Fun First Project - your thoughts

Danny Richie · « **Reply #60 on:** 21 Apr 2008, 01:29 am »

Fred, The smaller boxes are way off.

Quote

Also Danny will these new spec Neos be considered for a upgrade to the OB series?

It could in a way. It should sound very much the same but would use fewer parts so there could be a marginal improvement. I actually have something else up my sleeve that you guys will like even better.

Quote

Would any crossover values need to be changed?

Yes, all of the tweeter network would be different.

Quote

That modded Neo 3/M130x kit I think has my name all over it,

Yea, mine too. I can't wait to get all over it.

ttan98 · « **Reply #61 on:** 21 Apr 2008, 02:00 am »

Quote from: Danny on 18 Apr 2008, 08:02 pm

Hey, these Neo 3 pdr's with the deep back cup measure really nicely. They play a little lower and have a smoother roll off.

I already measured and tested a network using it and the M-165X. It made a beautiful response.

I have a pair of M165X in the garage waiting for a mate tweeter like Neo3. When is the combo x-over design and components made available? An estimated date is fine.

Danny Richie · « **Reply #62 on:** 21 Apr 2008, 02:53 am »

I have completed the design with the M-165X. It looks great. I can e-mail you all the measurements if you like. I can make the kit available tomorrow. Cap options, binding post options, and wire options are all yours.

ttan98 · « **Reply #63 on:** 21 Apr 2008, 08:00 am »

Before I proceed I like to confirm the driver I have is the M165X model, the stamp on the chassis is
no. 633001, G and C. you can email me info, just click my name the email address is there.

Danny Richie · « **Reply #64 on:** 21 Apr 2008, 04:36 pm »

That number on the frame is a casting lot number for that part.

Shoot me an e-mail with your name and address and I'll pull all orders sent to you and can confirm what you ordered.

Dustin B · « **Reply #65 on:** 21 Apr 2008, 04:43 pm »

Any chance of an AV3S equivalent following in the not too distant future? Or is this wishful thinking because the Neo3 will cause the drivers to end up spaced too far apart.

ttan98 · « **Reply #66 on:** 22 Apr 2008, 01:24 am »

Email sent, did you receive it?

Hank · « **Reply #67 on:** 22 Apr 2008, 12:22 pm »

Danny, if you want to do a tower, can you use my RAV-6 cabinet design?
Slot port, designed for your M165X and Al's custom A-C ribbon. I don't have the CAD drawings in front of me, but I'm thinking it might work.

poseidonsvoice · « **Reply #68 on:** 22 Apr 2008, 02:35 pm »

Quote from: Hank on 22 Apr 2008, 12:22 pm

Danny, if you want to do a tower, can you use my RAV-6 cabinet design?
Slot port, designed for your M165X and Al's custom A-C ribbon. I don't have the CAD drawings in front of me, but I'm thinking it might work.

Having listened to Hank's RAV-6's they are an excellent monitor and Hank's attention to cabinet details is second to none. Assuming the same low frequency tuning, I would think that the same cabinet would probably apply, only change would be the cutout for the NEO3 tweeter.

Anand.

Danny Richie · « **Reply #69 on:** 22 Apr 2008, 09:15 pm »

Quote

Any chance of an AV3S equivalent following in the not too distant future?

Actually I have had one done for quite a while and have sold several of them unadvertised. I wasn't going to release it as Al Wooley was going to do a version of the A/V-3 with his ribbon and I wanted to give him that territory, but it doesn't look like he is going to go that direction now.

I think I will revisit that model now with the new Neo 3 with the deep back cup.

Quote

Or is this wishful thinking because the Neo3 will cause the drivers to end up spaced too far apart.

No problem there at all. The center to center spacing of the woofers are only slightly larger but the tweeter can be crossed pretty low so it is really a non-issue.

Quote

Email sent, did you receive it?

Yep. Check your e-mail for a response.

Quote

Danny, if you want to do a tower, can you use my RAV-6 cabinet design?
Slot port, designed for your M165X and Al's custom A-C ribbon.

Yep, that will work really well. I may draw up something like it.

Quote

Having listened to Hank's RAV-6's they are an excellent monitor and Hank's attention to cabinet details is second to none. Assuming the same low frequency tuning, I would think that the same cabinet would probably apply, only change would be the cutout for the NEO3 tweeter.

Yep, this is going to be really good.

Danny Richie · « **Reply #70 on:** 22 Apr 2008, 09:34 pm »

Okay here is the pricing info and options.

The basic kit for the M-165X with Neo3pdr with deep back cup will be $329.

This uses Alpha Core foil inductors, Lynk resistors, Erse poly caps, and Sonicap Gen.2 by-pass cap in the tweeter circuit. This also uses the GR Research standard binding post cups. It does not include a port as it can be used in a sealed .5 cubic foot box.

Upgrade options are as follows:

All Sonicaps throughout and Mills resistors, add $109.60

Sonicaps and Mills resistors in the tweeter circuit only, plus a by-pass cap for the woofer circuit, add $75.

Vampire wire binding post (BP1.5 Hex) add $31.50 See more info on those here: http://vampirewire.com/pc-48-16-binding-postbrbp15hex.aspx If you use the PE cabinets these drop right into the pre-drilled holes by making the holes that are already in the back of the box just a little bit larger. Chasing through them with a slightly larger drill bit is pretty easy.

JPS Labs internal wire, add $42. (14 feet, used in sealed mini-monitor) More info here: http://www.audiocircle.com/index.php?topic=53822.0

A pair of 2" flared ports from PSP, add $20. http://www.psp-inc.com/

1 sheet of No Rez add $38. This will cover a pair of small cabinets. 2 sheets are needed for the floor standing version.

Zero the Hero · « **Reply #71 on:** 23 Apr 2008, 01:49 pm »

whats the size and tuning suggested for the ported box? Baffle size also?
What are the advantages of the 165 over the 130, other than able to play lower (if using a sub, which would you recommend?)
If the top of the speaker is about 6 inches lower than ear height at 10 feet (height limitiation due to screen), would there be any benefit in mounting woofer on top? (vertical lobing question), or should they use a slight upward tilt in that instance?
Thanks!

Dustin B · « **Reply #72 on:** 23 Apr 2008, 06:04 pm »

Quote from: Danny on 22 Apr 2008, 09:15 pm

Actually I have had one done for quite a while and have sold several of them unadvertised. I wasn't going to release it as Al Wooley was going to do a version of the A/V-3 with his ribbon and I wanted to give him that territory, but it doesn't look like he is going to go that direction now.

I think I will revisit that model now with the new Neo 3 with the deep back cup.

Awesome. I just did the math in my new room and all seats are within 25 degrees of on axis with the center channel (I'm assuming when you said that in the AV3s description it meant 25 degrees to the left and 25 degrees to the right of perpendicular with the front of the center channel). Hopefully 5 of these can be a fall project for me.

So is that with the M130x or the M165x? Price for a single kit?

Danny Richie · « **Reply #73 on:** 23 Apr 2008, 07:30 pm »

Quote

whats the size and tuning suggested for the ported box? Baffle size also?

Optimal ported is about 1.2 cubic feet. It can be as large as 1.4 and as small as 1.0 depending on which way you want to fudge it.

I's tune it to about 40Hz.

Baffle width needs to be 8.5" and whatever height is needed to get the tweeter to seated ear level.

Quote

What are the advantages of the 165 over the 130, other than able to play lower (if using a sub, which would you recommend?)

Just playing lower is about all I'd go with for the moment. You also might get a little more fullness and weight along with that.

If using a sub.... ? That's a tough call. Let me live with them both for a while and I'll give you a little feedback on it.

Quote

If the top of the speaker is about 6 inches lower than ear height at 10 feet (height limitiation due to screen), would there be any benefit in mounting woofer on top? (vertical lobing question), or should they use a slight upward tilt in that instance?

I'd maintain the same driver alignment and orientation. Vertical off axis responses looked great that way.

Quote

(I'm assuming when you said that in the AV3s description it meant 25 degrees to the left and 25 degrees to the right of perpendicular with the front of the center channel).

Yep.

Quote

So is that with the M130x or the M165x? Price for a single kit?

That was with the M-165X woofer, but I expect about the same price when using the M-130X as well.

The price is for one kit will build out a pair of speakers.

Dustin B · « **Reply #74 on:** 23 Apr 2008, 08:24 pm »

Sorry Danny, I was referring to the price for an AV3s equivalent using the Neo3 PDR and M165x drivers.

Danny Richie · « **Reply #75 on:** 23 Apr 2008, 08:47 pm »

Quote

Sorry Danny, I was referring to the price for an AV3s equivalent using the Neo3 PDR and M165x drivers.

Oh. I don't plan on doing an MTM design using the M-165X woofers as that would force the minimum impedance to drop to below 3 ohms. That wouldn't be good.

Dustin B · « **Reply #76 on:** 23 Apr 2008, 09:51 pm »

Oh, I completely forgot about that. Even with the M130x that still going to be a 4ohm speaker like the AV2 isn't it. Was wanting to stick with 8ohm and higher senstivity which is why I'd prefer an MTM.

Danny Richie · « **Reply #77 on:** 23 Apr 2008, 09:54 pm »

That's why I use a pair of the M-130/16's in all MTM configurations.

HAL · « **Reply #78 on:** 24 Apr 2008, 12:21 am »

Hi Danny,
Is the kit price for a single speaker or a pair? Did not see that in the post.

Hank · « **Reply #79 on:** 24 Apr 2008, 12:31 am »

Danny, I've got CAD files I can send you - put down that pencil.