LS-6 and OB-7 speaker comparison...

Rocket_Ronny · « **Reply #60 on:** 10 Dec 2006, 04:58 pm »

I did a test balloon regarding the WAF of a LS6.

I had a tape measure set up on the front of the OB 5, just a bit shorter than an actual LS6, and said, "Honey,

what do you think if I made speakers this big"? She said, "WHAT!!!, What's wrong with your 'perfect' new speakers?" "Nothing dear", I said. "It just inspires me to do more".

"Forget it" she said. "Not until you fence the yard for horses and build a paddock for them". "Of course dear. I am not planning on doing anything until this summer". Resistance ended.

So what do you think boys? Things looking up.

Rocket_Ronny

Rocket_Ronny · « **Reply #61 on:** 10 Dec 2006, 05:20 pm »

Danny:

I was looking at passively bi-amping the OB 5's with the McAlister SE 44 SET-(22 watts per channel) on the MTM section and the McAlsister PP 150-(75 watts per channel) for the bass woofs, using the OB crossover. I think the power draw on the MTM would be a lot less than the woofs so think the SE 44 should do o.k.

1. On the LS 6 what kind of power draw do those Neo 8's have. Would the 22 watter run out juice if the bass was run from the PP 150? Or should a guy just get one bigger push/pull amp? I am partial to the SET but if it runs out of steam the push/pull would sound better.

2. Can a guy raise the NEO 8's to the same height of the woofs with out any sonic penalty? This would allow lowering the cab height a bit.

3. Is it possible to drop one of the woofs with a crossover tweek? That would allow one to drop the LS height a bit more.

4. How close to the ground can one get with the woofs before it starts to muddy up the sound?

Thanks.

Rocket_Ronny

Danny Richie · « **Reply #62 on:** 11 Dec 2006, 06:09 pm »

Quote

I was looking at passively bi-amping the OB 5's with the McAlister SE 44 SET-(22 watts per channel) on the MTM section and the McAlsister PP 150-(75 watts per channel) for the bass woofs, using the OB crossover. I think the power draw on the MTM would be a lot less than the woofs so think the SE 44 should do o.k.

If you do that then use two identical amps to get the same output levels from each of them.

Quote

1. On the LS 6 what kind of power draw do those Neo 8's have.

They draw little power at all. Be careful though, "power" can cover a bit too much. The Neo's can handle a lot of voltage but not draw much current. Woofers can eat current and not require a lot of voltage.

Quote

2. Can a guy raise the NEO 8's to the same height of the woofs with out any sonic penalty?

The acoustic centers are aligned now. Why misaligne them.

Quote

3. Is it possible to drop one of the woofs with a crossover tweek? That would allow one to drop the LS height a bit more.

Do you mean to remove one woofer? No you can't do that.

Quote

4. How close to the ground can one get with the woofs before it starts to muddy up the sound?

It won't change the sound. The LS-9 runs them all the way to the floor.

Rocket_Ronny · « **Reply #63 on:** 11 Dec 2006, 06:27 pm »

Thanks Danny:

Quote from: Danny on 11 Dec 2006, 06:09 pm

Quote
I was looking at passively bi-amping the OB 5's with the McAlister SE 44 SET-(22 watts per channel) on the MTM section and the McAlsister PP 150-(75 watts per channel) for the bass woofs, using the OB crossover. I think the power draw on the MTM would be a lot less than the woofs so think the SE 44 should do o.k.

If you do that then use two identical amps to get the same output levels from each of them.

Quote
1. On the LS 6 what kind of power draw do those Neo 8's have.

They draw little power at all. Be careful though, "power" can cover a bit too much. The Neo's can handle a lot of voltage but not draw much current. Woofers can eat current and not require a lot of voltage.

Quote
2. Can a guy raise the NEO 8's to the same height of the woofs with out any sonic penalty?

The acoustic centers are aligned now. Why misaligne them.

Quote
3. Is it possible to drop one of the woofs with a crossover tweek? That would allow one to drop the LS height a bit more.

Do you mean to remove one woofer? No you can't do that.

Quote
4. How close to the ground can one get with the woofs before it starts to muddy up the sound?

It won't change the sound. The LS-9 runs them all the way to the floor.

The two amps, although different in power, have the same input sensitivity. So that should work fine.

Regarding the raising of the NEO 8's, the reason would be so one could lower the total height of the speakers a few inches. So I guess I don't understand this acoustical centers biz.

All these questions are a part of making the total height of the speaker a little less.

Thanks again.

Rocket_Ronny

gprro · « **Reply #64 on:** 13 Dec 2006, 11:07 pm »

whats up all, and Daygloworange maybe you're interested in this also.

I've had an idea for my ultimate speaker (well actually the ls9's are probably the ultimate, but out of price range right now) and I'm wondering if anyone has had the same thought, so I'll propose it here. I was
going to order the ob-7's minus the subs a few months ago, but two cross country moves and illness kind of prevented it.

So now I'm ready to make some speakers, I'm wondering what it would take to get the ob-7's, but this is the big thing, with the four m130 woofer section

switched out to the new m-165's.
The sensitivity and load look similar. This would be a really killer speaker I think, with very little need for a sub

I know the cabinet volume and baffle width would be greater, but this is ok as the four m-165 would be all mounted below the MTM section, which could keep the same width. So Danny, how hard would this be to get done? Maybe if some other people are interested we could pay for the design time needed to tweak these, plus you'de have a new model, the OB-765 maybe. Or maybe you would like to do it just to get another model aa. The diference in price between the m130 and m165 the price increase over a non sub ob-7 would be $160?

Just throwing this out there. Happy holidays to everyone

Daygloworange · « **Reply #65 on:** 13 Dec 2006, 11:15 pm »

Hmmm....

Vedy inteeresting! aa

Ok, somebody call Danny up and get him workin' on this ASAP!

Cheers

Rocket_Ronny · « **Reply #66 on:** 14 Dec 2006, 01:43 am »

Ran that by Danny in a email.

That is, as an upgrade to the OB 5's.

Here's the goods.

Also, regarding the xbls, can one use them in the OB 5 as an upgrade?

No. They are completely different in every way.

Looks like they are 8 ohm however.

The M-165LS woofers are 4 ohms each.

Rocket_Ronny

gprro · « **Reply #67 on:** 14 Dec 2006, 02:48 am »

yeah, they wouldn't work in the ob5, but looks like they could work in the ob-7 minus subs, there resistance is similar to the ob7 woofs. The ob5 uses the 16 ohm m130, and the ob7 uses the roughly 8 ohm regular m130's. The m165's look to be similar in resistance to the regular m130, RE islisted as 5.6ohms for both the 130 and 165x. I think a four woofer version is possible, but some cabinet changes (more airspace for the woofs) are obviosly required, as well as some probable crossover tweaking. The baffle for the woof section may have to be wider also, but the mtm section would remain the same.

Daygloworange · « **Reply #68 on:** 14 Dec 2006, 04:03 am »

Danny,

Can we get the goods from you on these ideas?

Cheers

Danny Richie · « **Reply #69 on:** 15 Dec 2006, 03:24 pm »

gprro pretty well nailed it.

They couldn't be used in the OB-5's but could be used in the OB-7's.

In a sealed enclosure each woofer will need .5 cubic feet. You could pull that down a little. The bottom section would need to be made a little wider too. This would work pretty well though.

Ported they will need 1 to 1.2 cubic feet each and will hit -3db down points near 35Hz. This would make the box size pretty big.

Daygloworange · « **Reply #70 on:** 15 Dec 2006, 03:39 pm »

Danny

Ok here's another question. How about doing a configuration like the OB 5 but having an additional 2 XBL's in a side firing configuration, therby preserving the narrow width of the front baffle?

Sorry man, these ideas just hit me and I go with them.

Cheers

Danny Richie · « **Reply #71 on:** 15 Dec 2006, 03:53 pm »

I'd keep them playing together. The baffle will have to be at least 1/2" wider just because of the width of the drivers.

Daygloworange · « **Reply #72 on:** 15 Dec 2006, 03:57 pm »

So 4 XBL's on the baffle in a sealed box, and the M 130's on the open baffle portion, along with the Neo 3, right?

The baffle width would only increase to 8 1/2" ?

What about the volume on the sealed box? How much larger would it have to be than the OB 5 box?

This is getting interesting...

Cheers

Danny Richie · « **Reply #73 on:** 15 Dec 2006, 04:17 pm »

Quote

So 4 XBL's on the baffle in a sealed box, and the M 130's on the open baffle portion, along with the Neo 3, right?

Right.

Quote

The baffle width would only increase to 8 1/2" ?

It could be increased more than that, but this is how much wider it would need to be to support the wider drivers. You could always do a light colored front baffle with a wider Black back section like Ronny did and hide the added width a little bit. Just keep the width the same at the top straight down to the bottom and flare it out around the bottom woofers.

Quote

What about the volume on the sealed box? How much larger would it have to be than the OB 5 box?

The lower section of the OB-5 is 1.2 cubic feet. For this change you would need at least 1.6 cubic feet of air space. So it will need to get a little deeper too.

Daygloworange · « **Reply #74 on:** 15 Dec 2006, 04:39 pm »

Danny,

I have 1/2" of real estate on either side of the M-130's on my OB 5's. The basket on the M-165 X is 7.25". As it stands now, they would just fit on the 8" baffle. The basket would be right on the edge of where the roundover starts on the baffle. Widening the baffle to 8 1/2" and it would be no problem. It could even fit on 8 1/4".

Done deal. Now you've got to figure out what to call this thing.

Price it out and get back to me.

Cheers

mono-tubeleosis · « **Reply #75 on:** 15 Dec 2006, 04:47 pm »

Done deal. Now you've got to figure out what to call this thing.

[/quote]

How bout the OB-5 Plus.

I'm gonna kill you guys for not thinking of this before I started mine.

If the cabinet had to go bigger it wouldn't bother me anyway.

Daygloworange · « **Reply #76 on:** 15 Dec 2006, 05:17 pm »

Quote

I'm gonna kill you guys for not thinking of this before I started mine.

Hey, I'm a little pissed I didn't think of doing the OB 7 minus sub thing earlier myself!

You could aways add 2 additional M 130's to your OB 5's and have a very similar thing.

Cheers

gprro · « **Reply #77 on:** 15 Dec 2006, 09:21 pm »

Hi Danny,

I guess I stirred things up a little (sorry if this is a pain

), so I'll try to clarify some of the questions, and then ask a couple more

,

This speaker would be based of the OB7, so no OB5 plus

, and adding two more woofs to an OB5 wouldn't work, as the OB5 uses 16 ohm woofs in the bass section. Adding two more (165's or 130's) would mess up the crossover balance. The OB7 uses slightly different crossover frequencies in the bass too i think. Which brings me to this question,

Can the 165's be an easy substitute for the m130 (crossover wise) in the OB7? I'm guessing they could use an optimum baffle width (I don't know if they need baffle step adjustment), and some crossover tweaking, leading to the question...

And I know you're probably busy, so we may have to wait a little, but if enough people are interested what would be required for an optimized four m165 woofer OB7. Test cabinets etc? I'd love a large ported bass section tuned low, if the cabinet dimensions would allow. If the woofer section width can't get too wide, they are going to be preety deep front to back. Still ok to port out the back if this is the case? I can do the calculations for the bass section (including bracing etc) if I know the optimum width, if anyone wants.

Last question/thoughts

Four + cubic feet is pretty big for those that havn't seen a four cu.ft. enclusure, whats your thoughs on adding poly to "trick" the speakers into acting like they are in a larger box. I had a spread sheet that i used for a while. At around 3.2 cu.ft , optimal stuffing could yeald a 4+ cu.ft enclosure, plus it usualy seems to damp frequencies below tuning. I could do the exact math if needed.

Thanks a ton,

Daygloworange · « **Reply #78 on:** 15 Dec 2006, 09:30 pm »

gprro,

Good show! You're even willing to help out! I'd love to see this OB version happen. It would be killer with those 4 XBL's.

Cheers

Rocket_Ronny · « **Reply #79 on:** 15 Dec 2006, 10:56 pm »

Since we are talking wish list speakers, and it is so close to Christmas, I might just as well throw out my dream speaker.

I would call it a OB 7 cross LS 4.

Imagine a OB 7 with the four 165 woofs, then on top of that would be 2 more 165s in a open baffle. Oh, but wait a minute, what about the tweeter? Don't fret my son, because starting from the top, and to the side of the woof array, would be 4 nice Neo 8s going down 32". This would combine the best of both worlds. OB mid transparency with LS smack and punch, as well as lower tweet crossover of 1khz. This would be a three way system like the OBs.

Only bugaboo would be if it would work having the woof section frequencies split up like that, and not all doing the same frequencies.

OR...

If that does not work then how about a LS 4.

Should be fairly easy for Danny to develop. Just disconnect top and bottom Neo 8's, as well as the top and bottom woofs. Block, or stuff LS 6 cabinet to LS 4 volume. Mess with the crossover if needed. Whala.

Both speakers would come in at aprox. 54" tall. WAF way up over a LS6. Due to nicer dimensions they could be made to look really, really, good.

I know these are sit down speakers due to high frequency beaming but I can live with that as 98% of my listening is sitting down anyway.

So how bout it Danny.

It's Christmas you know.

Rocket_will sell his OB 5s for these_Ronny