Dayton TMWW vs. Nat Ps feedback

[lexiphanic]

I had taken my Natalie Ps from my studio into my woodshop while I was putting together a set of the Dayton TMWWs for my room-mate.

The TMWWs were the sealed variety, and the NatPs were 1cft tuned to 32ish hz.

I ended up testing them out side by side because I wanted to make sure the Crossovers were correct before I finished gluing. Obviously they both sounded fantastic, but I noticed just a tad less "speaker" out of the Dayton TMWWs. What I mean by that is that when I listened to the Nat Ps, I could tell a bit more that the sound was emanating from a speaker whereas with the TMWWs they were tad bit more invisible. Another interesting thing I noticed was that the TMWWs seemed to be more sensitive to tweeter sensitivity while the Nat Ps were more forgiving. I ended going through all five of my Dayton Tweeters and finding the two closest for the TMWWs while the NatPs got the leftovers. Also interesting was how little air leakage there was with the back of the TMWW simply clamped on in three places. Makes my gluing + clamping + brad nails seem like overkill. :B

Regardless, I wouldn't hesitate to use the two sets interchangeably in a surround setup. :T

Now I'm off to build a tower version of the Nat Ps, and then soon(ish) another set for a friend.

[lexiphanic]

Also of note would be that I used the Dennis Murphy Crossover in the TMWWs.

And thanks of course to everyone involved for these two lovely designs.

[Jonasz]

Interesting!
Always fun to hear subjective comparisons like these...

[JonMarsh]

A good three way should usually wind up being more "invisible" than the two way, because of more uniform dispersion and more optimized distortion characteristics, if they're both voiced carefully.

Enjoy your listening!

[fjhuerta]

I built my quasi Zaph ZDT3.5 (and then turned it into what I think is a Duelund arrangement - more on that on an upcoming post) with a lot of parts from my Nat-Ps.

I did find they were more "invisible" so to speak - you can't really tell if sounds are coming from the tweeter, mid or woofers.

[JonMarsh]

I'll be interested to hear that story, Javier. That's how the NeoD CC's sound, and I'm curious to see if I can better that with the next project. I think the more you lower the noise and junk floor of the speaker (distortion, resonances, etc), the better the effect.

[digital desire]

That's interesting. Did you crank them up to higher output levels also?

[---k---]

That's interesting. Did you crank them up to higher output levels also?

Yeah, that is where I think the difference might start to show. But it will vary with music type.

[digital desire]

Yeah, that is where I think the difference might start to show. But it will vary with music type.

So which one would be better at high levels? I assuming the wwmt's with more total Sd, but I am bad with assumptions.

[---k---]

Don't know. If it isn't bass demanding, you'll have more capabilities in the midrange where most of the bass lives. My guess is that it will vary with the type of music.

[fjhuerta]

The ZDT's sounded better at high volumes. For the lack of better terms midrange was smoother and had a bit more presence.

Jon, I'd very interested if you could takea look at what I did to the ZDT's. I'd like to be sure what I did is a Duelund crossover. It certainly fits what I've read about it. I'm, as you know, a novice-in-training (a Young Padawan in ET-Speak), so I'll try to write the best post I can

[JonMarsh]

I'll have my eye's peeled for your post, Javier. I'm curious to see what you've been up to- I'm taking two weeks off the end of June to work on my current project, so I'll be doing "Summer Speaker Camp" before the 4th! But just at home, not in Denver like 2007. :W

~Jon

[---k---]

Is there Open Enrollment in Summer Speaker Camp? I used to love summer camp. I've got a sleeping bag and frequent flyer miles.

[JonMarsh]

I wish there were- the more the merrier! Space is at a premium in CA, and my two bedroom condo would be kind of cramped! Good thing I have a garage....

[stgdz]

The ZDT's sounded better at high volumes. For the lack of better terms midrange was smoother and had a bit more presence.

Now I am curious, how did the dayton TMWW sound compared to the Zaph's at higher volume. With the tmww having a larger woofer and cone instead of a dome midrange i am curious.

And finally I would guess that the tmww's are sealed.

[lexiphanic]

I built my quasi Zaph ZDT3.5 (and then turned it into what I think is a Duelund arrangement - more on that on an upcoming post) with a lot of parts from my Nat-Ps.

I did find they were more "invisible" so to speak - you can't really tell if sounds are coming from the tweeter, mid or woofers.

I think I'll be fine with the Nat Ps. I had to get within 2-3 feet of the speakers to notice the difference. To notice the difference from where I'll be listening to them I'd probably have to treat quite a bit of my room so I was hearing the speaker and not the room.

Up close the NatPs definitely liked it when you were listening from the same plane as the tweeter. Move up or down and you could notice a bit of a change. The TMWW had a broader listening stage vertically. Hooray for WTMW center channels.

Granted at this point, I might be subjectively adding in details.

[digital desire]

I love the wwmt's, including the center. But dang, it's HUGE!

On the odd plus side, everyone who see's it for the first time KNOWS you are an HT nut.

[fjhuerta]

Now I am curious, how did the dayton TMWW sound compared to the Zaph's at higher volume. With the tmww having a larger woofer and cone instead of a dome midrange i am curious.

And finally I would guess that the tmww's are sealed.

Oh, I don't know. I compared the ZDT3.5 to the Nat-P.