Tyson's Super Mini Review

Endo2112 · « **Reply #40 on:** 6 Jan 2020, 04:53 pm »

If you are referring to the square base being disjointed, it can be made any shape that the end user wants with a router, but if you are talking about the pie shape, which is meant to align with either the Wedgies or the Super Mini's which Are pie shaped, i'm not sure how one would make something more elegant looking while keeping the base properly braced for the low frequencies, as well as keeping the tweeters at a correct height as well? But willing to listen to any suggestions.

Don

jeffh · « **Reply #41 on:** 6 Jan 2020, 05:13 pm »

Quote from: Tyson on 2 Jan 2020, 05:51 am

... Overall I'd say they capture 85% of the magic that my Super 7s are capable of and that surprised me the most.

Based on this, do you think that these speakers would be the best design Danny currently has based on cost vs performance?

Nick77 · « **Reply #42 on:** 6 Jan 2020, 05:37 pm »

Quote from: Endo2112 on 6 Jan 2020, 04:53 pm

If you are referring to the square base being disjointed, it can be made any shape that the end user wants with a router, but if you are talking about the pie shape, which is meant to align with either the Wedgies or the Super Mini's which Are pie shaped, i'm not sure how one would make something more elegant looking while keeping the base properly braced for the low frequencies, as well as keeping the tweeters at a correct height as well? But willing to listen to any suggestions.

Don

Thanks Don, Tyson had mentioned several times about a more elegant solution. I assumed he was referring to the new cabinet already in the works but was optimistic about something new. I personally think the driver's facing forward is much more attractive but realize 4 drivers present a height issue. I might just stay with the H frame option unless the M165 prove to be a significant advantage.
Thanks.

Tyson · « **Reply #43 on:** 6 Jan 2020, 06:11 pm »

Quote from: jeffh on 6 Jan 2020, 05:13 pm

Based on this, do you think that these speakers would be the best design Danny currently has based on cost vs performance?

Yes, the Super Mini is the bargain king IMO.

I was also hella impressed with the Studio Monitor - it gives you very similar levels of detail and a bit more flexibility with placement. More bass too. Not "quite" as impressive in it's imaging but still in the world class area. Still needs subs though, just like the Super Mini.

Captainhemo · « **Reply #44 on:** 6 Jan 2020, 06:48 pm »

Quote from: Nick77 on 6 Jan 2020, 05:37 pm

Thanks Don, Tyson had mentioned several times about a more elegant solution. I assumed he was referring to the new cabinet already in the works but was optimistic about something new. I personally think the driver's facing forward is much more attractive but realize 4 drivers present a height issue. I might just stay with the H frame option unless the M165 prove to be a significant advantage.
Thanks.

Don is right, we left the base of that cabinet a bit oversized so if guys wanted to shape them, there'd be some room to do so and they'd already have the dowel/screw pattern for assembling/mounting the cabinet.

I did do up bot a 4 woofer version and a 3 woofer version ( all M165/M165x's) facing forward. The woofer version comes out a bit taller than a dual h-frame cab althouhg, I could probably squeeze the bracing together , cut into rear side round overs etc to bring it down a bit but , both a 3 or 4 woofer version would be as wide as a pair of NX-Otica's and not match the Super Mini.

jay

maty · « **Reply #45 on:** 6 Jan 2020, 06:53 pm »

If I am not mistaken:

* Super Mini: if you have a large room and the speakers have about a meter of distance to the back and side walls like OB.

* Studio Monitor: without the above restrictions. For rooms of normal size, with the listener at a maximum distance of 3 m - 3.5 m from each loudspeaker?

In other words, in the Big Texas: Super Mini

Nick77 · « **Reply #46 on:** 6 Jan 2020, 07:02 pm »

Quote from: Captainhemo on 6 Jan 2020, 06:48 pm

Don is right, we left the base of that cabinet a bit oversized so if guys wanted to shape them, there'd be some room to do so and they'd already have the dowel/screw pattern for assembling/mounting the cabinet.

I did do up bot a 4 woofer version and a 3 woofer version ( all M165/M165x's) facing forward. The woofer version comes out a bit taller than a dual h-frame cab althouhg, I could probably squeeze the bracing together , cut into rear side round overs etc to bring it down a bit but , both a 3 or 4 woofer version would be as wide as a pair of NX-Otica's and not match the Super Mini.

jay

Thanks Jay, for me it would be worth the small size discrepancy to have drivers facing forward.

Tyson · « **Reply #47 on:** 6 Jan 2020, 07:22 pm »

Quote from: Nick77 on 6 Jan 2020, 07:02 pm

Thanks Jay, for me it would be worth the small size discrepancy to have drivers facing forward.

I tend to agree - those woofers will play up to 200hz, so facing them forward would be best. With the previous version of the wedge base using the 8 inch servo drivers that was too much of a width discrepancy, but with the 6.5 inch driver currently in use I thing front firing makes a lot more sense.

Just my humble opinion.

madsry · « **Reply #48 on:** 6 Jan 2020, 09:32 pm »

So I'm still debating, but my next speakers are almost certainly going to be either the Studio Monitor or the Super Mini's (crossing my fingers for the next Neo10 samples to impress Danny, or try to find a used/NOS set assuming they aren't going to be inferior to what Danny would potentially be approving...)

In any case, do we have an educated guess about how good a 4 x 165x setup would be? Does this end up being redundant if servo subs are added later? I'm thinking that I would ultimately have a stereo servo sub setup, but if robust enough, the 4 x 165x economics might facilitate jumping into something like a Dennis Had amp now and get some great music flowing sooner.

I guess no one knows for sure (maybe Danny if he's tried experimented with something similar), but would the 4 x 165x AND servo subs be the ultimate setup? Or do I just need to bit the bullet and do a pair of stereo servo subs on each side with one on of the monitors on top?

Rocket_Ronny · « **Reply #49 on:** 7 Jan 2020, 01:50 am »

Tyson. Can you share a bit more on the imaging of the Mini's. Are they able to project a TALL image. That is one of the appeals of the Line Force. Aside from imaging, would the dynamics be the main difference between the two, or something else.

Also, can you share what 15% is missing in the mini's compared to your speakers? Thanks.

Does anyone know what's the eff. of the mini. Seems to me I read around 92 db. I can remember the eff. of Neo 10, but 92 seems about right.

Rocket Ronny

Tyson · « **Reply #50 on:** 7 Jan 2020, 01:55 am »

Quote from: Rocket_Ronny on 7 Jan 2020, 01:50 am

Tyson. Can you share a bit more on the imaging of the Mini's. Are they able to project a TALL image. That is one of the appeals of the Line Force. Aside from imaging, would the dynamics be the main difference between the two, or something else.

Also, can you share what 15% is missing in the mini's compared to your speakers? Thanks.

Does anyone know what's the eff. of the mini. Seems to me I read around 92 db. I can remember the eff. of Neo 10, but 92 seems about right.

Rocket Ronny

You mean compared to the Super 7s? Oh, the soundstage is a bit shorter, dynamics are quashed a bit, resolution is not as high, lower midrange power is not as good, etc.... but I'll say this - one thing that is better with the Super Mini is soundstage width and maybe even soundstage depth. That tiny, tiny baffle of the Super Mini really lets the imaging break free of the speakers in a very nice way.

Re: compared to the Lineforce, well it's not even in the same class as the Lineforce. But then again neither is the Super 7, haha.

Rocket_Ronny · « **Reply #51 on:** 7 Jan 2020, 03:27 am »

Thanks Tyson, appreciated. So is the Line Force another 15% better than the Super 7s? Ha.

Rocket Ronny

Captainhemo · « **Reply #52 on:** 7 Jan 2020, 05:30 pm »

Some big network differences in those comparisons too.
I know the LF/Super LS were finished with the new copper caps throughout and possibly (can't recall) foil inductors while I believe the Super mINi's have Sonicap G1's and I believe XO inductors, I'm not sure what Danny used for bypass caps but I know how much of a difference going from my G1's bypassed with Miflex to the new coppers bypassed with Miflex made.

Tyson, your Super 7's all fully decked out as well so the same can be said.

I know when Don came back from recently visiting Danny, he was pretty darn impressed with the Super Mini's ....d the new LF/Super LS ( he is only 1 of 2 to hear both the original LF and the new) was anxious to hear the Super Mini's with the same network config as the LF/Super LS.

All 3 of thes speakers in this series are going to be amazing. They will have their difference...... bu t wow, what a choice these 3 designs will give folks

jay

Rocket_Ronny · « **Reply #53 on:** 7 Jan 2020, 05:34 pm »

That's good news and an important difference I was wondering about with Tyson's auditions. Do you know aporx. the cost upgrade is to go that route?

Rocket Ronny

maty · « **Reply #54 on:** 7 Jan 2020, 05:41 pm »

Quote from: Captainhemo on 7 Jan 2020, 05:30 pm

Some big network differences in those comparisons too.
I know the LF/Super LS were finished with the new copper caps throughout and possibly (can't recall) foil inductors while I believe the Super mINi's have Sonicap G1's and I believe XO inductors, I'm not sure what Danny used for bypass caps but I know how much of a difference going from my G1's bypassed with Miflex to the new coppers bypassed with Miflex made.

Ouch -> Can I improve my cheap little coxials changing the original M.D.L tweeter cap -bypassed with Miflex KPCU-01- with other much better? And fit inside!

Which?

Captainhemo · « **Reply #55 on:** 7 Jan 2020, 06:08 pm »

Quote from: Rocket_Ronny on 7 Jan 2020, 05:34 pm

That's good news and an important difference I was wondering about with Tyson's auditions. Do you know aporx. the cost upgrade is to go that route?

Rocket Ronny

Ron
Prices ffor the new caps are ina separate thread in this circle... not sure of the exact cap values required here. I wouldn't lookat like that anyway, just throw the cost of them into the cost of building the kit, the kit will still be a steall for a speaker in this league.

jay

Maty, I don't know but the new copper caps Danny is carrying are ...... ah pretty big

maty · « **Reply #56 on:** 7 Jan 2020, 06:31 pm »

I know that are BIG and expensive, too much to my coaxials. I think the right decision is the one I made a long time ago: Jantzen Superior Z-Cap 3.9 uF 800Vdc. In addition to fitting its price is in accordance with the cost of the speakers!

By the way, I have verified in my two loudspeakers the sound improvement after improving the contact of the speaker cable with the binding posts. In the main system the difference has been very noticeable, but I also tried another succesful improvement, so it will be the sum of the two. Best of all: no cost

. The bad: they continue kidnapped

Badd99 · « **Reply #57 on:** 9 Jan 2020, 01:41 am »

Do you think the super mini with triple H frame OB subs sounds better than the NX-otica would sound with the same sub (triple H frame?)

I am debating waiting for these and doing a pair of triple OB H frame subs or the NX-otica with the triple OB subs.

Thanks!

On a side note - if you can - any idea how these might compare with the triple subs to say a Magnepan 3.7i with triple OB subs?

Charken · « **Reply #58 on:** 9 Jan 2020, 01:47 am »

@Maty how did you improve your binding post to wire contact ?

Ryan0348 · « **Reply #59 on:** 9 Jan 2020, 02:28 am »

I have built the super mini m165x side firing base. Before I was using the super mini top of a 15” woofer cabinets and svs subs. Going to the m165x base has almost just as much mid bass punch. But what I lost in mid bass punch I more then made up in with imaging. The pics of the base are on the central Iowa super mini build. I just gotta wood fill and paint now.