AviaTrix MT:

[blue934]

Go

Sides are Walnut, top/bottom, front and back are Hickory. This was all that was left from the AviaTrix MTM TL's. I thought it would be cool to "frame" the walnut with the Hickory. As it is, the hickory is very hard and dense. It makes for an extremely ridgid cabinet.


WayneW

well Wayne, that's an exceptional combo! i'm not sure why i thought the sides where black when i first looked, i can clearly see the woodgrain now.
great job

david
________
Lovely Wendie99

[alphaiii]

Re: AviaTrix MT:

What are the dimensions on the cabinets?

[brianbunge]

Re: AviaTrix MT:

Curt,

Any update on these?

[curt_c]

Re: AviaTrix MT:

Hi Brian,

Sorry, no. I do have the initial crossover done, but I’ve not put it together and voiced them yet. I’ve been pulled to other tasks here of late, but I will get this done soon, -as well as putting the whole series up on my website…

Sorry for the delay…

C

[brianbunge]

Re: AviaTrix MT:

Curt,

No problem! I'm just trying to decide what to build for my bedroom system. These are mainly being designed with little/no BSC right? I'm thinking of building them as skinny towers for the mains in my bedroom so if you wanted to do an XO version with 3-4dB of BSC and a ported (or TL'd) cabinet as well that would be awesome! ;) Just an idea for people with smaller rooms where the MTM's might be overkill as mains. I'd still do the MTM for center channel...

[greywarden]

Re: AviaTrix MT:

What did you use to mount the woofer?? Looks interesting!

[curt_c]

Re: AviaTrix MT:

The MT BSC will still be adjustable with the tweeter resistor. More resistance = more BSC. While they will be an 8 ohm design, their relatively low sensitivity will require more amp voltage for high Spl’s. Not lots of power, but the higher voltage rails in higher power amplifiers.

A MLTL MT version would have the same baffle size as the MTM, but with half of the depth. One caveat: The mid driver would be mounted at the same position as the tweeter is in the MTM for the best ripple reduction.

C

[exojam]

Re: AviaTrix MT:

Curt,

I am looking forward to when these are finished. It looks like I maybe able to use my recession buster cabinets for these.

James

[lostboy77]

Re: AviaTrix MT:

The MT BSC will still be adjustable with the tweeter resistor. More resistance = more BSC. While they will be an 8 ohm design, their relatively low sensitivity will require more amp voltage for high Spl’s. Not lots of power, but the higher voltage rails in higher power amplifiers.

A MLTL MT version would have the same baffle size as the MTM, but with half of the depth. One caveat: The mid driver would be mounted at the same position as the tweeter is in the MTM for the best ripple reduction.

C

Now has really sparked my interest.

Curt,

I remember a while back you mentioned to someone the possibility of “folding” the TL for the MTM version and laying it on its side, then adding legs to create a table of sorts.

Would it be possible to fold the MLTL MT you described above back and fire the port out the rear to create a “full range” desktop speaker?

I really like the idea of using the Aviatrix TM as a high end computer speaker but don’t like the idea of using a sub with my PC. If I could pull off a MLTL MT and end up with an enclosure size about 7.5w/22.75h/13.75d, that would make a killer table top speaker.

Any thoughts?

[fastbike1]

Re: AviaTrix MT:

Take a look at the Aviatrix' woofer's little brother. Simple design, reportedly great sound (haven't built mine yet), may do everything you want.

http://techtalk.parts-express.com/showthread.php?t=218177

I really like the idea of using the Aviatrix TM as a high end computer speaker but don’t like the idea of using a sub with my PC. If I could pull off a MLTL MT and end up with an enclosure size about 7.5w/22.75h/13.75d, that would make a killer table top speaker.

Any thoughts?

[curt_c]

AviaTrix MT: Crossver and enclosure plans

Sorry for the delay in getting this information out: I got sidetracked by the PS drivers. I don't have the actual network schematics together yet, but its easy enough to see from the layout.

I've been listening to them this weekend, and I'm just as enamored with them as the MTM version. The crossover shown was optimized for placement near the wall boundaries, and have a surprising amount of bass extension. These would be appropriate for more intimate venues, or for surround duties.

I'd appreciate it if some kind soul would check over the drawings and make sure I made no typographical or numerical errors.

C

[lostboy77]

Re: AviaTrix MT:

Sweet . . . Thanks Curt!

Quick question. I am planning on using this for low volume "full range" desktop speakers with no sub. Do you think the bass is deep enough to go subless or should I consider a larger ported design (if that is even an option here). Keep in mind that these will mostly be used in my office late at night so high SPL is out of the question.

[curt_c]

Re: AviaTrix MT:

Assuming your desk is against the wall, and you will be using them predomently for music, I'd say they will fill the bill nicely. Don't expect to hear much in the 30's, but response in the 40's is quite doable.

C

[brianbunge]

Re: AviaTrix MT:

The MT BSC will still be adjustable with the tweeter resistor. More resistance = more BSC. While they will be an 8 ohm design, their relatively low sensitivity will require more amp voltage for high Spl’s. Not lots of power, but the higher voltage rails in higher power amplifiers.

A MLTL MT version would have the same baffle size as the MTM, but with half of the depth. One caveat: The mid driver would be mounted at the same position as the tweeter is in the MTM for the best ripple reduction.

C

Would the port length still be the same for an MT version of the MLTL? I assume a smaller diameter port would work also. And with the tweeter mid mounted where the tweeter is in the MTM would you just space the tweeter in accordance with the baffle layout you posted for the MT version?

Thanks again!

B

[curt_c]

Re: AviaTrix MT:

Would the port length still be the same for an MT version of the MLTL?

Nope, I'll have to model it in Martin's worksheets to determine the port length and diameter.

I assume a smaller diameter port would work also.

Yep. Ditto above...

And with the tweeter mid mounted where the tweeter is in the MTM would you just space the tweeter in accordance with the baffle layout you posted for the MT version?

Yep. The driver spacing and positions on the baffle for the MT should work fine on a MLTL MT version.

C