Natalie P vs WMTW for mains

[spidrman]

I'm planning out my speakers for my HT and am trying to decide between the Natalie P design and the WMTW design. These will be for the mains . I'll be using the Modula MTs for all surrounds (probably gonna do them in wall).

I really like kgveteran's use of 3 of the WMTW speakers so that's the direction I'm leaning right now. If I build the boxes myself, I'm "guestimating" the cost per speaker to be around $330. Does that sound about right? I've gone over the threads and used the available BOM's and threw in the cost of MDF and added some "miscellaneous" cost cuz there always is and came to that number.

I'm also considering the Natalie P's because I can buy pre-made boxes from PE and simplify the construction but going that route gets me to an estimated cost per speaker of about $255 (under $200 each if I build the box myself). If I use the Natalie P design, which center would you use? The Modula MTM Center or the WMTW?

Also, regardless of which route I go, these speakers are going behind an AT screen that will have 18 inches of space behind it. I'm guessing that means that any speaker I put back there will need a crossover designed for on wall mounting. I see that the Natalie P has a "No BSC" crossover available but I haven't been able to locate one for the WMTW design.

Any advice is very much appreciated!

[---k---]

what are you going to be using for a sub?

[spidrman]

Still not 100% sure on that. Possibly a Rythmic 15" sub kit. I'm also toying with the possibility of building a "horizontal" sonosub but I don't know if that is feasible. I'll start a different thread on that.

[technimac]

RS180-based WMTW design in-progress

Jon Marsh is currently working on a WMTW "center" design that uses RS180's, an RS52 and a Vifa D26NC55. He's also doing a HiVi D6.8 option. All of these are designed to fit into a premade PE 1cu/ft MTM box. This should be an outstanding 3-way design(s).


Here's the thread:

http://www.htguide.com/forum/showthread.php4?t=22812&highlight=obi+wan

Latest word is that he's going to try to get it finished up in June (after he's finished quelling yet another uprising at the edge of our galaxy).

I'm looking at using the HiVi option for a center, and going with the RS180's for mains in two 60L towers.

"I'm guessing that means that any speaker I put back there will need a crossover designed for on wall mounting."
Space-wise, if you've got 18" of space "behind" your enclosures, the BSC version should work for you. Thomas W noted that you need 24" behind the baffle for the BSC version to be effective - and you'll have that.

[ThomasW]

Jon Marsh is currently working on a WMTW "center" design that uses RS180's, an RS52 and a Vifa D26NC55. He's also doing a HiVi D6.8 option. All of these are designed to fit into a premade PE 1cu/ft MTM box. This should be an outstanding 3-way design(s)

I don't think we've discussed this on the forum, but Jon's WMTW so called "center" will be a speaker that can be used for any channel = main, center, or effect.

Jon's plan is to use 5 of these for his HT.

[Bent]

Thomas, is The crossover Topology such That it will perform admirably either on it's side, or on end?
(I used a Tablet PC to type This)

[spidrman]

To BSC or not to BSC

Actually I only have 18" total behind the screen so I kinda figured that anything I put back there will need a wall mount (no BSC) xover design.

[ThomasW]

Thomas, is The crossover Topology such That it will perform admiraly either on it's side, or on end?
(I used a Tablet PC to type This)

The center (horizontal orientation) will have a slightly different XO.

BTW if you want to get your BP1503 rebuilt, Scott at www.ficaraudio.com can do that. It will end up being basically a .Q15. Scott was a member of the company that built the BP drivers.

The deal breaker maybe the cost of round-trip shipping.

Actually I only have 18" total behind the screen so I kinda figured that anything I put back there will need a wall mount (no BSC) xover design.

There will certainly be a no BSC XO build option.

[Bent]

Thomas, I'll look into that - I won't fall al over myself though, as I've given the '1503 to a neighbor in the meantime - he's using it downfiring, sealed with a 500 watt plate amp and is as happy as a clam. He can't hear the rattle it developed in that configuation.

[digital desire]

As to the original question, somewhere deep withen the wwmt thread, IIRC, someone made some direct comparisons bewtween the Nat P's and the wwmts.

[ThomasW]

That big thread is way to scary to review..... 8O

Jon and I discussed this topic, we're both of the opinion that for HT an MTM configuration is preferred. It's a function of having dual midwoofers to share the workload. So build an MTM with a sub, or build the big WWMTM...that's our recommendation

[---k---]

I think Jim Holtz might be the only one who has heard both the NatP and the WWMT in the same room. I was hoping that he would comment here. Irrc, he said they were very close in sound. If he doesn't speak up here soon, I'll try and do a search and find the thread. Someone from Minn brought their wwmt down to his house, I believe.

[Sefferdog]

I have built both and preferred the Nat P design because it was more laid back than the WWMT. The WWMT is very forward through the midrange and I just wasn't wild about that, although many, many people built them and loved them.

[PoorboyMike]

I have built both and preferred the Nat P design because it was more laid back than the WWMT. The WWMT is very forward through the midrange and I just wasn't wild about that, although many, many people built them and loved them.

Which version of the wwmt did you build Sefferdog?

[Sefferdog]

Which version of the wwmt did you build Sefferdog?

The Dennis Murphy design.

[digital desire]

My 44 year old very abused ears have a nasty dip in the midrange response.

...So, perfect for me!! :^)

[Jim Holtz]

I think Jim Holtz might be the only one who has heard both the NatP and the WWMT in the same room. I was hoping that he would comment here. Irrc, he said they were very close in sound. If he doesn't speak up here soon, I'll try and do a search and find the thread. Someone from Minn brought their wwmt down to his house, I believe.

Hi Ryan,

Sorry for the slow reply. It's been a busy day. I've built the Modula M/T's, Natalie P's and RS 3-ways. Brian Walters is who you're trying to think of. He brought his RS 3-ways down to compare the sound to mine. He was unsure of the crossover and wanted to listen to both. We had all of the speakers at the Iowa DIY event last fall too.

Anyway, I think each speaker is a step up in sound quality with the Modula M/T and Natalie P being very close. The Natalie P is more efficient but is a 4 ohm load.

I'm a 3-way fan so my pick is the RS 3-way of the group for all applications. If you build it sealed and use it for home theater, cross to a sub at around 40 Hz. They'll give you a couch shakin' good time.

Jim

[Brian Bunge]

That big thread is way to scary to review..... 8O

Jon and I discussed this topic, we're both of the opinion that for HT an MTM configuration is preferred. It's a function of having dual midwoofers to share the workload. So build an MTM with a sub, or build the big WWMTM...that's our recommendation

I agree with Thomas. I've come to the conclusion that when big dynamics are desired, an MTM design (or a WWMTM in my case) is the way to go.

[Jim Holtz]

That big thread is way to scary to review..... 8O

Jon and I discussed this topic, we're both of the opinion that for HT an MTM configuration is preferred. It's a function of having dual midwoofers to share the workload. So build an MTM with a sub, or build the big WWMTM...that's our recommendation

Hi Thomas,

I'm curious why you and Jon prefer a MTM configuration over a 3-way for home theater assuming a sub is used with both and the 3-way has the dynamic capability to reach 105 DB+? I've always preferred the lower crossover point a a sealed 3-way offered vs. a 2-way of any configuration.

Thanks for the feedback!

Jim

[rj45]

2 way or MTM with sub versus 3 way?

Hi Thomas,

I'm curious why you and Jon prefer a MTM configuration over a 3-way for home theater assuming a sub is used with both and the 3-way has the dynamic capability to reach 105 DB+? I've always preferred the lower crossover point a a sealed 3-way offered vs. a 2-way of any configuration.

Thanks for the feedback!

Jim

If I understand you correctly, are you saying that you prefer a big 3 way versus a 2 way or MTM with a sub?

Ok, a follow on Q. Does this hold true for stereo subs with the smaller speak mounted directly above, versus a trad sub setup, where the subs are placed at some distance from the MT or MTM mains?

Just trying to get an idea of folks preferences and why.

regards,
-Don

[ThomasW]

Hi Thomas,

I'm curious why you and Jon prefer a MTM configuration over a 3-way for home theater assuming a sub is used with both and the 3-way has the dynamic capability to reach 105 DB+?

It's a function of having more available Vd in the passband where the action is...

[Dennis H]

I was confused about that too but I think I'm starting to see what Thomas and Jon are getting at. The difference is in the midrange distortion.

At first I was just looking at the lowest frequency played. Let's say the twin 7" in the MTM play down to 80 Hz (crossed to a sub) and the single 6" in the TMWW plays down to 320, 2 octaves higher. You only need 1/16 the Vd for the same SPL when you cross 2 octaves higher so the single 6" clearly wins that one.

BUT.... look at the distortion at 1 kHz of 2x7" vs. 1x6". The 2x7" will clearly be lower distortion playing a 1k tone. So score that measure for the MTM.

I guess it gets more complicated when you look at IM distortion. Again with a 1k tone, is 1x6" modulated by a 320 tone worse than 2x7" modulated by an 80 tone? Hmmmm.....

[ThomasW]

I was confused about that too but I think I'm starting to see what Thomas and Jon are getting at. The difference is in the midrange distortion.

At first I was just looking at the lowest frequency played. Let's say the twin 7" in the MTM play down to 80 Hz (crossed to a sub) and the single 6" in the TMWW plays down to 320, 2 octaves higher. You only need 1/16 the Vd for the same SPL when you cross 2 octaves higher so the single 6" clearly wins that one.

BUT.... look at the distortion at 1 kHz of 2x7" vs. 1x6". The 2x7" will clearly be lower distortion playing a 1k tone. So score that measure for the MTM.

I guess it gets more complicated when you look at IM distortion. Again with a 1k tone, is 1x6" modulated by a 320 tone worse than 2x7" modulated by an 80 tone? Hmmmm.....

Correct, that's the thinking. That's also why we think Brian's WWMTM or adding bass bins to an MTM is a good choice for HT.

The other variable is of course the number of channels being used. If there are MTM's in let's say all 5 of a 5.1 setup perhaps even playing to 80Hz isn't an issue.

Neither Jon nor I have had a 5.1 system where there were 5 identical speakers. My big system is of course a kludge of different planars/leafs/etc., with a dipole woofer center. Absolutely nothing matches.... :roll:

So.....

Cross fingers.....

It looks like Mr Jon will be in Denver on vacation the last week of June. Current plans have us building up the first pair of the new WMTW 'all channel' speakers.

[SQdude]

Cross fingers.....

It looks like Mr Jon will be in Denver on vacation the last week of June. Current plans have us building up the first pair of the new WMTW 'all channel' speakers.

Poor guy, even on vacation he's working :E

[Dennis H]

It looks like Mr Jon will be in Denver on vacation the last week of June. Current plans have us building up the first pair of the new WMTW 'all channel' speakers.

It'll be interesting to see how that turns out. If the WMTW sounds better than the MTM, then maybe there's something to the similar concept using an RS150 for the mid ala the big TMWW thread.

[ThomasW]

It'll be interesting to see how that turns out. If the WMTW sounds better than the MTM, then maybe there's something to the similar concept using an RS150 for the mid ala the big TMWW thread.

When we talked this AM he indicated he had a nifty little TangBand cone mid that might be used in a variant of this design. (Sorry I don't remember the model # ... ops: )

BTW he won't be working too hard since the woodworking will be done long before he arrives....

[augerpro]

Which TB mid is that Thomas?

[ThomasW]

Tang Band W4-1337SA 4" Titanium Driver

[Dennis H]

I'm betting it's the same TB Jim used in his new Statement. I seem to recall Jon had tested that one and liked it.

[augerpro]

Tang Band W4-1337SA 4" Titanium Driver

Interesting. I thought maybe I had a bad one until I read Jon's testing and he had the same blip around 500Hz. He thought it was an measurment artifact but mine has it too. Reason I thought it was bad was because while doing the THD distortion sweep the spectrum "lit up" around the same area that blip was. Strange driver. Really good in some areas, but with a couple things here and there that make me scratch my head. Then again most drivers are like that I guess.

[Jim Holtz]

I'm betting it's the same TB Jim used in his new Statement. I seem to recall Jon had tested that one and liked it.

Hi Dennis,

Yes, that is the driver Curt and I used for the mids in the Statement. It's a darn nice driver with exceptional clarity and detail but it does require a fair amount of finessing to sound the way it can with the proper crossover. That's Curt's area so I won't comment further but I know it had him talking to himself a few times. The end result is excellent, however.

I'm looking forward to seeing what Jon comes up with.

Jim

[Ray_D]

I was confused about that too but I think I'm starting to see what Thomas and Jon are getting at. The difference is in the midrange distortion.

At first I was just looking at the lowest frequency played. Let's say the twin 7" in the MTM play down to 80 Hz (crossed to a sub) and the single 6" in the TMWW plays down to 320, 2 octaves higher. You only need 1/16 the Vd for the same SPL when you cross 2 octaves higher so the single 6" clearly wins that one.

BUT.... look at the distortion at 1 kHz of 2x7" vs. 1x6". The 2x7" will clearly be lower distortion playing a 1k tone. So score that measure for the MTM.

I guess it gets more complicated when you look at IM distortion. Again with a 1k tone, is 1x6" modulated by a 320 tone worse than 2x7" modulated by an 80 tone? Hmmmm.....

Dennis / Thomas

Why is a 3-Way with an RS52 a good thing? Won't it limit SPL. I see some benefit in the normal center orientation, not as mains.

I have built the Modula MT, Natalie P and the DM 3-Ways and find them all excellent.

Ray

[digital desire]

Ray, can you expand on your impressions of each vs. the other two?

I love hearing about all of them. When I jumped into my project, it was of course a leap of faith, not being able to auditon any of them.

[Ray_D]

Ray, can you expand on your impressions of each vs. the other two?

I love hearing about all of them. When I jumped into my project, it was of course a leap of faith, not being able to auditon any of them.

I have not done any AB testing, just listened to them and in different rooms so a comparison is difficult. I listen to a variety of things, especially jazz. Bill Evans is a favorite. I tend to listen to them fairly close to on-axis so wide sound stage isn't too important to me. I look for clarity. I don't know that I can say one is better than another. That said, the RS28/RS150/RS225 3-ways have the strongest base. I currently have a 5.1 system set up in a medium sized bedroom with the 3-ways as mains and a Modula MT as a center. The MT has outstanding clarity. There is no muddiness in the dialog. I am not using a NatP as a center because of the orientation; but, I may try it later since I am so close to on axis. I think the NatPs are probably the value champ. I don't think they are better than the 3-ways; but, they are very close and half the cost. I am going to build speakers for my adult children and I have not decided between NatPs and Modula MTs. I am currently leaning toward NatPs for more base.

Ray

[Dennis H]

Why is a 3-Way with an RS52 a good thing?

Just guessing here but it's a low distortion driver that can cross lower than most tweeters so it keeps the RS180 more in its optimum range. But nobody has built or listened to them yet so it'll be interesting to see what Jon and Thomas come up with.

[digital desire]

Thanks Ray!