[jmimac351]

Yes. I just got 4.

Assuming you're using these for sub stands... is the amp Hobbs mentioned a necessity or are you using something else?

Thank you.

[mlundy57]

Assuming you're using these for sub stands... is the amp Hobbs mentioned a necessity or are you using something else?

Thank you.

These drivers are designed for open baffle use so they need one of the Rythmik amps that has the open baffle shelving circuit.

Since my electronics are all balanced, I'll be using the A370XLR3 amps that I already have. These won't be built into the stands but will sit behind them like they do with the Double Troubles I have under my NX-Otica MTMs. Personally, I prefer the A370 series amps over the HX300 series due to the increased input and adjustment capabilities of the A370s. The design would have to be modified a little to mount the A370 on the stand since it's about 3" wider and taller than the HX300.

[bhassel]

They are one of Danny's designs. https://www.audiocircle.com/index.php?topic=129161.0

They can be placed close to the wall. This would be a killer combo, especially if the choice of the Studio Monitor is for it's ability to be placed closer to the wall which is lost if the monitors are on top of open baffle H-Frames.

Bingo! I've waited this long to start my kit, maybe a little longer is a good idea!

Bob

[BGFan2024]

- I might want to decrease the depth of the speaker a little (a few inches) to create a smaller footprint. I recognize this would make the slope of the angled top a bit steeper - would this matter much? This would mean the woofer enclosure would be taller of course.

- Is this a bad idea? I'd welcome any feedback on these ideas or on what I'm missing.

Thanks in advance!

Hi JD,

If you decrease the depth, couldn't you could just shorten the "ramp" instead of changing the angle? It is true that if you keep the ramp the same length, you have to lower the front end of it and (which of course affects the rearward firing sounds from the tweeter). It should reduce reflections off the rear wall, I would think. However, if you make it taller to keep the internal cabinet volume the same, wouldn't the front baffle dimension have to change accordingly? Or are you making your own baffle, including the wave guide? By the way, I sympathize totally with you problem. I'm looking at a way to solve the same problem (depth). I just haven't figured it out yet.

[mlundy57]

Here are some pics of the dual 8" servo sub speaker stands for the NX-Studio Monitor. what I was after was recessed drivers and a stand height that when combined with 2" isolation footers under the stands (here I'm using Gaia IIIs) and isolation seperators between the stand and Studio Monitor (here using Isoacoustics Orea Bronze pucks which are 1" thick) the center of the tweeter would be 39" from the floor as this is ear height for me on my couch. With the GAIA IIIs and Oreas, the center of the tweeter came in at 38.5" without an amp in the stands. The height can be increased to move the tweeter center up higher but there isn't any room to make the stands shorter.

These stands are stout. The side panels and top are 1.5" thick BB, the base is 2.25" thick BB, and the front panel is 3/4" thick BB across the interior opening. The inside is lined with No-Rez. 










While not exactly a floorstander, these sub stands accomplish the goal in fine fashion.

These will be playing at LSAF in Dallas June 7-9. If you are in the area, drop in and have a listen.

Mike

[jmimac351]

Has anyone looked at doing this idea with 2 - 12" drivers?  The main body of that stand looks like it could be wider.  In fact, if the main body were same width as the Studio, it would look like a floor standing speaker.  Even if the cabinet for the 12" subs were deeper to allow the 12" drivers to be offset / lower and closer to each other to help with total (tweeter) height.

Would that not also effectively be creating a "Double Trouble" Open Baffle sub that can be placed closer to front wall?  Some may even want that configuration even if they have Otica speakers, if they have a placement issue.

[mlundy57]

Has anyone looked at doing this idea with 2 - 12" drivers?  The main body of that stand looks like it could be wider.  In fact, if the main body were same width as the Studio, it would look like a floor standing speaker.  Even if the cabinet for the 12" subs were deeper to allow the 12" drivers to be offset / lower and closer to each other to help with total (tweeter) height.

Would that not also effectively be creating a "Double Trouble" Open Baffle sub that can be placed closer to front wall?  Some may even want that configuration even if they have Otica speakers, if they have a placement issue.

I’ve done it with 2 12” drivers for use with the Wedgie. It would work but would be too tall for what I was trying to do

[AK-Grwn_v2]

A TMM (or TM/WWW modular) set up for an nx studio would be interesting.

[Jdstrong]

Mike,

These stands look very cool indeed! And they are just the form factor I was thinking of. How do they sound? From what I read about the earlier version, they would not need to be too far out into the room, correct?

 A couple of questions:

- It looks like you have put quite some effort into isolating the monitors from the stands. Do you feel this is important? I’m imagining a single enclosure with NX studio on top and the 8 inch OB drivers in the bottom.  Any thoughts on how such a design would compare?

- what is the cost of the 8” drivers?

- the Bully is about $2,600.  It looks like what you have put together would be about the same cost (kit parts without cabinets).  Is that about right? Maybe apples and oranges, but how do you think they would compare?

Thanks!

[Tyson]

NX Studio has a substantially better midrange and tweeter than the Bully or any of the LS series speakers. 

Not that the tweeter and midrange on the LS series is bad, but they are in line with speakers like upper end Dynaudio. 

The NX series drivers are in line with ultra-high end speakers like Boressen.

[jmimac351]

NX Studio has a substantially better midrange and tweeter than the Bully or any of the LS series speakers. 

Not that the tweeter and midrange on the LS series is bad, but they are in line with speakers like upper end Dynaudio. 

The NX series drivers are in line with ultra-high end speakers like Boressen.

I've been playing with a lot of stuff to figure out what I want and decided to build a pair of NX-Studio.  The flatpack is here.  They aren't done as the crossover is currently undergoing "beautification treatment".  In the meantime I put the M165NQ driver in my Merlin VSM, and used the network for the Studio (just 2 parts!).  Based on what I heard, I quickly realized I needed to pull the trigger on a pair of Otica, so I've started collecting parts.  "That midrange" in full OB is what I need to experience in my room / my gear.  How could I come to that conclusion in what some may view as a "rigged setup" of M165NQ in VSM?  Well, when you think about it, most 2 way speakers are 87-89-ish dB efficient.  Assuming the designer of the crossover for 2 different speakers will have similar goals of accounting for baffle step and "keeping the response in the lane" (I watched him do it), if the baffle is the same width (it is), if the sensitivity of the 8545 and M165NQ are the same (they are), and if the crossover point is the same (it is)... well, I'm here to say "it absolutely works".

At this point, it will be a hard sell for me to put money into another make of 6.5" driver when this M165NQ is available and so good.  "Nothing like this on the market currently exists" is what is mentioned about it.  Folks should take that to heart.  I think the "CMS" spec of the driver is what is making the midrange magic, but I don't know that for sure.  What I do know is it's only 140 bucks, and is clearly superior to the Scan-Speak 8545... but you don't know these things until you actually hear the difference.  For a driver unlike anything else that exists... you just don't know until you hear it.

I suspect I could be perfectly happy with NX-Studio / NX-Studio in ported alignment, and be "done", as I already have a taste of it, and my musical tastes aren't "big classical".  I suspect if more people could hear that driver and it's midrange, they'd come to a similar conclusion that it's the obvious choice... and maybe even better with 4 of them in OB Otica. 

One thing I'm curious about is how I will like the presentation between the 2, with NX-Studio being sealed and the Otica being OB for the M165NQ.  It would not surprise me if some prefer the Studio blended with subs, if they have a personal preference one way or the other for how the room is compressed / loaded.  I'm really looking forward to it.  What makes it even more fun is I KNOW I'm on the right path... which flavor will I like and keep?  Probably both.

[Tyson]

The main weakness of an OB speaker is generally in the midbass.  Sealed speakers naturally have more punch in the midbass. 

It is possible for an OB speaker to overcome this, but it requires a lot of woofers.  Well, guess what the NX-Otica has - a lot of midbass woofers.  So you get the best of both worlds on the NX-Otica - ultra-fast and ultra-clean OB bass that also has a lot of punch. 

One very clever thing it does is run the midrange drivers full out.  The crossover sends the full range signal to the 2 mids.  So you add those 2 drivers to the other 4 midbass drivers.  Which means you actually have 6 drivers doing upper/mid bass on the speakers, not just 4.  The midrange drivers do roll off acoustically so it's not a full duplication, but it's enough to add a fair bit of punch to the sound.

Net result?  On the NX-Otica the bass is STRONG!

And, one other observation, because the NX-Otica is an MTM design, the efficiency is quite a bit higher than what you are getting on the Merlin's.  Merlin's are around 88 or 89 db efficient, while the NX-Oticas are 94db efficient.  IME, speakers with higher efficiency have a lot more resolution and are a lot more lively because of much better micro-dynamic tracking. 

[Early B.]

IME, speakers with higher efficiency have a lot more resolution and are a lot more lively because of much better micro-dynamic tracking.

I was thinking about starting a thread on what ACers believe are the three most important attributes for getting good sound. High-efficiency speakers should be at the top of the list.

[KTS]

I was thinking about starting a thread on what ACers believe are the three most important attributes for getting good sound. High-efficiency speakers should be at the top of the list.

That is a great idea, I know when I started the journey I had no idea what the terms soundstage, imaging, black background, bright etc. we’re referring too. When I saw a review using these terms I had to start the journey to find out. It is a great hobby with a lot of very enjoyable twist and turns, it is interesting to read what others find important.