[jtwrace]

I've heard the N2X from the tour but how do the N3s compare? 

[eclein]

Jason-I was thinking the same thing after seeing some of the ones Ron has made I was wondering what the addl. woofer brings to the sound, more bass? What?

[jtwrace]

Well, according to the specs it definitely does go lower and it's also slightly more efficient... 

[jparkhur]

I think Danny went over this somewhere in the thread realm.  I can't find it right now, but it had something to do with
easier to drive due to the spreading out of information over two woofers
higher sens. 91 db i think

there were some other items too..  maybe some else can fill in where i forget..

JP

[jparkhur]

Here it is, or at least part of it...

http://www.audiocircle.com/index.php?topic=86446.0

[Ron]

 I have built both the N2X and the N3S. They are both excellent speaker systems and sound very similar. The N3S being an MTM design with two (2) woofers has greater sensitivity and a  wider dynamic range. With two woofers in lieu of one the N3S also sounds larger too.

[eclein]

Thanks guys!!

[tesseract]

Besides the obvious difference in sensitivity, I would think that the N3, being a MTM design, could have less ceiling/floor reflections. I don't know if the N3 is a true D'Appolito design or not. Hopefully Danny can shed some light on this.

[jtwrace]

I don't know if the N3 is a true D'Appolito design or not. Hopefully Danny can shed some light on this.

I thought that all GR speakers are Danny designed. Is this not the case?

[Peter J]

I thought that all GR speakers are Danny designed. Is this not the case?

He was referring to the MTM design, not the specific implementations ala Danny.

From the web:

Definition: A D'appolito array is a speaker design pioneered by Dr. Joseph D'appolito in the early 1980s. A D'appolito array consists of a single tweeter with two midrange drivers arranged above and below the tweeter in a vertical alignment. The benefit of a D'appolito array is reduced interference between the tweeter and midrange drivers, which produces very smooth phase response. The design is also referred to as M-T-M (midrange-tweeter-midrange) although not all speakers with this driver alignment are D'appolito arrays. A true D'appolito array requires a very accurate crossover to achieve the desired results.

[dangerbird]

^^^thank you kindly  ^^^

[tesseract]

I thought that all GR speakers are Danny designed. Is this not the case?

Sorry, I did mean D'Appolito Array. Thanks for clarifying that, Peter.   

[Rclark]

Just how difficult is it to design a crossover like that? What kind of work is required? Because the final products look like simple things but apparently they are difficult to make.

[woofersus]

Just how difficult is it to design a crossover like that? What kind of work is required? Because the final products look like simple things but apparently they are difficult to make.

A D'appolito array isn't so much a hard design as it is a specific one.  You have to know how the drivers will interact with each other acoustically and design the crossover around that.  Not that you don't have to ever think about that with other types of designs, but the point is that different types of driver arrangements require different crossovers.  The number of things you have to compensate for and make tradeoffs on increase when you go beyond a simple 2-way TM design, (and even that has its issues since no driver is perfect and you have to be able to maximize its performance by designing around its strengths and weaknesses) raising the complexity level of the crossover design if not the circuit itself.

Good crossover design is as much art form as it is science. (as evidenced by the vast array of designs with various design priorities chosen)  That's why it's not easy to learn.  You can model a subwoofer with a given driver in a given cabinet at a given wattage and have a pretty good idea what you're going to get, but crossovers aren't so simple.  There are tradeoffs to consider and a novice can waste a lot of time and money with trial and error.  Of course, certain designers tend to have certain design priorities, and people whose tastes match up with those priorities will tend to appreciate a particular designer's work.  That's why there's no single consensus as to what speakers are best and there are dozens of designers that have their own little following of fans.

Of course everybody has to start somewhere, and if you use drivers that are popular and look at previous work by other DIY-ers you can get a bit of a head start.  Build test mules with cheap(ish) parts so you can experiment without as much risk.

[S Clark]

I have the N2X, the AV3, and the LS9 speakers in my house.  Since the AV3 has the same woofers as the N3, I can offer my two bits.  The AV3 has two advantages over the N2X.  The deeper bass has already been covered, but there is a difference in the way the two handle volume.  As I crank it up, the N2X can begin to get a bit congested compared to the AV3, and the AV3 can eventually show the same blurring if you continue to push it.  I've never heard the LS9 struggle with anything at any volume I can throw at it. 
Now having said that, I probably listen to my smaller system with the N2X as much as I do the main system, and find it to be extremely accurate and musical.  It just isn't my speaker of choice for large orchestral pieces. 

[Jonathon Janusz]

I have the N2X, the AV3, and the LS9 speakers in my house. . . As I crank it up, the N2X can begin to get a bit congested compared to the AV3, and the AV3 can eventually show the same blurring if you continue to push it.  I've never heard the LS9 struggle with anything at any volume I can throw at it. . .

Just curious for context - how big of rooms are these systems in and how far are you pushing each until it starts to give out (the LS9s excluded, of course)?

Thanks for the insight!

[S Clark]

The N2Xs are in a 12X15 room with another 8X12 L on the end.  To push them hard is usually to play too loud- except for symphonic stuff or the occasional rock.  The AV3s were in a large 25X28X14 room with another 23X20 room opening off it- and they usually did a good job of filling it up, but that's a lot of space for a couple of 5.25" woofers.  The LS9s are in the big room now and can make it sound like a cathedral, a jazz club, or a solo 9ft. grand piano.
In a moderate size room, the N2x are a very good fit.  In the the big room, the LS9s can do it all. 

[Ron]

 Danny's description of the N2X parts kit says " This speaker has fairly low sensitivity and is ideal only for small to medium sized rooms where high output levels are not needed ". I totally agree with Danny's statement. In a small to medium size room at moderate power levels they sound absolutely wonderful.

[S Clark]

Yep, they're winners for sure.  Like I said, I listen to my N2Xs almost as much as my LS9s.

[woofersus]

Danny's description of the N2X parts kit says " This speaker has fairly low sensitivity and is ideal only for small to medium sized rooms where high output levels are not needed ". I totally agree with Danny's statement. In a small to medium size room at moderate power levels they sound absolutely wonderful.

I agree.  In fact, I quite like them for nearfield applications.

You could make them more suitable for larger rooms with the addition of a subwoofer though. (assuming you have a decently powerful amplifier)