Anthology vs DTQWT

[xam198]

Hi. I know, it always difficult to answer these sort of question, but i need advice, since :
- i'm listening all kind of musics and doing HT
- my definitive amp has not been choosen yet
-i'm coming from this : https://www.htguide.com/forum/showth...ic-WMTMW/page3
and want better

DTQWT seems to be twice the price of Anthologys, so to resume, does the price difference worth it, or even if they sound different, quality of sound won't be so different - and a good improvement of the Dayton Classics WMTMW ?

Thansk for your help and sorry for the english.

[JonMarsh]

well, it all depends...

You haven't told us anything about your room, you real associated equipment, your listening volume requirements in that room, etc.

The WMTMW is a full three way, - which version of DTQWT are you looking at, the original two way, or the full bore three way MkII or MkIII in 150 L cabinet with the Eminence Deltalite woofers? (the latter is the one worth building- IMO) 150L is a lot of cabinet volume- do you have room for that, and enough space behind it to "breath" for the woofers.

BTW, though Troels describes this as horn loaded, the physicist in me must disagree- it appears to be a reverse taper dual driver transmission line- the mouth dimensions are NO where near what would be necessary for a true horn. That doesn't change how you'll enjoy or not enjoy the system, of course.

This would be a fun sort of build- old school high efficiency with more modern drivers and materials, but still in the end it's a 40Hz to 16kHz kind of speaker that is actually what I would call a 2.5 way, not a thee way, as the two woofer systems work in parallel in the bottom end, and the big woofer pressurizes the small one and reduces it's excursion.

The things it sacrifices for efficiency are the bandwidth of the tweeter, due to the Audax and Seas's design- they are in a classic mold, and I bet the guys who love SET's would love a pair of these speakers, for producing a certain kind of sound. (I call it high end golden age HiFi- pleasurable, and not to be dismissed, but not without some limitations. Get a good table and preamp, and a really clean power amp (i wouldn't really recommend that SET, unless you like and thrive on all the added harmonic distortion- something like a Cambridge Auido 651A would do the trick, and be very economical, and ultra clean and quiet, (if that's what you want- it may not be... )

See the "On the Bench" forum section for measurements on the 651W.

The Anthologies are much more compact, need much more power (hmmm, it is the 21st century, as I recall, and good power is relatively cheap, relative being a relative term (my cheap (651A) may be your high end), are wider band, and to a degree, focused as much on the demands of HT as for music.


In the end, it's what you subjectively prefer and can live with over the long haul. You haven't provided enough information about your true needs, or even wants, to comment intelligently. So I should sign off now on this, while we're still both ahead... :W

(last thing, to put 150L cabinets in perspective, these speakers have 120L bass cabinets...



My girl friend called these "Bonnie and Clyde", because in her mind they were criminally over sized for the home (that's her family room) and they have been in storage for some time now... but not forgotten.

[xam198]

Thanks for the answer.
The room is around 6mx4mx4m - big volume. The equipement is HTPC with pro soundcard, the amp is actualy Crest audio 4001 but that will change, don't know yet for what (would like tube amp but a little worried about HT usage).
Usually, I play loud. The WMTMW dayton classic i own are, i think bigger than DTQWT, but smaller than the Statements.
Perhaps i'm wrong, but of all my lectures, i would think that DTQWT sound "live", and i like this sort of sound. But perhaps so does the Anthology, i don't know.
It's impossible for me to listen any of them before building, so all opinions are welcome.

[JonMarsh]

Live, as in live rock and roll concerts, or live, as in live classical music concerts (which means you are not aware of there being any electronics even if there are)

Big difference.

[xam198]

I prefer the Live, as in live rock and roll concert (perhaps it isn't the live style of dtqwt). Like the difference between a live session and an album of the same music.

[Jim Holtz]

I prefer the Live, as in live rock and roll concert (perhaps it isn't the live style of dtqwt). Like the difference between a live session and an album of the same music.

The Anthology's have exceptional dynamic capability for a 3-way speaker but 112 - 115 db peaks should be maximum. live rock concerts will routinely exceed that. I'd suggest you consider a line array. Selah Audio has many line array designs available. They'll "cruise" at 120 db and immerse you in the performance. I know this to be true since I used to own a pair.

The Anthology's were designed to be an affordable audiophile quality speaker that also performs really well for home theater in a normal size listening room.

HTH

Jim

[xam198]

Hi, I don't know about line array, but I know that the level I have with my classic Dayton wmtmw is enough for me. I use to have Avant Scene Elektra :

Image not available

Definitively audiophile, but not able to play loud in my room. The Dayton Classic WMTMW play loud, but a little aggressive. I think I'm looking for something like my Avant Scene Elektra, but able to play louder. Perhaps this is not compatible with live sound, but I was thinking, from what I read, DTQWT would be. Anthology also ?

[Jim Holtz]

I'm not familiar with the DTQWT design but I see it's a 2-way so yes, the Anthology's should easily exceed the dynamic capability of your Classics or the DTQWT. The Antholgy's do require 18" positioning from the back of the speaker to wall behind for best performance Basically they work really well 18"-36" out from the wall.

Search for build threads here on HT Guide for build tips and builder listening reviews. Complete documentation is available on Curt's website and kits ar available through Meniscus.

Good luck with what ever you choose!

Jim

Good

[xam198]

Thanks very much for your answers and help. The big factor for me, in the end, is the ratio Q/P, keeping in mind that i want better than the Classics. The DTQWT is, for me, appeiling, but my feeling is that the ratio Q/P is better whith Antology : as i read somewhere, DTQWT seemsn to be a "no cost object" project. Everything you said seems to go in this way. Yes i will read listening reviews since i can't listen by myself, to fix me ideas.
Thanks again!

[flamethrower1]

I have built and am currently running the Anthology's.
I listen to more music than HT use and most of the source material is vinyl.
All my gear is Emotiva because that is what I can afford.
My taste in music is very wide ranging, anything from AC/DC to Allison Krause.
No matter what genre the Anthology's play them all, very well.
Glad I built them, they are a very nice speaker for the cost/time invested.
I seriously doubt you would be disappointed with them.
Just my 2 cents worth

[xam198]

Thanks all for your answers.
I think i would go for the Statement II remix (in Anthology Box).
But still lack of opinions on DTQWT, so if some knows a little about them in this forum, would be very interesting.

[xam198]

Hi again, since i've choose to make the Statements II remix, i would like to make the front with a Marten coltran momento style :





Would it have some problem of diffraction with the thin multiple vertical junctions you can see on the picture ? Is it ok also to chanfrein edges of the front panel, or make them round ?

[JonMarsh]

Roundovers on the side dimensions will only help matters, and the thin vertical grooves should pose no diffraction issues that are audible, or likely measurable.

[TEK]

Hi again, since i've choose to make the Statements II remix, i would like to make the front with a Marten coltran momento style :





Would it have some problem of diffraction with the thin multiple vertical junctions you can see on the picture ? Is it ok also to chanfrein edges of the front panel, or make them round ?

That is just so cool. What are you planning on doing the baffel in? Real wood?
I'm playing around with the idea of making a set of Wavecore Ardent with a Morten Coltrane Tenor look.

https://www.marten.se/coltrane/tenor.htm

Given that the main shape is quite close to the Ardents I'm thinking that if I adjust the measurements to the same width as the Ardents it should hopefully give a auditable result equal to the Ardents.
(But currently there are a number of other task qued up before this - so I suspect such a build to be quite some time into the future)

[xam198]

I like tips and tricks when doing such a job.I think i will use oak plinth (i hope it is the right english word), and solid wood for the top.
Thanks for the answer Jon.

[TEK]

I think that you must accept that a baffel out of solid wood will move and change in size as humidity changes.
As long as that is your starting point you can design for this. I think you should consider:
- use wood that is good and dry
- make the baffel so that it is mounted on the rest of the casing and can move a bit (put a gasket between the baffel and the box)
- ensure that you have a tiny bit of extra space between the drivers and the wood so that the driver will not be pinched by the wood (causing the wood to crack)

I assume that you will have to glue several boards together to get a baffle that is wide enough. And you will probably split and glue several boards together even if you have one that is wide enough - as that will prevent splitting and warping of the baffel.
When you do that you should take care of how the grains in the wood is. I wonder if you should alternate the directions.
Search for "gluing up table tops" and I think you will find a lot of good tip.

But I'm not very experienced in this - I only has this info because I have read up a bit due to my plans on building a workbench - so I hope some of the more seasoned woodworkers here will chime in and correct me if I have given any wrong info...

[xam198]

Yes, I'm aware of moving woods not dry that's why i will use oak plinth and wood board for shelf coming from a diy store, glued on MDF.

[wkhanna]

i did something V similar with my Natalie Portman's.

solid poplar baffle on MDF.

my build can be found HERE

nine years now, they are just fine.

[xam198]

Hi, some questions about tolerance on dimensions : could you tell me how much is it on depth - so on length of tunnels - and width of rear sides ? thanks
Thanks

[Jim Holtz]

Hi, some questions about tolerance on dimensions : could you tell me how much is it on depth - so on length of tunnels - and width of rear sides ? thanks
Thanks

Here are Curt's recommendations from the past for builders that altered the cabinet dimensions;

Baffle width and cabinet depth should not vary more than +/- 10% of the original. Driver spacing (mid & ribbon) should remain the same with the lower mid and top woofer also in the same spacing. This will cause the least impact on the crossover.

HTH

Jim

[xam198]

Thanks a lot, that will be very useful since i'm going to change a little the depth and was wondering about the length of the mids tunnel.

[Jim Holtz]

Thanks a lot, that will be very useful since i'm going to change a little the depth and was wondering about the length of the mids tunnel.

The mid tunnels will need to be adjusted according to your depth reduction. Careful on how much you change from the original design though. The crossover was created to blend the front and back wave based on the dimensions of the Statements cabinet and the Anthology cabinets are already an inch shorter than the Statements. I wouldn't recommend taking more than 3/4" off the Anthology cabinet dept to stay with in the +/- 10% of the Statements cabinet.

Jim

[xam198]

Jim , the drawings of Statements show 14 1/2" for internal depth + 3/4" thickness for the back side, mine should be 16" for internal depth + 3/4" thickens for the back side, i think i stay in the 10% of the statements cabinet, do you think it's ok ? I haven't been totally true when i said 'the statements II in Anthology box" : i take my inspiration of the Statements II remix and plan to follow Dewan drawings for the height and the MTMWW format, but preserve the width - 11 1/2" - of the Statements II. Does it seems ok to you ? Thanks.

[Jim Holtz]

Jim , the drawings of Statements show 14 1/2" for internal depth + 3/4" thickness for the back side, mine should be 16" for internal depth + 3/4" thickens for the back side, i think i stay in the 10% of the statements cabinet, do you think it's ok ? I haven't been totally true when i said 'the statements II in Anthology box" : i take my inspiration of the Statements II remix and plan to follow Dewan drawings for the height and the MTMWW format, but preserve the width - 11 1/2" - of the Statements II. Does it seems ok to you ? Thanks.

If you follow Deewan's Remix build you should be fine. Darren is an experienced Statements builder along with many others and did an excellent job of following the critical dimensions while changing the look a bit. He's a way better cabinet builder than I am. :W

Jim

[xam198]

Another question, since i'm not following exactly Deewan's remix, for the rear side, is there the same tolerance on rear side width ? I've seen other curved statements on the forum , they seem to have a thiner rear side, more than 10% thiner than front side. Are the exits of the tunnel are impacted by the width of rear side?
To be clear, i intend to use curve sides that i've already made BUT, trying to preserve internal volume, tunnel length and front width, brings me to have a rear side of 15" instead of the 11 1/2" +10%. If i can't do that without altering the mid's sound, i think i will stop here with this project for the time being, since i want first to use these curved side and come back to my initial project.

[Jim Holtz]

Another question, since i'm not following exactly Deewan's remix, for the rear side, is there the same tolerance on rear side width ? I've seen other curved statements on the forum , they seem to have a thiner rear side, more than 10% thiner than front side. Are the exits of the tunnel are impacted by the width of rear side?
To be clear, i intend to use curve sides that i've already made BUT, trying to preserve internal volume, tunnel length and front width, brings me to have a rear side of 15" instead of the 11 1/2" +10%. If i can't do that without altering the mid's sound, i think i will stop here with this project for the time being, since i want first to use these curved side and come back to my initial project.

The critical dimensions are front baffle width and tunnel depth that should fall in the +/- 10% spec. You should be OK.

Jim