Suggest me a FR driver?

Status
This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.
I tried this once before but I got the question wrong and the answers never really hit target.
So, let's have another go at it. :D

Today I have a pair of ML TQWT with Jordan Jx92s.
I'm fairly happy with them but not completely.
- I feel the sound is somewhat veiled.
- I'm forced to use bsc.

Options
- New cabinet -> It'll fix #2 but the veiled sound is likely to persist
- New drivers + new cabinet, possibly a fix to both issues but I have no clue what driver to pick and this is where you guys come in.

The goal
A speaker that really plays music, good tight bass, not to harsh upper midrange, no bsc. I want the music to come alive!

The question
What drivers would you suggest? I suspect a BLH is the way to go since I want to avoid using a bsc.
I'll be using OTL tube amps -> High impedance drivers is a big + but not strictly necessary.
I'm not rich -> the expensive exotics are out of my reach.

So, mid to high impedance drivers for a BLH.
40-20kHz would be awsome but I'm willing to sacrifice some low bass for a good overall solution. 20kHz would be nice but I realize some drivers have limitations, anything above 15kHz will probably work as long as it doesn't sound veiled.

What would you suggest?
Is it doable?
 
I can't comment on 'veiled' because I don't know what it means. However, FWIW:

The MA drivers have an advantage over some others in that Mark has engineered some compensation for step-loss into their basic response, so, providing the box is also designed to work in conjunction with this, no Eq is needed.

The Alpair 10 looks to have a more linear frequency response than the Alpair 12?

Nope, they're much of a muchness (the A12 is actually somewhat more extended at the top end than the current [shortly to be replaced] A10). The difference in the graphs is due to the fact that since the A10 was released, Mark has reduced the amount of smoothing applied to the graphs on his data sheets.

Maybe the 12 is still a better choice? It's bigger...

Irrespective of size, the A12 is a much more advanced / sophisticated driver than either the JX92S, or the Mk1 A10.
 
Why not buy another pair of JX92s and implement Griffin's offset dipole? That should eliminate the bsc, and relieve the Jordan somewhat. You pick the impedence; 4 or 16 ohm. "Come alive" may require a high spl multi driver setup- not the domain of single "full range" drivers. So, even going to a Lowther would require bsc and or a sub.

I would stay away from the Markaudio drivers until a "mature/final" design is released. (Of course that will require time.) The Mk2 or "next gen" versions come too quickly to keep up with let alone find evolved cabinets for them. I don't want to be involved in R&D unless I'm getting paid or receive the drivers for free.
 
frugal-phile™
Joined 2001
Paid Member
To reinforce what Scott said. The 2nd generation Alpair drivers are a step change improvement over the 1st gen. Where the A10 (mk1) is very good, and neck & neck with the JX92, the new generation (so far represented by the A7 & A12) is a significant improvement. Gen 2 A6 & A10 are being detailed as we speak. This will bring the entire line up-to-date (the A5 is still in limbo due to the new Euro rules on ferrofluid)

Be wary of on-axis FR curves. Without the support of off-axis curves they do not tell you much.

dave
 
Smoothing or not the Alpair 12 graph still looks less impressive.
However I'm a no0b with little experience in these matters and like planet 10 said FR curves doesn't tell the whole story.

If you say it's a great driver that will suit my needs I'll take your word for it.
I like the fact that it's a 8" driver and the price is ok.
It's got better impedance, Xmax and power handling. Nothing bad at all really.

Will the built in step-loss compensation show when I run simulations? I use MJK's sheets.
 
frugal-phile™
Joined 2001
Paid Member
Will the built in step-loss compensation show when I run simulations? I use MJK's sheets.

No, because there is no way to input the FR. And you'd need at least every 10 degrees out to 90 degrees to be any use.

Get a hold of Scott and ask about the next beta round of Avebury. I haven't done the revised plans yet, but it is an opportunity you want to check out.

dave
 
Cool. :)
I'll have to take a closer look at the 12 now.
Is the compensation for the step loss reflected in the T/S parameters? i.e. will this show in the simulations?

No, as Dave mentions above, T/S specs. are largely mathematical constructs rather than 'real' parameters (which emphatically isn't to say they aren't useful, just that like anything else, they have their limitations). You can see the lift through the lower mids in the FR plots.

Smoothing or not the Alpair 12 graph still looks less impressive.

If the same level of smoothing was applied, the A12 graph would essentially look like that of the A10, albeit at a higher efficiency.

I would stay away from the Markaudio drivers until a "mature/final" design is released. (Of course that will require time.) The Mk2 or "next gen" versions come too quickly to keep up with let alone find evolved cabinets for them. I don't want to be involved in R&D unless I'm getting paid or receive the drivers for free.

If I may correct you here, the A12 & A7 are finalised; they won't change now for several years. Remember these are new units; they didn't replace anything. The original A6 & A10 had a decent lifespan of several years & are being upgraded to the same technical level as the new drivers, although the specs. will remain v. similar to ensure they can be used in the same enclosures. Again, once released, the new units won't change for several years.
 
Last edited:
Render of Avebury shown below.

Would it be a fair estimate to expect maybe an extra 2dB that doesn't show in the sim?
I'm not looking for any exact figures, just a fair guesstimate.

See the datasheet & the FR response plot, as noted, you can see the lift built into the lower mids. Now, if you design your box to meet the extra gain this provides over the nominal, step-loss is negated.

An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.


Note: feedback from 1st beta has brought some modifications to what is shown.
 
Last edited:
frugal-phile™
Joined 2001
Paid Member
If I may correct you here, the A12 & A7 are finalised; they won't change now for several years. Remember these are new units; they didn't replace anything. The original A6 & A10 had a decent lifespan of several years & are being upgraded to the same technical level as the new drivers, although the specs. will remain v. similar to ensure they can be used in the same enclosures. Again, once released, the new units won't change for several years.

The feedback Mark has gotten from his open interaction of the diy community is that it is important to maintain consistency, so that we can keep using the same boxes. That said, the new drivers become an automatic upgrade just by swapping in the newer tech drivers ... i have 2 different boxes that will soon benefit from the CHR upgrade and i have 2 sets of boxes for my onw set of A10s, so one of them gets an upgrade,

That doesn't preclude Mark making different drivers on the same platform. An Alpair10 Special Edition has been mentioned with higher efficiency for those with the small amplifiers (maybe filling the gap left by the loss of the FE127 & FE167). And paper cone versions of some of the drivers. Means a wealth of choice of very well-engineered consistent drivers,

dave
 
markusG

Hello,

"The goal
A speaker that really plays music, good tight bass, not to harsh upper midrange, no bsc. I want the music to come alive!"

my solution would be a Saxophon:
for the front driver there are a lot of driver available
 

Attachments

  • jeroen,nl2.JPG
    jeroen,nl2.JPG
    18.3 KB · Views: 124
  • saxophoninnen1.jpg
    saxophoninnen1.jpg
    30.8 KB · Views: 128
Hi!

I just asked a similar question in another thread. Just wondering whether Scottmoose or Planet 10 could give some further recommendations about the different models of Mark Audio drivers as they obviously have experience with them.

I'm just wondering whether there is any benefit from using a smaller driver than the Alpair 10 or 12? Will the Alpair 7 give a much better top end in the suggested cabinets?

One person responding to my earlier thread suggested that the Alpair 7 was the most "balanced" and would have better "off axis" response.

Thanks!
Taz.
 
frugal-phile™
Joined 2001
Paid Member
I'm just wondering whether there is any benefit from using a smaller driver than the Alpair 10 or 12? Will the Alpair 7 give a much better top end in the suggested cabinets?

I've yet to get a set of A12s into a proper box to do a valid comparison with the A7. I had them on a temp OB for 2+ weeks (7/24) as they broke in, and it was enuff to tell me that the Mk2 drivers were a seachange. The A7s had 200+ hours on them before they got loaded up into our proto-dMar-Ken. I expected good things, but they were a revelation. They just play music. They do nothing that gets in the way. They don't blow out the back wall with a huge 3D soundstage like the EnABLed drivers do -- any of them, but i fully expect them to respond as well as all the other MA drivers to EnABL -- another pair are on my bench waiting for a batch of FE167, a batch of FF85, and a few other drivers to make time for them.

In one session, i had iTunes (iMac G5>Alesis FireWire DAC>Fornaco>DynaMutt (in pentode)) playing on Shuffle. I found myself glued into the listening spot for hours. And hours. Stuff i'd normally get up and skip over i found myself listening to. Even thou i found the sound bad (bad recording, or music i normally don't relate to, or both), the system was connecting me to the underlying music and i found myself listening thru.

As long as they gain that ability to remove the back wall, these will move up into position as one of my favorite drivers (along with the FE127eN and FF85KeN).

A couple weeks with them and it caused some shuffling of the project queue. My current thots are to build a SuperTysen with 4 SDX7 per side (using this woofer because i like them and have them already -- any decent midbass would do). And to get the A12 in some boxes. Currently waiting on some design parameters from Scott for something different for the A12 (and special -- no i'm not telling).

dave
 
Just to add to Dave's remarks:

Mark's drivers are actually designed to work well off-axis because that's how most people listen, most of the time. Re balance, it depends what you want really, not to mention the size space you have available. As a general overview, the A12 has the greatest dynamic BW, as you'd expect given that it's the largest of the range, & a genuine 20KHz top end. The A7 can't shift as much are but extends up to 30KHz, well above our nominal HF hearing threshold and as you would expect, is a little more linear (which is not to say the A12 isn't; we're talking matters of degree here). The A10 falls somewhere in between, while the A6 is the most linear of the lot, but being the smallest model lacks the dynamic BW of its larger stablemates.
 
Last edited:
Since no-one is saying anything different, it would seam the A12 is king for the day.
I started doing som sims and although this is OT I'd still like to hear your opinion on the matter.

I'm using MJK's MatCad worksheets. Where should my focus lie?
Sim SPL response for the system taking reflections from ceiling, floor and walls into account?
Or Combined SPL Far field?
Or Individual SPL Far field?

The two extremes...
1. BLH -> Combined SPL looks funky, SPL with reflections looks fairly good. (It's all relative)
2. ML TQWT -> Combined SPL is super flat (perfect), SPL with reflections is truly awful.

The A12 looks to have some potential. :D
 
Status
This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.