[Optimizer]

Hey quys,
I have created 3D vizualistion of NX-Otica MTM with recteangle base.
My goal was to keep all accoustic igneneering as was deveopped and to shrnik space requierements as much as possible.
All dimensions and angles during drawing was estimated.

Only two changes was made:
1) modified shape of the bottom plate
2) modified short wing - cut from the outside

This is what it would look like:

[Early B.]

The only way do that is if you affix the speaker onto a separate rectangular base. But why???



 

[Optimizer]

It is more practical and it saves the space. Wedge base don't fits at no stand. Last but no least, all furniture is square.

[Early B.]

It is more practical and it saves the space. Wedge base don't fits at no stand. Last but no least, all furniture is square.

The NX-Otica MTM is designed to sit on top of a pair of OB servo subs. It's too wide for speaker stands. There's plenty of reasons why Danny angled the wings. Any attempt to turn these speakers into a rectangle would require a crossover re-design.

[mkrawcz]

Danny explains exactly why they are angled the way they are in this video.
https://youtu.be/7ipMq7KlWwM

[Hobbsmeerkat]

I think everyone seems to be missing the reality that the ~10° wing offset is still present in the render. But instead, the front baffle is angled off-square compared to the rest of the base, and the inside of the smaller wings are also still angled correctly.

And so long as the edges of the baffle are rounded over, I could see this actually working, but only for the MTM model.

[Early B.]

But instead, the front baffle is angled off-square compared to the rest of the base, and the inside of the smaller wings are also still angled correctly.

My friend's NX-Otica MTM's have a straight front baffle and the base is an isosceles trapezoid. They have the footprint of a floorstander.


 

[Tyson]

Hey quys,
I have created 3D vizualistion of NX-Otica MTM with recteangle base.
My goal was to keep all accoustic igneneering as was deveopped and to shrnik space requierements as much as possible.
All dimensions and angles during drawing was estimated.

Only two changes was made:
1) modified shape of the bottom plate
2) modified short wing - cut from the outside

This is what it would look like:

Very cool - I like it!

[AKLegal]

This looks cool, I used to own the MTMs and the trapezoid base was slightly aesthetically annoying given that it sat on a square subwoofer box. I think the long edge on the short wing will be sharper in reality than the render presents though and might be prone to damage from incidental bumps during a build. Maybe a bevel towards the outside edge of the short wing would help. 

[Danny Richie]

So long as the angle and size of the side wings are kept then you can do just about anything you want with the interior base.

[Optimizer]

Yes the ~10° wing offset is still present and size of wings are the same.
This soulution would be accepted by wide range of potential buyers including me. I vote for it.

[Jonathon Janusz]

I like where your head is at on this, but unless I'm missing something you've now got a geometry problem on the short wing side.

Angling the front baffle in the direction you have puts the long wing in the right spot in terms of angle compared to the reference design.  The problem this creates is that you have actually angled the short wing IN ten degrees instead of OUT ten degrees by squaring it off.

Danny posted above that you can do whatever you want on the inside (which it looks like you've put a ten degree angle on the short wing on the inside to match the reference design), but again your problem is on the outside (the side that matters).

One maybe easy solution would be (because the short wing is so short) just send the base shape out that ten degrees only as far back as the short wing goes, then chop the base square to the back the rest of the way.  You'd still end up with a more rectangular base that should fit better on a stand (or arguably look better on an OB woofer section that is rectangular rather than trapezoidal in shape).  Sure, your front baffle will inherently has some toe-in, but the rest of the box will look relatively 'normal'.

[Optimizer]

I do not think so. The short wing is ten degrees OUT as it should be. Look at it from inner perspective.
It is possible that my design has some issues which are not obvious now.
Unfortunately I don't have dimensions and angles of original NX-Otica MTM, so I can't render it with high precision.

[Hobbsmeerkat]

If it helps, the front baffle is 1.5" thick & 8.5" wide, the long wing is 14" long, and if i remember correctly, the short wing is 1" deep at the tweeter & 2" deep at the woofers. With 10° offsets on both sides.

The only dimension I dont actually know is the height. Danny or Captainhemo or Mike Lundy would have to comment.

[mlundy57]

The original prototype cabs for the NX-Otica MTM were similar to what you describe (base flush with sides). The difference is that the base on the short wing side followed the line of the short wing angle. If the base was cut straight back at the end of the short wing (parallel with the long wing) it would be what you drew up.





Mike

[Optimizer]

Yes it is exactly what I did. I went a little bit further and cut a piece of the short wing from the outside.
To achieve rectangle shape of the base it is needed to cut a new shape due to missing part - see picture.

[Early B.]

Hey guys -- you're looking at this all wrong. Build a wider base to accommodate a premium crossover. 

Here's an example of why you need more room back there (12" wing):



 

[Optimizer]

I see, you need the rectangle base! One thing is missing. A padlock on the treasure chest. 

[Early B.]

I see, you need the rectangle base!

My speakers already have a rectangular base. The wings aren't resting on the base.

[Jonathon Janusz]

Yes it is exactly what I did. I went a little bit further and cut a piece of the short wing from the outside.
To achieve rectangle shape of the base it is needed to cut a new shape due to missing part - see picture.

That missing part shown in the picture is exactly your problem.  Look at the original trapezoidal shape of the reference cabinets.  Note that both wings (long and short) angle out - away from the baffle - on the outside face by whatever the angle (you note ten degrees).  What Danny explained above is that your change on the inside area of the base (behind the baffle) is what can change (within reason) without any problem.  Because you removed the angle from the outside of the wing, you've effectively changed the angle of the wing relative to the front baffle.  This is what will cause you a problem. 

Danny's reference design widens the front baffle on both sides with the wings; your change widens the baffle on the long wing side only.  The part you cut off of the short wing is the critical part to the design of the wing.  I hope that makes clearer what I posted earlier?