[MikeSRC]

Merry Christmas Danny.  I look forward to what the New Year has in store.

Same here.  

Beautiful speakers.  Wish I had a room big enough to do them justice.  My A/V-3s are more than enough for my theater room.  Oh well, time to start hunting for a new house.  

[arthurs]

Merry Christmas Danny....the new room is up and the walls and corners treated....looking forward to big fun in 2006

[kyyuan]

Merry Christmas Danny....the new room is up and the walls and corners treated....looking forward to big fun in 2006

Hey Art...How about a few pics?  Happy Holidays

Ken

[Brucemck]

Danny, hope you had a good couple of days off.  You've obviously been busy.

Picking up on your earlier reply about differences in height for the L / R / C speakers being one source of my three front speakers not integrating fully ...

Could the WMTMW version be used in a vertical configuration so that the tweeter was at the same height (or, vs the towers, much closer to the same height) as the horizontal unit?  (To clear my screen the top of the horizontal unit has to be at 39" or less.)

Could I still add/fit the side firing sub to the left and right?

Any way to cleanly add the powered sub to the horizontal center?  (Latter two questions aimed at getting full range across the fronts, freeing the separate subs for LFE duties.)

Thanks.

[mnapuran]

Danny... one more question for you.

What listening distance do you recommend for these (the large version)?  And what is the smallest room you would put them in?

I'm thinking I might need the smaller versions or the LS-6's  

[arthurs]

Hey Art...How about a few pics? Happy Holidays


Ken - I will have some pics in the next week or so....still some other unpacking to do and haven't found the box with the camera in it yet....you know how it is....

[klh]

Danny... will the A/V-1RS PDR also be temporarily available as a kit? How would the sound differ between having them as surrounds vs using the WWMTM? It would be nice to have 4-6 of the WWMTMs along with the WMTMW as the center channel and a good subwoofer. The A/V-1RS PDR may be more practical, though. Please give your opinion.

[Hank]

Hmmmm...my daughter and her fiance love my rosewood A/V-3's and want a pair as their wedding present.  Maybe I'll give them mine and order the smaller MTMWW version of Danny's new design.  That way, my daughter will be happy    and I'll get to build something new  

Or...should it be an LS9, Or, El Ultimo hinted at here:

"Quote:
HOW BOUT A WORLD CLASS, COST NO OPTION SPEAKER FOR ME  


Well, I do have something really big in the works... "


 

[Danny Richie]

Art, I can't wait to see the new room too.

Could the WMTMW version be used in a vertical configuration so that the tweeter was at the same height (or, vs the towers, much closer to the same height) as the horizontal unit?

This all depends on your room and the application. You threw me on this one. ->

(To clear my screen the top of the horizontal unit has to be at 39" or less.)

It must be shorter than 39" to clear the TOP of the screen? Or does it need to be less than 39" to remain under the screen?

Could I still add/fit the side firing sub to the left and right?

The standard WWMTMWW design has it built in. With the MTMWW the sub or subs are external and can be placed anywhere you need them to be.

Any way to cleanly add the powered sub to the horizontal center?

Not necessary. The first octave and a half is pretty omni-directional. Where the sub is in relation to the center channel is not so important.

What listening distance do you recommend for these (the large version)? And what is the smallest room you would put them in?

I wouldn't want to be any closer than 6' away. We had them in a small room at the RMAF and they worked out pretty well. That room was 13' by 18'. It did load the room a little in the 50 to 80Hz range. It was likely a room related deal. We plugged the rear ports with a piece of foam and all settled down pretty smoothly. Since the larger model has a side loaded woofer covering the bottom end. I decided that the upper and lower woofers would be better off in a sealed box. This will give more flexibility to tuning them to a given room. I think about a 12' by 16' room is about as small as I would want them in.

Danny... will the A/V-1RS PDR also be temporarily available as a kit?

For a limited time only.

How would the sound differ between having them as surrounds vs using the WWMTM? It would be nice to have 4-6 of the WWMTMs along with the WMTMW as the center channel and a good subwoofer.

That would be pretty bad ass, but an application such as that would require that the rear speakers be located just as far away or farther away from the listening position than the front three speakers. For most listing rooms this is not practical.

For rears a speaker that can create an accurate but non-localized sound field is best. Omni-directional speakers can work out nicely in this application. This is why the A/V-1RS has worked out so well. It also works well in applications with limited space.

Hank, The MTMWW design would be great for your home theater room. That really big something that I have in the works will be better suited for a large dedicated two channel system.

[klh]

Danny,

You mentioned that the XBL tech wouldn't be that much of a help given the nature of the design, and that there is a good chance the pre-XBL drivers response won't match up favorably enough with the XBL drivers to drop them in place once available. That makes a lot of sense. But, if we're only talking about the MTMWW speakers... the WW section is ported, right? Since those speakers don't have a built in high pass network to to cross the WW section over to a sub, then XBL tech in only those two drivers would be helpful. Would one be able to drop XBL drivers in there while leaving the MTM section completely alone. Since the critical area would be untouched, that might make using XBL in the future more feasable. If that is posible, I would assume it would also work for the W's on the WMTMW center? It would be great to have all three speakers across the front full range and essentially identical. As for the surrounds, since the A/V-1RS PDRs reflect sound off the ceiling, I imagine it would be much more difficult to employ the XBL tech d/t corner loading and thus new speakers would have to be designed. So, if XBL is NOT used, how low will the frequency response extend (MTMWW, WMTMW and A/V-1RS PDR)? If XBL is employed in the future, then I will assume in room response will be somewhere near 30 Hz.

[Danny Richie]

You mentioned that the XBL tech wouldn't be that much of a help given the nature of the design,

Yea, given that the open baffle drivers cross off in the 200Hz range to the outer woofers they don't ever see much exersion.

But, if we're only talking about the MTMWW speakers... the WW section is ported, right?

Right.

Since those speakers don't have a built in high pass network to to cross the WW section over to a sub, then XBL tech in only those two drivers would be helpful.

This is true.

Would one be able to drop XBL drivers in there while leaving the MTM section completely alone.

I think that would be no problem.

Since the critical area would be untouched, that might make using XBL in the future more feasable. If that is posible, I would assume it would also work for the W's on the WMTMW center?

This is true.

So, if XBL is NOT used, how low will the frequency response extend (MTMWW, WMTMW and A/V-1RS PDR)? If XBL is employed in the future, then I will assume in room response will be somewhere near 30 Hz.

With the current M-130/16 woofers the -3db down point in an optimal ported enclosure is 45Hz. With the standard 8 ohm M-130 it is 55Hz. The 16 ohm woofers are a higher Qts.

It is hard to say what the room responses will be. Upper 30's to low 40's is pretty realistic.

Good questions.

[gprro]

So for full range without a sub, at lower volumes the mtmww will be better, or at least more full and deeper sounding than the big one minus it's sub at the same listening volume? I bet an 8 woofer m130-16 would be a monster, and nearly true full range with lower tuning. If I'm feeling crafty, could I try a transmision line, like the AV3, with the bottom 2 woofers? I understand I'll be on my own with this, but if it could work I may try it. It's only MDF right.

[klh]

Great... thanks for the thorough response .

[Danny Richie]

So for full range without a sub, at lower volumes the mtmww will be better, or at least more full and deeper sounding than the big one minus it's sub at the same listening volume?

Unless you built the bigger one with a deeper box and ported it's woofers. There is a lot of flexibility with these sense the MTM section is always in an open baffle and always the same.

I bet an 8 woofer m130-16 would be a monster, and nearly true full range with lower tuning.

But then the sensitivity would be too high and I don't think you can get too much more out of these with lower tuning. upper 30's to low 40's is about the limit.

If I'm feeling crafty, could I try a transmision line, like the AV3, with the bottom 2 woofers? I understand I'll be on my own with this, but if it could work I may try it. It's only MDF right.

It would likely work out great. The cabinet will get a little deeper due to the additional air space of the T-line, but like you said, it's only MDF.

[klh]

Just out of curiosity, is there anything that would keep one from porting the woofer sections into the open baffle area? It would be great to have the extended response of a ported enclusure while not having to worry about keeping the speakers a certain distance from the front wall nor having to actually look at the ports! Functional and beautiful... quite a combination .

[tjt123]

If so, how much space is needed above / below to allow it to “breathe”?

The appropriate stand will allow for that. I am even thinking of aiming the port to fire down towards the floor so that distance from the rear wall will be less of an issue. The stand will allow the whole bottom end to be open and to breath nicely.

My room is severely vertically challenged with 7 foot ceilings and I'm trying to get a 125" diagonal screen in it.  That would leave room for a standard center to sit on the floor or mount to the ceiling but I really won't have room to raise the center off the floor more than a few inches at best.

I see a couple of options:

     -Put the center on the floor (or a few inches above it) and live with what I get.  What would this do to me?

     -Skip the center entirely since these image so well.

     -Spend some big $ on an acoustically transparent screen and just do 3 towers with the middle one behind the screen.

     -Go back to my previous plan of a pair of A/V-4 with an A/V-3S for center.

What do you guys think?

I have room behind the center as my screen actually hangs from the ceiling with several feet of space behind it (due to a fireplace on that wall).  Does this open up any options for me?

           -TIM

[gprro]

Quote
"Unless you built the bigger one with a deeper box and ported it's woofers. There is a lot of flexibility with these sense the MTM section is always in an open baffle and always the same."


So the design has changed a little? If I remember corectly, the original post for these had the four m130's ported?  I'm a little confused, so the big version without sub ported will play as low as the smaller one?

Edit: I went back and read that you decided on sealed woofs in the big one with sub. Clears that question up. For a second, I though the Q difference was allowing the 16 ohm to play lower ported. I was actualy thinking about going sealed anyway.

 I think subs should be easier to blend to sealed m-130's, correct? What about T-line blending, and what advantages would going T-line give. I do like the options this speaker allows.


Thanks, looking forward to building some version of these.

[Hank]

Tim, I'd go for either a few inches off the floor or NO center channel.  The decision would be swayed by whether you rate music or movie sound reproduction higher.  If it's music, then do the best L&R speakers you can afford.  There are lots of posts on the forums from people who have done L&R/no center, set their receivers or pre/pros on 'phatom' mode and have been thoroughly pleased with movie playback performance.  I'd vote against an 'acoustically transparent' screen because I'm biased.  I can't stand the HF horn driver sound in movie theaters, no matter how well implemented.  At the magnificent, restored Paramount theater here in Austin, watching a new 70mm print of "Lawrence of Arabia" was almost unbearable for the first few minutes because of the emphasized, sizzlingly hot HF pumped in to get through the screen perforations.  The quality of the film soon settled in and I was a happy camper.  I don't know anyone in our Austin HT group who has implemented behind-the-screen-audio, so I can't speak from experience on how it performs in-home.
Good luck, and enjoy.  

[Kevin Haskins]

I've done some measurements on acoustic screen cloth designed for home theater and the HF roll-off is negligable.   I'd not even bother changing the crossover to adjust for it.  

I'm sure the commercial stuff is much thicker and it's an issue but for all the home audio/theater based fabrics I measured it was not really a problem.   The good thing about the acoustic screens is you can hide some room treatments behind them and place the center so that it is level with the L/R speakers.

[tjt123]

Tim, I'd go for either a few inches off the floor or NO center channel.  The decision would be swayed by whether you rate music or movie sound reproduction higher.

I definetely lean toward HT...but great music reproduction would be nice too.  I'm hoping that Danny will say that the few inches off the floor solution will work OK.  That would quickly end my decision making process.

I've done some measurements on acoustic screen cloth designed for home theater and the HF roll-off is negligable.   I'd not even bother changing the crossover to adjust for it.

I'm currently considering Stewart FireHawk (non-perforated).  Have any of your measurements been on screens at a price point at or below that of a perforated FireHawk, or only on the super expensive weaved stuff?  Any problems with moire or significant loss of brightness on the ones you have tested?  

[Edit] No need to answer Kevin, I just found your thread where you posted all your results.  http://www.audiocircle.com/index.php?topic=20731 and also the threads over on AVSForum.

Thanks

     -TIM