8 sound

the Audio Nirvana super 8 sound very good with BIB design.
 

Attachments

  • bib.jpg
    bib.jpg
    27 KB · Views: 1,298

GM

Member
Joined 2003
human.bin said:
indeed the remaster tracks seems to be poorer than the ones from the albums...

i've now seen that MJK has removed access to the worksheets, so the question turns into has anyone already designed an MLTL for the AN super 8"??

and what about a BLH design?? have no one give AN a chance in that application? its T/S seems perfect for horn loading...


PS given the BSC, and then the loss in efficency, is there really a difference hearing to a MLTL than a BLH??

Indeed! I tried a couple and gave them to a neighbor to play in his 'boom car'. They sound pretty good in it.

Based on published specs, these drivers ideally belong on a small OB or sealed XO'd around 250 Hz to a proper wide BW HE mid-bass/bass system and either EQ'd flat or severely toe'd in. A BLH is a marginal option due to its high mass corner.

Driven with a high output impedance (preferably tube/tx. coupled) to flatten its response and lower its effective mass corner makes a BLH a better, though large, option or some type of MLTL if corner loaded or in a small, well constructed/damped room or a near-field app. Otherwise, the excessive ~24 dB BSC shelving will 'suck the life' out of it, so yes, a much higher system efficiency makes a huge difference WRT getting closer to the illusion of a 'live' event.

I agree that the BIB would be a good 'starter' system to listen to while you're pondering other options. Who knows, it may be enough except for possibly a super-tweeter to add a little top end 'air'.

GM
 
thank you for the exstensive reply GM: what did you give to your neighbour, the drivers or the remasters? :) i'll be buying Mothership one of these days...

OB really appels to me, but i'm still tring to figure out what electronic is needed and how much will it cost to me...

as a start: having them on two narrow baffles, say 30cm... would they sound good crossed to a simple subwoofer??

would i notice a big difference in tonal balance having a tube amp instead of the t-amp? i'm planning to build one... who doesn't??


didn't anyone made a BLH or tested them in any lowther enclosure?
didn't anyone made a MLTL already?
if you did please share in this thread so people can find it readly


@nelson pass: i'm not sure, but i think you wrote somewhere here you where going to test different AN drivers on openbaffles... any news, any suggestion?
 
human.bin said:
thank you for the exstensive reply GM: what did you give to your neighbour, the drivers or the remasters?

as a start: having them on two narrow baffles, say 30cm... would they sound good crossed to a simple subwoofer??

would i notice a big difference in tonal balance having a tube amp instead of the t-amp?

didn't anyone made a MLTL already?

You're welcome!

The re-masters. I don't have any use for any of the ANs.

I don't see why not if the 'sub' is a HE wide BW one centered between the stereo pair.

Yes, major difference if a high output impedance SET or even a PP with bass/treble tone controls.

WRT MLTLs, I simmed these for a local awhile back, but he went MIA on me, so don't have a clue if either was built. Regardless, being tuned down around Fs they will need up to 8 ohms of series resistance to flatten them out plus heavily toe'd in 30 deg? to deal with the driver's rising on axis response and with only 1 mm Xmax and maybe a couple of more before audible distortion rears its ugly head, they will have a modest output at best.

Anyway, if you build either I'd appreciate some feedback:

Vb = Vas, Fb = Fs MLTL:

L = 56.5"
WxD (CSA) = ~102.687"^2
zdriver = 20.375"
zport = 54"
dport = 4"
Lport = 3"

Vb = Vas, Fb = Fs MLTL (short):

L = 46.75"
WxD (CSA) = ~124.05"^2
zdriver = 10"
zport = 45.5"
dport = 4"
Lport = 5"

All dims inside (i.d.) and approximate, 0.2 lbs/ft^3 polyfil stuffing density simmed.

GM
 
Personally, I would say they seem terrible, rather than 'quite good.'

As for the rest -what GM said. Based on the published specs., mass-corner is really too high for a BLH, so you'll either end up with a dip in the FR between the horn's upper corner frequency & the driver's mass-corner, or, if you run the horn up higher, you'll end up with lobing / imaging problems. Small OB or sealed as wide-band units; toe them in or Eq flat & support by dedicated woofers. A BIB would be OK as a temporary measure, or the MLTLs, but you must Eq & toe them in as GM specifies.

Of course, that's assuming the published specs are accurate, which is excessively unlikely. I suspect in reality, they will have substantially less motor-power than is claimed & a somewhat lower mass corner (rather like the FE206E), which might make them more suitable for a BLH.
 
scottmosse, i appreciate your opinins (and i like your avatar too) a lot, but i would apreciate them far more the day you'll give them a try... :) i know lowthers are better, i even think that nowadays i would go for a solo 206 or double horn from frugel site. but they are all i have and plain to buy until i end my studies and get i job.

many i think sail the internet on quite the same boat, that's why i tought this thread could start a resource.


btw, i fell it's my fault not to have tried the 2.8mkII (the bigger one) from commonsense audio. they claim it's a BR, but it probably is a MLTL. i'm building them, possibly this week, i'll let you know.
 
I was refering to the CSA cabinets, not the drivers, which are pretty decent units, as FR drivers go (I've heard them often enough & can vouch for that). I prefer the Fostex drivers myself, but I'd take the AN's over quite a few of Lowther's offerings, many of which really aren't all that great.

Re the 2.8 box it's a mistuned MLTL. What GM & I were pointing out is that without a high output impedance amplifier, based on the claimed specs., these drivers are not ideal for BLHs or other BR / vented alignments without substantial correction (even a decently designed one, like the two Greg notes above). A BIB or one of those aforementioned MLTLs would get you going though until you could shift to a more optimal useage of the drivers.
 
human.bin said:
i hope i didn't seem too polemical... but you know when someone come to criticize your babies...


Only a misunderstanding WRT what I was criticising (i.e. the CSA cabinets, not the drivers). :)

so do you suggest me not to try the CSA 2.8 enclosure than rather use GM simulation? or even do that myself trought MJK worksheets (fell i'm too a newbe to do this)?

No no! GM's MLTLs are substantially better than the 2.8, so I'd certainly go with one of those, providing you apply the correction he specifies.

I can vouch for the drivers as well. I have a pair of each, and so far
they represent good performance at a low price.

Of course I'm running them in OB's with a woofer on the smaller ones.

I like the sound of that Nelson. :)
 
@Nelson: when will you share something about the OBs? will you?
thinking of a baffle narrow as possible what frequency do you think i should cross them to a sub? can a sub be used to go up enough? or is it just a silly idea... i surely i can spend money to buy a pair of goldwood drivers... but indeed how cheap can i go for an acceptable solution to drive them, can you give me a price-range idea?

@GM: what exactly do you mean by 'HE wide BW'??
 
Status
This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.