Welcome! Need support, you got it. Or share your ideas and experiences.
Return to Planar Speaker Asylum
24.220.153.43
In Reply to: RE: Wood Frames for MGIIIa and general consensus on mods posted by computerman on March 02, 2015 at 14:24:02
Thanks, Computerman. And, my apologies for unintentionally sending that to you. I must have included something in the text that didn't jibe with Audio Asylum's system... that's the only thing I can think of. Or, maybe operator error. That couldn't happen, could it?
I've read through a lot of your posts BTW. Nice looking IIIA's! I really admire how you've isolated the ribbons from the bass/ mid (and low bass Tympani) panels.
I am really thinking of going with MiniDSP's on my subs soon, maybe trying them up top even, also. Sounds like Andy R. is jumping in, too! One thing is for sure, they sure are a deal if they sound good at all.
FWIW, I liked the results I got with a good passive speaker level setup better than the sound I had with an Ashly 3 Way active line level unit. It just seemed to color the sound too much. Then again, that is a pro unit, and it sounded very "transistory" for lack of a better word.
Your active setup now with the DCX2496 should eat most any passive XO for lunch.
Gotta get some sleep now, chat later.
Cory
Follow Ups:
Thanks for the kind comments Cory. As you probably figured, I molded my Maggies after the "Gunned" ones or "Magnestands" I thought that esthetically they were a piece of art, and the comments by owners confirmed my suspicions with the sound. I did my best to come as close as I could,
I later started building guitars, but that has been interrupted by my moving to a new apartment...no room for all the power tools. I was building electrics. Learned a lot though and ended up with a real nice tele style made from "mystery wood". It sounds great, so one never knows what the final outcome of an instrument like a guitar or a pair of speakers, will be, and I do believe that when they are used like inmates here use them, then they come at least close to being instruments. We "play" them, modify and even build them, tweak them, play with sonic characteristics, etc. Perhaps if we started thinking of speakers as fine instruments that need tuning...well the results might be different. It takes a lot of experience to get these things sounding good, and I think that some inmates here are artists in their own right.
My Maggies are also coupled to the floor with spikes, and I do believe that it makes quite a difference.
As to the crossover, you are the first in any of my posts to state what you said about the DCX2496. It does have quite a following, plus one can put way more money into modding it than it costs. I also had a TDM active crossover similar to your Ashley. When I replaced it with the DCX I noticed an immediate improvement that was quite significant...when I add the Tympani's back into the mix, it can only get better. There is a pair of T-IV's on eBay for about 2000. hmmmm. Maybe in the future. I would love to also add a row of Neo-8's, and just use them and the tweeter, as I do hold with the belief that separate panels are better. When I use just the mids and tweeters with T-1 D's, well about all I can say is WOW! Satie thought that it would be viable to use an extra amp I have for the IIIa bass, and go four way. I was thinking of adding a MiniDSP for the fourth split. What I don't quite get is how would I connect my Sunfire TGP-5 to the crossovers? Right now I am using the two main outs to the DCX, so how does one add an additional channel? Is using the surround outs possible?
I do not think there is a consensus on this matter. I have not seen any vibrational analysis on different types of baffles/frames. An easy way is to use a tuning fork and hold it to the baffle/frame. Wood, particle board, platsics, concrete, metal, laminations of various materials, they all have their properties. Personally, I am against a single solid type of material. I prefer to mix materials with different properties. The way the baffle/frame of Magnepan speakers is made, it is very flimsy. Are we sure that the flimsiness is all bad? Is the opposite what we want? What will sturdiness do? If we want to absorb energy, what materials will do that? Hard and sturdy? To me, a hard and solid material will not absorb very much. It will probably have a high transfer speed of vibrations but it will not absorb them much. Is not high absorption = high loss of energy?
keep in mind that wood is 'natures composite' and has a distributed response to vibrational input. Wood is NOT homogeneous and even responds differently in different directions.
This is for Maggies.
Tuned enclosures, of course, are different and can have quite a sharp resonance if so designed.
My mental model is the 'PIE". Each slice of the pie is one factor. Rigidity? Mass? and so on down the list. The pie is ONLY so big and you must apportion your 'needs' among the choices, realizing that optimizing or increasing the performance in ONE category may have influence over OTHER parameters in the design.
Thru ingenious use of design and materials, it MAY be possible to make the pie somewhat larger, but in the end you still have choices to make.
Too much is never enough
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: