[jakekluge]

Mike is correct.
There're very similar at a glance, but driver spacing is a little bit different, so the shelving/bracing have been shifted around a little compared to the AV-3.

Well crap.  I was hoping to nestle the new tweeter into an old pair with a new crossover. 
Thanks for the response, to you and Mike.

[Hobbsmeerkat]

Hobbs, does the lower crossover point for the tweeter potentially make it easier to incorporate with other woofer drivers?  In other words, do you guys find, generally, that needing to play any particular woofer for a 2-way up to near 2kHz makes it harder to get the response you want, because when the woofer goes above 1kHz it's harder to correct the issues for the woofer in that range?  I know the GR woofers behave well there, with the 2-way woofers only needing a couple parts.  Curious if there are expected advantages for the woofer correction network because the tweeter can play so low.

It also occurred to me, if crossing the tweeter that low makes it easier to pair with more woofers from various manufacturers, the waveguide / rear cup / network you've designed for it may make it of interest to DIY hobbyist builders, in general.  Some people just want to build their own thing for the fun of it - maybe you've got a turn-key tweeter option / network for them that makes it easier for them to achieve a good result.

It can, but it really depends more on how well behaved the drivers are more than anything. The phase relationship of the drivers is also something to consider.
The lower crossover point allows for better directivity in all directions, which means the speaker that remains coherent/consistent over a much larger area vs a speaker with a higher crossover point. Especially more traditional speakers that cross 3-4Khz.
Our M130 can easily cross 3-4Khz, but other woofers get breakup in those regions, so you would need a filler driver or midrange to fill in that gap.

The other issue with a high crossover point, esp. with a larger woofer, is that you get into beaming frequencies pretty quickly, so the horizontal axis response is a mess with the tweeter often having more output as its response is near omni-at the crossover point compared to the woofer, and it only gets worse the larger the woofer gets.

For instance an 18" woofer really needs to cross around 500Hz, or lower, to maintain a coherent sound, and good luck finding any tweeter that can play anywhere close to that low.
A 3-way design with a small 3"-5" mid-woofer or wideband driver, crossing to a tweeter is a much better way to go.

[Hobbsmeerkat]

Bambu P1P just arrived printed a "Benchie" within 20 min.

I sliced the waveguide in the Bambu slicer with the same settings and each waveguide will take an estimated ~4.5 hours

For reference, my Ender 3 takes 19.5hrs for the same print. That's a roughly 75% reduction in print time.

[mkrawcz]

Bambu P1P just arrived printed a "Benchie" within 20 min.

I sliced the waveguide in the Bambu slicer with the same settings and each waveguide will take an estimated ~4.5 hours

For reference, my Ender 3 takes 19.5hrs for the same print. That's a roughly 75% reduction in print time.

Bambu is the best. 

[jmimac351]

Bambu P1P just arrived printed a "Benchie" within 20 min.

I sliced the waveguide in the Bambu slicer with the same settings and each waveguide will take an estimated ~4.5 hours

For reference, my Ender 3 takes 19.5hrs for the same print. That's a roughly 75% reduction in print time.

I'm glad you shared that as this made me get back on buying a 3D printer again.  I've been wanting one for a while.  There are bunch of 3D printing groups on FakeBook, stuff just for Bambu as well.  I dug into the Bambu P1P and it does look like a great way to go.  I figured you'd done the research and "just get what Hobbs got" is a safe bet.

[mlundy57]

Bambu P1P just arrived printed a "Benchie" within 20 min.

I sliced the waveguide in the Bambu slicer with the same settings and each waveguide will take an estimated ~4.5 hours

For reference, my Ender 3 takes 19.5hrs for the same print. That's a roughly 75% reduction in print time.

Better tool = better results for sure

[BrandonB]

Better tool = better results for sure

Do you have any ideas with this new speaker design?

[Hobbsmeerkat]

Better tool = better results for sure

I need to tweak the speeds just a bit, as there are some areas where it printed just a little too fast and you can see some under-extrusion.
But overall, for a 4.5 hour test, the quality is solid, gunna slow down the wall speeds just a smidge until it looks just as clean as the Creality printer.

[william2001]

Can melamine foam be used in the tweeter cup?

[Hobbsmeerkat]

That will likely too stiff/dense to be practical
loose fiberglass, extra soft felt, or possibly a couple large cotton balls are likely your best options depending on what you have access too, the trick is to loosely fill it.
Too much stuffing and you'll lose the bottom end, too little and you'll get reflections/standing waves within the back cup which will really mess up the tweeter response.

We're still working on figuring out the best option to gauge what is the correct amount of stuffing, but we really need a test bench that will allow us to push a back cup up against the tweeter. Rather than putting in a random amount, gluing it, let it cure, then test, cut off the cup and try again.

[william2001]

Thanks.  It would be helpful to nail that down for good unit to unit consistency and expected results there.  I was just asking because I have located a good source for genuine Basotect foam.  Would be easy to trim to size for form, fit, and function.  With the low crossover point of this tweeter in mind, the sound absorption coefficient of Basotect looks to be quite effective...., ~0.9 @1kHz with a 2" thickness (I don't know how deep your tweeter cup is).  Pick up some Mr. Clean Magic Eraser pads if you get a chance for your beta test.  Some guys like a combination of foam and stuffing working together.  Maybe that could also be tested... just some thoughts..             

[jmimac351]

That will likely too stiff/dense to be practical
loose fiberglass, extra soft felt, or possibly a couple large cotton balls are likely your best options depending on what you have access too, the trick is to loosely fill it.
Too much stuffing and you'll lose the bottom end, too little and you'll get reflections/standing waves within the back cup which will really mess up the tweeter response.

We're still working on figuring out the best option to gauge what is the correct amount of stuffing, but we really need a test bench that will allow us to push a back cup up against the tweeter. Rather than putting in a random amount, gluing it, let it cure, then test, cut off the cup and try again.

Go out into Danny's drag car and steal a piece of foam.  Trim to fit and reach into woofer hole and wedge up up against back of cup and rear wall in speaker.

If that interferes with port and if it matters for what you're measuring (no?), if the foam is dense enough, you may be able to cut it in a "U".  Bottom of the "U" goes against the back of the cup inside the speaker, the points of the "U" go against the back wall of speaker, but contact the back wall on either side of port hole. 

[BGFan2024]

Hobbs how do these sound compared to the NX-Studio's and how are they different.  Do they serve different purposes better?

This is my question as well, sort of. I think getting NX-Studios and subs will be highly unlikely for me ($, SAF, etc), but this might be a good compromise.

(1) Also, how much improvement would these be over my current X-LS Encores? Similar low end? (I know Danny said in a video that from X-LS Encores to NX-Studios would be like going from 5-9 on a scale of 1-10.

(2) Will the tower version extend the low end beyond the bookshelf model? Beyond X-LS Encore low end or about the same?

[Hobbsmeerkat]

1) The bottom end will be very similar, with the X-LS Encore having just a little more impact, due to the larger woofer, but the NX-Bravo will have a larger overall presentation thanks to the lower crossover point, and better clarity throughout the upper midrange and treble. Where it falls short of the Studio IMO is in some of the depth/layering of the soundstage, and also lacks the "airy" or "spacious" top end that the open backed tweeter provides.

2)The updated MTM tower version will put the bottom end closer to the range of the X-SLS tower (~45Hz), but with higher overall efficiency (~90dB vs 87dB) and better midrange performance since the work is shared between 2 woofers.

[BGFan2024]

Thanks, Hobbs! Sort of what I figured about comparison of the NX-Bravo and Encore X-LS.

[Hobbsmeerkat]

just a quick heads up that we have flatpacks/cabinets available to order via the site.
We're just about sorted with everything we're waiting on more filament to make some gaskets for the waveguides.

Once that's done, I'll be able to contact everyone on the waiting list that things are ready to ship.

[jmimac351]

We gots parts!

I have NX-Studio, NX-Otica MTM, and X-LS Encore - all will be built, but none are, yet. Why, because I'm not "let's take these Duette speakers out and build these other speakers" excited about them.  That's different now.  This NX-Bravo speaker will be the first one I will cut wood for, because I am excited about what Hobbs did... because it's going to mean other stuff - maybe.   

I want to compare this Neo 3 tweeter in a box to the soft dome Scan-Speak Revelator I love in the Duette.  Then the NX-Studio with Open Baffle Tweeter will get built, then NX-Otica MTM with full OB on top end... and after I get to know all of that, a decision will be made.  But then again - there will be an MTM version with this back cup / wave guide, which could be the basis for a multi-driver, floor standing, full range speaker (even if noted, correctly, the sub somewhere else is better).

I know what the best speakers are said to be, and they probably are; however, it could very be I'm a simple caveman who just plain prefers a great soft dome tweeter... even if "this other thing is better"... 9' off my wall.   

I have learned very well, always deferring / chasing what others say is better and ignoring your own gut / experience, instead of sticking to what you like, is the mistake many people make for a long time, and wonder why they aren't happy (I'm not just talking about speakers).

I sure am glad this back cup finally exists!  The waveguide could probably use a light sand, finish as one likes.  Or, make it a "Rubicon" edition and just Duratex and leave the "3D Patina" like in the video. 

Thanks for all of the hours 3D printing and making it right, Hobbs.  In the brief time I spent with you, I know you're a "Thinker"... and I sure am glad you're a sponge and hardcore about this stuff. 

Stay on the gas!

[Presb4]

This will probably be my next speaker build. Great work guys.

[mkrawcz]

Got mine up and running. These are much closer to the NX-Studios than they are the XLS Encores IMO. They sound fantastic and I just fired them up.

[Hobbsmeerkat]

The main thing the NX-Bravos lack from the Studios imo is the open/airy soundstage of the open-backed tweeter, but overall are very similar.

The nice thing is that the ports we supply are a fair bit longer than they need to be, which is great for near-wall/desktop placement, allowing for additional bass extension closer to 45Hz without any "boom"

Not ideal for pulling the speakers out into the room though, where the ports need to be cut short (down to ~3.5") for a proper 55Hz roll off point