Looking for off the shelf solutions of the adjustable port idea I came across to an Illinois company Precision Sound that looks like specializes on ports themselves.

http://www.psp-inc.com/

They have some papers that I am looking through

http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/5623132/claims.html

I wish I had more experience with port design to be able evaluate the validity of claims.

I have some strange feeling about this MiniMe idea and I really hate those feelings. The entire concept of MiniMe was to have painlessly integrated with large-speakers mini-monitor with somehow “not to revolting sound”. However, as I go slowly along with this idea I more getting interests in what the sound of this ported speaker might lead into, particularly the  selection of the relatively interesting drivers. Lately I made a number of experiments with location this one of my prototypes (it uses the same bass drivers) and I concluded that if let the mini-monitor to stand-alone on the side of the upper-bass bay then I have WAY more interning results (imaging etc). Interesting the in this location it practically not intrusive in the room decor and take no space (it will be 5” wide). However, then the Pandora Box for many other bad thoughts got opened...

OK, if the MiniMe will be a stand-alone, floor-standing 43’ thin mini-monitor then the MMTTMM configuration will not work and I must to go for TMMMM configuration. The top-bottom ports will not work and I need to go for back ports. I will have no depth of the box limitation and I can go as deep as 12”, if so then the box might have a room on the side for larger LF transducer… The and-alone box might have different, more suitable for it’s location enclosure shape. The integrated box shall have Macondo Frame mounting brackets and HF deflectors. If I go do G10 then it is impossible to weld the brackets…

I can go on with many new opportunities that opened if I do not mount the MiniMe inot the Macondo frame but the the biggest question strikes me: why do I need a second good sounding speaker? Here is my interest between leaning how the speaker might sound if everything is done objectionably and how it will sound if it den with “little blood” conflicts. The two different directions requires deferent design decisions and they are not real dual useable. I have no decision at this point…

drdna wrote:

I would not restrict myself to the idea that things need to be a certain way or a certain configuration of the drivers or ports based on theory alone. I think it is important to ask what is interesting about the sound that the new speaker introduces into the system and how it accomplishes this, then focus on refining this in the approach to the new mini monitors. Adrian

Well, it is not about the “ideas that things need to be a certain way but or a certain configuration of the drivers”. The Macondo frame mounted version and free-standing version would be different as the height of the tweeter much be different. If it mounted in frame then the tweeter shell be at the height of the Macondo’s tweeter and the dimensions are very firm and very strict. I would have much more liberty if it would be a free-stating version. Another problem that is in free-stating version some postulates that I accepted for MiniMe’s idea (like use 4” drivers) shell not be necessary rule.

From a different perspective you are right and if I am interested in the Sound of the speakers then why should I have those artificial boundaries. Well, here is where I thing the problem lies: I am interested about the sound of this thing but I am not sure if I go for “refining” and I do not really need a refine monitor. I mean I would like it to be better but I do not want to spend efforts, time and acquire knowledge to make it better.  I am OK to conceptualize the things, found the interesting drivers, outsource the building and then just to listen the results, perhaps playing a bit with posts and crossovers. I really do not want to do anything else and if I need better sound then from the MiniMe monitor then I just turn the Big Macondo on.

CO wrote:

I agree with Adrian. Dont think too much and set the speakers up and start changing from there, you know its going to change again anyway.. In that light it might be even better to start with a standard mdf cabinet to experiment with port configurations...

Yes, Collin, you are right and this is right way to do the things but I am, not going there- I will have just one shot and it will be it. I am not in the business of DIY speakers self-amusement and I do not see myself making a second MiniMe run. If the adjustable port idea will not work then I juts rise the port’s resonance frequency until it will be good and it will be it.

CO wrote:

You dont need these but you know its fun to do and a new possibility to learn from it. Its an sonic itch.

Yes, I agree there is some fun in it and I am very much would like to hear how those unique 4” woofers of mine would sound in an array of 4 drivers.

CO wrote:

What is the reason for placing them so close to the main system, also for injection ? Otherwise a completely different location could be more beneficial / educating since were not playing with horns here.

There are few reasons. If it will be a standalone version then it will be most likely 5X9X42. As you can see the 5” is very small frontal footprint and it is how I would like to have it. The Macondo’s upper bass channels are macro-imbedded into the hot spots of the room:

http://www.romythecat.com/LatestPosts.aspx?ThreadID=4421

...and it is the same location what I would like to put my MiniMe if they are standalone monitors. I run currently a single left-channel monitor from the hot spot and it files the whole room very beautifully. However, staging there the monitor need to be very small, thin and not obtrusive for Macondo own sound.

The idea that I have at the top of my head are like this: it is 5X9X42-43 in TMMMM configuration with one port at the bottom. It will be adjustable legs at the bottom to lift the port from the floor and to moderate the port “external loading” (I have no idea if it “works” I think it shell). So, I see nothing overly exiting about this idea, there are zillion speakers like this out there. Might will have “interesting drivers” and 5X9 (9 being a dept) footprint. Will the speaker “collapse” then it plays serious music (like all other small speakers do), will it compress, will it have any tone, will it distort at high volume and many other “ifs” – I have no idea. Generally, if it were a freestanding (and I slowly move toward this notion) then I would like to have a third channel- right under the RAAL 70-20RX tweeter I would like to have 4” MF driver. I would like to have something of tonal quality of JBL LE8 only 4” diameter and with sensitively of 95-98dB. I do not mind if it was an expensive driver. I presume that I might use this driver from 300-800Hz to 3000-5000K – a very good range for a good MF. Oliver, if you read it, did Görlich make 4-inchers? Does Scanspek has MF 4-inchers drivers with SD-1 motors that more then 89dB sensitively? I have no knowledge about MF 4-inchers if somebody have an idea feel free to share some leads…

ScanSpeak's 4.5" mid looks nice, but it's still 89dB
http://www.madisound.com/catalog/product_info.php?manufacturers_id=148&products_id=917 
Eton's 4" Symphony looks real nice, but it's only 88dB
http://www.madisound.com/catalog/product_info.php?manufacturers_id=128&products_id=8481 

How about Fostex? 
Don't know if you could find any FE108ES IIs, but I really like them in a second system, in that range (not trying to use them "full range"). 
Really nice tone, good detail, doesn't compress louder than I want to listen to them, even when listening to large symphonic works, or as my wife does, to pick out her part in massed chorale works, e.g. Durufle Requiem Op 9, which has a pretty large dynamic contrast. 

A few pair of FE138 ES-Rs are left if you're interested in going to 5", down to 91.5 dB
http://www.madisound.com/catalog/product_info.php?products_id=8480 ($459 ea there, but information is on that link)
http://www.eifl.co.jp/index/export/export2.htm (one pair left @ $800 / pair)
Or 3.46" FE88ES-Rs.  

And what's with the G10? 
Does it have some special damping properties or something? 
As a machinist I really hate the nasty stuff... 
I don't see why anyone would build anything out of it if you could use anything else if you've ever used it before. 
Wood's a lot easier and less expensive. 
As are various metals. 
Robert

Robert, G10 has no special damping properties that I detected. In fact it is some kind of plastic feeling material. It is “filament glass cloth material with an epoxy resin binder”.

http://www.polymerplastics.com/composite_g10.shtml

I do not fine it as “intellectually pleasant” as LBJ find it. I think gold is rather intellectually pleasant. However, I do find that the G10 is very pleasant to tough. It has that wet and leaky feeling that Teflon has but G10 is harder. It also appears that it has no epoxy-like hardness but “softer”. I do not know about self-damping but I do not think so. The G10  box I presume will sound like plastic box – I see no reason why it shell not. However, my bass drivers are in the very same page: the harden cloth. It all might just work all together… The only problem that I see with G10 is that I shall have more thinness and more bracing than it would need with still of aluminum… anyhow I have no judgment at this point what materiel I would use… I have no way to predict result until the box is made anyhow…

Regarding the 4’ MF driver. I do not know if I need it, I do not know how I might be using it and I do not have a lead idea what driver it might be. Some drivers were proposed. I would like do not have a rubber suspension I would like the mounting size of the driver be no more then 5” (the max width of the front baffle). For instance the AudioTechnology 4H521306, Foxtex 120A might be near OK if I use 2 of them but they are too wide.  I would like very much the monitor to be able to play loud, none of them do and I hate it. Therefore I need 2-3 octave in MF driver before the driver roll off kick in and thus something like ATC SM75-150S might be out of picture. So, the 4” drivers with primary resonance of 200-300Hz are out of picture and I need 70-90Hz of Fs if I cross at 700Hz.  Anyhow at this moment at the lead position is JBL LE5-2 or JBL 2105, side-wide they might barely fit. I never heard them but I have intimate knowledge about LE-8 and I like them a lot. I migh hope that the 5-incher would be in the same family of sound…

How about the 4" Fostex FE108E? http://www.madisound.com/catalog/index.php?manufacturers_id=131&sort=3a&page=1 

It's only too big by 0.080", and if that bothers you, it would be easy to chuck by the magnet, & turn that off the diameter of front basket.  
Even on a slight bevel with a radius to look nice, then black it again and it wouldn't even show. 

It would be in the same family of sound as FE108ES II which I find to be great between 300 - 8000 Hz.  
You might be able to hear them somewhere?
Robert

There is an announcement in the new Hobby Hifi:

Expolinear is going to distribute Görlich drivers. Old price, half of the current elite Car audio stuff, and probably 8 Ohm. 13 and 17 cm will be available with rubber, foam and cloth surround, 20 and 25 cm only with rubber surround.

I am quite fascinated with the result that I might get from MiniME and at the same time I am defensive with the direction it takes. Anyhow, here is how it stands…

The decision to go for MF driver was I think right one. Even the 70-20RX tweeter has some “tools” that enable it to work more of less confidently in MF but I never exited about tonal capacity of ribbons. Also, I would like to make MiniME to be able to play loud and with less compression and therefore I would need some headroom between the lower knee of drivers and their crossover point. So, the 3-way with a good band-pass MF driver is a reasonable, I guess, direction to look, even though I might use MF not as independent channel but rather as pedalpoint for tweeter to woofer WITH the woofers, not to fulfill the gap evenly between LF and HF but rather to help to the ribbon and bass driver to care MF.

A guy who read my site sent me to try the JBL-5-2. I always liked those drivers however; I knew LE-8 and never tried the JBL-5. Playing with JBL-5-2 I figure out that it might be exactly what I need. It has 95dB sensitively. It has the right tonal nobility and it is small. The driver is slightly less dynamic then LE-8 when crosses at the same frequency of 1000Hz. I made a number of experiments with it and end up listening the JBL-5-2 with 25uf cap. That makes approximately 800Hz crossover point. It is possible to drive LE5 lower but then at higher volumes the driver gets compression sooner. Ironically the HF section of the driver is falling apart faster with higher volume. So, I was roiling it off and off and end up with and 0.31mH coil, that makes approximately 4000 crossover point. In fact rolling it even lower sounds more right to me, probably down to 1-2K. All together JBL LE5-2 in 800Hz-4000Hz region the LE5-2 do OK, not perfect but OK. I bought the JBL 2105 – the pro version – I might sound different – who knows…

http://www.audioheritage.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=5706

There are 3 things that attract me in JBL LE5-2 driver – the sensitivity, some tonal qualities (not overly thrilling but better then others) and the absence of the thing that annoy me. I mean the JBL LE5-2 is quite neutral driver in term of character, partiality and bias – this is important for me as I would like do not deal with it in this loudspeaker. It is possible that there are more capable 4-5” MF drivers then LE5/2105. I spoke with a number of people who proposed to me different solutions. For instance the sound like knowledgeable guy from Planet 10

http://www.planet10-hifi.com/

…proposed a number of Fostex solutions.  I do not know - I have seen so much negative result from Fostex side (perhaps improperly implanted) that it makes me prejudicial… From what I have seen the Fostex always loose correlation with sounds when volume goes up. The Fostex-like drivers might work in sever high-pass through, but the 6dB-7dB sensitively is not nothing.  I wonder what would be the new Görlich sensitive, the old one were at 87dB…

So, I have the tweeter, I have the MF driver, I will have my Malaysian woofers. The LE5 is 95dB sensitive the Malaysian woofers are 90.5dB at 1000Hz. The 4 of the woofers would do +6dB that would be just slightly above LE5-2. In addition it will be in array that would make it integrateable at 1-2 db higher. The RAAL 70-20RX is 93-94dB but 96-97dB effectively. That would make the target sensitively of the entire speaker somewhere around 96dB, here and there…

What however, bother me in this idea is that introduction of MF screw up my entire idea of the MiniMe’s simplicity. The 5” thin and straightforward tower with a few brasses is becoming just a dream. The MF driver shell sit at more or less ears level, the tweeter might be above. However, the MF driver needs to be isolated from the pressure of LF drivers, I was trying to use a back change on JBL and I did not like it. So, the speaker shell have sections and waste some volume of the effective speaker height - I do not want to make it too tall.  So, the complexity of the enclosure increases and at this point I do not think that my regular machinist would be able to do it at cost-effective fashion. I am not going to do any enclosure work myself, so it might need lead to bringing some speaker-building specialist to help. Thos guys use wood and wood would bring thickness – bye-bye the 5” front baffle… perhaps I need to make it with ¼ steal sheets and forget about it? I do not know at this point. It is become more complex then I would like it to be… Does anyone who read this know any machinist from New England who would LIKE to build loudspeakers (send me emial if you do).  I am afraid that my machinist when I drown for him all those steal or G10 labyrinths and sections would sent me to hell.

Actually it is very possible that it might be so. I made some rudimental measurements and concluded that RAAL tweeter and JBL midrange mounted in the same baffle has non-perfect time aliment. So, I will need to use gaskets under the drivers to time-align them and it is all keeping the speaker sealed.  Hmmmm, too mach hustle…

Then I thought: the tweeter is sealed and does not care about the box. The MF driver crossed at 700-800Hz does not really care about box as with a small even not-sealed enclosure it already acts as an infinite baffle. So, what not to put the MF and HF drivers in a separate “Island” that would be sitting atop of the main LF section, similar to what Parsifal or small Wilson do? The upper frequency “Island” might be small, with no demands to resonance control, and might use a very thin material, like 1/8 of G10 or the similar. I might not even close the back side of the thing… This would make the entire box design very simple and would enable an easy access to the drivers for time alignment.

MiniMe is growing up...

It is a shame that you will not be able to utilize the ringy dustcap that the origional drivers have, but the JBL LE5-2 driver is quite nice and should not bring many surprises.

Yep, thanks.

I still do not know why you feel that I will not exploit the “ringy dustcaps” on the Malaysian bass drivers; in fact I never gave up on this idea. I preliminary concluded that my MF channel might not go lower then 700Hz but I did not say what will be the upper limit of my woofers. At this point I have no idea now my MF will behave in infinitely baffle incisures, how the channel will be jointed, if the JBL drivers and the Malaysian driver will be able to play together and if they do then how will they overlap. IF the Malaysian array at their upper knee will be able to embraces the TTH characteristic of LE-5, and wise versa….

http://www.goodsoundclub.com/Forums/ShowPost.aspx?postID=5874

… then only God know where I will be able to cross them. The common rules suggest that with first order the overlap between the drivers too large anyhow (lobbing and other issuers…). It is right in theory but in practice it is all baloney and I discard it. If the right drivers are very much time-aliened then it is fine for them to play together and to cover the same range. My thought about it was the reason why in my last drawing I made the “MF Island” not with semi-diamond shape (better for imaging) but rectangular. It was gone because it allows me to flip the “Island” unsaid down, extending inclusion of the MF driver into the Malaysian’s array…

In inversing tweeter, spent some time listing it. It has at 93dB 6.8R and .63mH. The inductance  is too high for my application, so I would need to shunt primary with one more coil to drive inductance   down. I recognize only Bessel curve and it would be:

4kHz – 3.6uF -.43mH
5kHz – 2.9uF -.35mH
6kHz – 2.4uF -.29mH
7kHz – 2.1uF -.25mH

I was driving it up and down and as I expected the higher I cross it the better result was. It is not sound to my likening below 3K but at 6K-7K it is very nice. I think it is where I might end up using it. I did not drive the 70-20RX along with JBL LE5-2 yet – I need some kind of frame to mount them. I do not think that I will be doing it at this point… It looks like it might turn out to be an interesting upper frequency section.  Let hope that LE5 would have enough “colors” to shine through the RAAL’s neutrality. Well, from another side – the LE5 are cheap and I might experiment to soak in cone with kind of chitin or floor polishing… I can see it coming and I sell next CES the drivers that were pre-treated by boiling in collected sputter of adolescent camel.

I came across to a new to me very interesting driver: Scan- Speak Illuminator.

http://www.tymphany.com/15wu_8741t00

it looks like it is new for them as well and it might be very interesting. It is around 84dB, to get any more or less reasonable sensitivity it is necessary to have 6 of them. They are at $230 each- pricy for 12 drivers.  Still it might be interesting. I am not planning to use of for MiniMe – it already way beyond what I need but the opportunity that the Illuminator offers are inspiring.  I am concerned that they do not provide the length of gap and max exertion- the under-hung motor is good  but how far? Anyhow, the Scan- Speak knows what they do and it might be very interesting driver for a MiniMe-like projects. Now, when they will do the 2.5” exertion in full under-hung mode only 18-inchers?

It may be good, though i've worried about SS since Tymphany took over.  I have seen many good companies with good products completely screwed by new management.  Their re-packageing of Peerless into V-Line (or whatever the hell that was) speaks of marketing moronism especially.  The motors they are using on the Illuminators look quite good...neodymium magnets will probably become more and more popular in these type products and perhaps justifiably so.

I found these a few days ago...https://www.solen.ca/pdf/atd/14w2608agti.pdf