Project NEXUS... A timbre matched family of Hi-Fi/HT speakers

MTM design ported, Can i keep the internal volume the same "0.486 cu.ft and increase the width ?
i want to widen it to 30.25" each, depth to 6" , keep the height to 7"
Two MTM side by side to look like soundbar

 

I am getting Dayton Sub 1200, Fosi 2.1 channel amp

 

Yes you can make the cabinet wider like that but I recommend keeping the driver spacing tight, the further you spread them out the greater the off axis cancellation between the drivers.

 

Lovely...I see that you have the crossover board available in ebay. I need help in putting together the parts like you did for my ht88 special, ht88,818s.
I will get the finished cab drawing and post it here.

 

Help Question is where to put the 6" long ports on both the speaker.



Box will have divider in the middle.
Nexus Total - $126.06 per speaker with crossover board - ported.
Parts express - Curt Campbell design Aviatrix RST is $125 per speaker - Sealed.
Couldn't find any comparison chart between these two. Nexus driver is bigger.
I will run this Dayton Sub1200 and Fosi 2.1 AMP

 

The ports would probably work best placed on the sides, but you could use a smaller diameter and therefor shorter port on the front.

Otherwise you could possibly get the 2-1/2" port to work in that depth cutting it slightly shorter so that you are left with about 1" of clearance between the port and the opposite wall of the enclosure if mounting it on the front/top/bottom. So 5.25 - 5.5" long depending on the thickness of the cabinet material you use. I feel the port tuning should be within the usable range if done like that.

 

For anyone looking to build WTMW Center.

 

I am so happy that I came across your line of speakers. I have a living room 5.2.4 setup currently. I want to upgrade to a 7.4.4 using the WTMW center design with vertical versions for the L, R and surrounds. I have a question. My Marantz Cinema 50 can now implement Dirac ART. Do you think making the speakers ported would be a good idea if I go down the ART path?

 

Hello Matt,
I tried 2x HT-88 bookshelf(s) in horizontal orientation, i am satisfied with the sound. So thinking of going with Nexus WTMW Center(s) like below.
I kept the driver distance like original design, same front baffle height, but i adjusted the width to be closer to 33. Kept the driver on one end same like original build.

Question:

1. I assume this is fine - What's your thoughts?
2. Do you sell "Finished cross over board for nexus WTMW center?", I do see that plain crossover board is available.

 

Hey Matt, I hope all is well! I have a couple questions about the WTMW tower or Nexus Towers in general.
1. If running the towers full range in 1.70 - 2.60 ft3 enclosures do we need to worry about the 8" subs if watching movies (high pass filter)?
2. How high of air port velocity is an issue with the speakers? I'm seeing about 23 m/s using two 2" ports in the smaller 1.70 ft3 box. Thanks in advance and for the awesome work!

 

@mga2009 how did your nexus atmos enclosures turn out? I am putting together a small 5.1 system and I was thinking of using a shallower MT box due to proximity of surrounds to seats. Do you have a diagram with dimensions by chance?

 

Sorry for the delay,
1) You should have no issues providing the speakers with a fullrange signal without a highpass.

2) 23 m/s is acceptable if that is the air velocity at full power, though that number does seem low for the given port size and two 8" woofers.

 

Hi @Matt Grant

Thanks for this design! The towers have exceeded my expectations by far! I will post pictures soon.

I am trying to minimize depth for some MT surrounds and also maybe save time. Both of the options below have the same rough internal volume but both change the size of the baffle… Will the difference be noticeable?

Cinergy Audio 8x12x6.75 Enclosure in 1/2” Baltic Birch .25 cu ft

PE Enclosure 7.5x11.5x8.5 in .75 MDF .23 cu ft

CA option for reduced depth being my preference…

thanks!
Jon

 

Hi Jon, always good to hear positive feedback.

The change in baffle should not be too problematic, just a tiny bit more output in the lower midrange. Here is the difference in simulated diffraction response between the stock baffle and the Cinergy Baffle:

 

I am putting together a small media room in our basement. I am expecting a 50/50 mix of movies and music so I decided to give Matt’s nexus design a try, and I am sure glad I did! I don’t have any measurements, but they sound fantastic, and the bass response is amazing!

This is the first time I used veneer and although I would do few things different next time, I think the walnut veneer turned out well. I got the stripe idea from another build thread and I really think it makes them standout.

Thanks again to Matt for the design and the crossover PCBs as well as the Cinergy baffle simulation for the surrounds above!!!

Here are some pics in case someone is interested:

 

Hello Matt,
I’d really appreciate your advice. I’m currently deciding between a few different speaker options, and while I know each has its own “flavor,” living in Egypt makes it difficult to audition them locally. On top of that, shipping and tariffs nearly double the cost, so I want to be sure before committing.
My plan is to build a pair of stereo speakers along with a center channel to replace my Klipsch RP‑600M II and RP‑500C II. I’m aiming for more clarity and refinement, with usage split about 70% music and 30% home theater. The options I’m considering are:
1. Nexus towers with matching center channel
2. DIYSG HT‑10 with HT‑88 for center
3. Three HT‑88s for LCR
4. Helix MTM by Jeff Bagby for LCR
For the subwoofer, I’m planning to replace my Klipsch RP 10” with two 12” GRS units using your 12” starter design.
Apologies for the long post, but I know you’ve had experience with many of these designs and I’d value your honest opinion.
Thanks in advance for your feedback!

 

For 70% music use I would lean towards Nexus or Helix over the HT-10/HT-88.

I've only listened to to Helix TM design shortly while I was helping to develop its alternate impedance options. I do feel the larger 3-way design gives the Nexus a clear advantage over the Helix even though the Helix designs use higher quality drivers. From a technical standpoint the 3-way center will have better dispersion then a conventional MTM placed sideways which inherently has midrange cancellation lobes horizontally off axis.

 

Hi Matt, wanted to thank you for making this design available to us. Just spent a few days assembling the center channel and floor standing speakers for a 3.2 HT system and they sound absolutely amazing for both music and movies/shows.

Took some time to get the crossovers working, but now that they are I would 100% pursue this design again. Thanks Matt.

 

Aloha! On my current upgrade path, my center channel is the next part to upgrade. I have a denon x1700h for my AVR, 2 pairs of DIY 15" dual subwoofer boxes running on a Crown amp, 2 pairs of c-notes for the surrounds and rears, and a pair of Cambridge Soundworks Tower II's for my L+R. And now I cant decide on a center channel. Currently its down to the Nexus Center Channel, and the HT-88 (or maybe the 88 Special, lol) Any input as to which would peforrm better on my system?