Want ideas on making Monitor 10T's (M10 in a linear 11T configuration)

pkquat

This would take the guts of an M10 with the side by side MW's and make an MTM setup like 11T(L)'s but with a 10" passive.

Has anyone looked into this? Cabinet volumes etc. Is it even possible? Maybe a trapezoid or flared cabinet?

I might be picking up a pair with one cabinet that is heavily water damaged, but "still works". I guess the other cabinet is "rough" but physically fine. Its first come first serve or it could turn into a bidding war.

pkquat

I missed out on them, but I saw them. They were garage speakers for sure, and mostly likely parts speakers, but not good ones. The dust caps were all pushed in. Not a real loss, but I am still curious about the idea of an M10T speaker.

The plus side is I wound up getting some actual M11T's. That will be another thread.

codycatalist

I am guessing you mean the RTA11t(L's) models? I love em for HT duty, a 10 inch passive would require some cabinet surgery as they accept two 8 inch passives. I would say if you run into another pair of cabs test it out, there is more to building a franken speaker but not my area of expertise.

heiney9

Look up D'appolito design, that's what makes the RTA11-t and tl's such a smooth and open performer. Use the RDO replacement tweets not the horrid sl2000.

If you can't do that, don't bother as unless the cross-over is designed properly and drivers aligned properly it won't sound like an RTA11-t. You should call it a kabuki speaker at that point.

H9

pkquat

Yes I picked up some RTA11T(L)'s M11T didn't look right, but my head was thinking Monitor series from the 10's at the time, so I ran with it to sort out later.
I should have called an M10 turned into an RTA an RTA10T. To bad I can't change the topic title.

My original plan was checking out some damaged M10's, and if the drivers were in good enough shape do something with them. I was told the tweeters were black, and the cabinets dark. My first thought was "peerless" and rosewood but later realized the faceplates are black so it could be any tweeter, and I think there was a dark walnut or something. The M10's had the SL2000's in them, and as mentioned all the dust caps were pushed in. I would have passed on them anyway.

The cabinets for RTA10T's would be new and custom. My thought is to match the RTA11T D'appolito locations, and then expand the box to fit the 10" passive. In theory if the total volume matches the M10 it should work, but I'm sure there are many other factors. I was curious if anyone had already looked into this, or had the interior cabinet volumes.

This may not even be worthwhile. After doing some more digging, the RTA11T with dual 8's has more bass surface area, so in theory more bass, and people say the RTA11T's dig deeper and have more bass than the M10's.

heiney9

Mimicking the RTA11's configuration would get rid of the M10's natural lobing and smearing issues if done correctly. I think you might be able to use the M10 x-over if both drivers are crossed over the same. I can't remember from memory. If not just copy the RTA11's crossover. I'd use the newest schematic and the RD0 tweeters since that's what the RTA11 x-over is optimized for.

H9

K_M

Mount the passive radiator on one of the sides?
No reason it has to be on the front really.

K_M

The Monitor 10 is about 3 cubic feet total volume, measured on outsides.

The Rta 11t is about 3.4 cubic feet total volume measured on outsides. Probably a bit less with the riser removed, maybe 3.2 cubic feet.

So not all that different in the end.
Both are huge boxes though for 2-6.5" woofers!
We own both and prefer the Rta11t for sure. Deeper bass and just more coherent overall.

heiney9

The RTA uses 2 different passive radiators tuned at different frequencies. The mid woofs are crossed for those passives, so just getting the volume and new passive size isn't enough to ensure a seemless blend. It's much more complicated than that. Side firing passives/woofer have placement issues to keep in mind.

So very different in the end.

heiney9

If it were me I'd approach it from keeping the 2 mid-woofs crossed like they are in the RTA11's and then try to figure the single passive and volume based on that. It's more important to have a solid D'appolito array and then tune for a passive than the other way around.

The more I think, it maybe easier to have a single passive rather than 2 as far as the tuning goes, but the final product might not sound as good or at the very least sound a lot different than the RTA11

pkquat

The crossovers are the same for the M10 and RTA11T (The original RTA is an M10 with whiteout and new drivers, name, etc.) Oddly the RTA8T is almost the same. It skips the 12uF electrolytic across the resistor. The TL versions don't match exactly, but the passive in the M10 could have changed for its SL2500 TL version. The RTA also uses 6510's vs 6503's in the M10's. IDK if this is the reason for the SL3000 mod being different than the RTA11TL crossover.

The stock cabinet sizes are close so in theory it might be possible. I figured if the box would need to be wider and shorter if it was a rectangle. but depth might be an issue. I might be able to be the same size or a little shorter if the width was kept the same for the top or a little smaller at the top and wider at the bottom. There are calculations and some recommend spaces and sizes for speakers. One of the DIY'ers may know better when it drifts into territories that can have ill affects.

The side firing passive would be an easy way to fit a 10" passive in. I never thought of that. There can be issues, but usually they are in the L/R configuration firing towards each other. Its not uncommon.

Since I didn't get the M10's with a bad cabinet it, moot to me at this point. I'm more wondering if anyone has researched it. It has got me wondering why the RTA used the 6510's and the 10's used the 6503's. They are almost identical.
http://forum.polkaudio.com/discussion/118471/current-production-drivers-vintage-support/p1

On a side note, that I will get into more on when I start my RTA11 questions thread, the RTA11T's I got are SUPER power hungry. Were 10's power hungry too? I'll have to try the RTA11T's with my Hafler again to see if its load specific. I wouldn't think my Parasound 2250 would be that affected by load differences.

heiney9

They will continue to be power hungry, although when I owned my RTA11's, they didn't seem power hungry at all. They are relatively efficient.

It could be the mid-woofs in the RTA11's are chosen for pairing with the two different passives.

H9

K_M

heiney9 wrote: »

They will continue to be power hungry, although when I owned my RTA11's, they didn't seem power hungry at all. They are relatively efficient.

It could be the mid-woofs in the RTA11's are chosen for pairing with the two different passives.

H9

If anything I think most would agree, the Rta11t is fairly efficient and easy to drive.

pkquat

There must have been some sort of connection issue last night. When I compared them to the 1'Cs today they were close, but a little less efficient than the 1'Cs, and less than my M5's. Yesterday the P5 got to 3pm :surprised: with a lower level CD, today, it was about 1pm with some room left over.

skrol

could keep the cabinet volume the same, make as narrow as possible to accommodate the 6.5" mid bass drivers and side mount the 10" PR. This would likely make the speakers very sensitive to placement near walls.

K_M

K_M wrote: »

The Monitor 10 is about 3 cubic feet total volume, measured on outsides.

The Rta 11t is about 3.4 cubic feet total volume measured on outsides. Probably a bit less with the riser removed, maybe 3.2 cubic feet.

So not all that different in the end.
Both are huge boxes though for 2-6.5" woofers!
We own both and prefer the Rta11t for sure. Deeper bass and just more coherent overall.

This should have said, "We HAVE owned both", we currently have the Rta11t, but no longer the Monitor 10.