Alpair or Jordan

Status
This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.
I shd have said breakup rather than harshness- hence why I thought maybe a shaped sponge phase plug might help if glued onto the '92.

ultrakaz I'm a big fan of the smaller 60mm jordan driver, will give the larger new A10s a try and see how they compare at the top end, shd be interesting.
 
Last edited:
I shd have said breakup rather than harshness- hence why I thought maybe a shaped sponge phase plug might help if glued onto the '92.

ultrakaz I'm a big fan of the smaller 60mm jordan driver, will give the larger new A10s a try and see how they compare at the top end, shd be interesting.

The 60mm Jordan has to be better than the A10 at the top end or the Jordan is broken. The A10 not matter how well designed cannot defeat the laws of acoustic physics. And it may well be "better" in some ways than the JX92s (I don't know), but looking at the frequency response graph it trades off a rising top end for improved off axis response. You will still be listening to cone breakup massaged and disguised by clever design. It is too big to give resolution of music at the top end, not just extension as seen on a graph via test tones. Alas, there is no free lunch. Why not simply seal the Jordan 6 and roll in the JX92s at the -12db point?
 
The 60mm Jordan has to be better than the A10 at the top end or the Jordan is broken. The A10 not matter how well designed cannot defeat the laws of acoustic physics. And it may well be "better" in some ways than the JX92s (I don't know), but looking at the frequency response graph it trades off a rising top end for improved off axis response. You will still be listening to cone breakup massaged and disguised by clever design. It is too big to give resolution of music at the top end, not just extension as seen on a graph via test tones. Alas, there is no free lunch. Why not simply seal the Jordan 6 and roll in the JX92s at the -12db point?

Its all a trade-off at the HF's
the jxr6 is a gem of a driver but needs a simple crossover, the bigger A10 needs no crossover which must help.

edit: saw this design using the first gen A10..is the colour a 'special' and are the specs correct? http://www.eng.sup-audio.com/html/full_range.html
 
Last edited:
frugal-phile™
Joined 2001
Paid Member
Gold colour was a standard finish.

I had a set of gold A6 thru here. It is a very nice colour.

alpair6-gold-gold.jpg


The current "gold" is really copper, and derived, i believe, from an effort to make CHR that matched the colour of the phase plug in the SDX7. I rather like it.

A7eN-copper-comp.jpg


dave
 
frugal-phile™
Joined 2001
Paid Member
Loud enuff for me in most cases in my room.

These drivers in mMar-Kel6 (before treatment) got a lot of attention at last years fest. They, to my mind, aren't as good as the A6p protos i have now in that box, so the production units (metal & paper should be a big improvement)

I also used them FR with a pair of powered SDX7 woofers coming in under them. Quite satisfying

dave

dave
 
I like the alpairs but the only issues (for me) are SPL's and the huge diameter baskets which spoil the cabinet design I wanted to use them for. The new alpair 6 on winisd shows an f3 of 55 hz, pretty impressive (did I make a mistake?). Would like to use these in a desktop TL, but will have to somehow trim the basket diameter down. Not sure how.
 
Last edited:
what are the correct specs for gen 2 alpair 6? I have seen 2 different ones.


per post on Mark Audio forum here:

Alpair 6M parameters:
Driver 4.0 Ohm
Revc 3.60 Ohm
Fo 63 Hz
Sd 36.3 Cm²
Vas 4.8 Ltr
Cms 2.58 m M/N
Mmd 2.48 g
Mms 2.57 g
BL 2.81 T·M
Qms 2.76
Qes 0.45
Qts 0.38
Levc 128.7 uH
No 0.243 %
SPLo 85.4 dB
Xmax 5.2 mm (1 way)
Power 15 watts nom. 30 Max
Coil 18-mm dia. Alu-copper



I'm not sure if /where he's published specs for A6P paper - presumably at least several will be slightly different
 
per post on Mark Audio forum here:

Alpair 6M parameters:
Driver 4.0 Ohm
Revc 3.60 Ohm
Fo 63 Hz
Sd 36.3 Cm²
Vas 4.8 Ltr
Cms 2.58 m M/N
Mmd 2.48 g
Mms 2.57 g
BL 2.81 T·M
Qms 2.76
Qes 0.45
Qts 0.38
Levc 128.7 uH
No 0.243 %
SPLo 85.4 dB
Xmax 5.2 mm (1 way)
Power 15 watts nom. 30 Max
Coil 18-mm dia. Alu-copper

If this is right, then the old spec A6 goes much lower. With these specs I'm getting F3 65 hz optimum on winisd

old spec A6


vas 3.3
qts 0.48
fs 74

86 db (better) F3 55 hz optimum (far better)
 
Last edited:
frugal-phile™
Joined 2001
Paid Member
If this is right, then the old spec A6 goes much lower. With these specs I'm getting F3 65 hz optimum on winisd

F3 55 hz optimum (far better)

1st off the old A6 needs to be compared to A6P. A6M is optimized for smaller boxes (will work in 1.5 litre!!).

Sometimes WinISD "optimums" are not, What box volumes and tunings?

The results are comparable. A6P will work in larger box and can go a bit lower, It is more efficient (from spec), i'll let you know how they measure once they come off the break-in bench.

T/S and sims don't speak at all to the lage sonic improvements with the new drivers (an assumption based on proto A6P and the differences on the larger drivers with similar improvements.

dave
 

Attachments

  • A6-comparisonFR.gif
    A6-comparisonFR.gif
    17.1 KB · Views: 200
1st off the old A6 needs to be compared to A6P. A6M is optimized for smaller boxes (will work in 1.5 litre!!).

Sometimes WinISD "optimums" are not, What box volumes and tunings?

The results are comparable. A6P will work in larger box and can go a bit lower, It is more efficient (from spec), i'll let you know how they measure once they come off the break-in bench.

T/S and sims don't speak at all to the lage sonic improvements with the new drivers (an assumption based on proto A6P and the differences on the larger drivers with similar improvements.

dave

I'm wanting to compare just the metal 6, old version and new one. It is a big spec difference(if correct) and winisd should be ok for simple comparisms like this
 
You're not really comparing like with like though; the design objectives of the Gen1 & Gen2 units are not quite the same. Maximum LF extension was not the goal with the latter; improved compensation for step loss & linearity were the main goals, plus the ability to be squeezed into smaller cabs.

Incidentally, I wouldn't recommend trying to trim down the basket. You'll severely damage its structural integrety.
 
Last edited:
Status
This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.