Hi all,
My application is this: on my desk, source is computer, and speakers will be 2-3 feet away from me.
I was extremely tempted to go for the EL70 with dave's mMar-Kel70 to fulfil this application. But I've read great things about MA Alpairs, and I thought, why not step it up?
I'm deciding between the Alpair 6M or 6P in the mMar-Ken6 (http://www.frugal-phile.com/boxlib/P10free/mMar-Ken6-1v0-map-231009.pdf) or the Alpair 7.3 in the Slim Classic GR dMar-Ken7.3 (http://www.frugal-phile.com/boxlib/P10free/CGR-dMar-Ken73-301011.pdf).
From what I've read, the A7.3 is superior to the A6M/P, but I have a few concerns:
1. I know both drivers are good for nearfield (i.e. small room) setups. But at such 'extreme' nearfield range (2-3 feet), is there any significant difference between the A6 and A7.3? Mark specifically identified the A6M as suitable for desk-top usage (he said this in the spec sheet).
2. I intend to run the audio straight from my PC to the Lepai LP 2020A+. This is a less-than-ideal setup, and I do hope to upgrade. But the point is, I heard that the A7.3 is extremely revealing, whilst the A6 is more forgiving. Does this make the A6 more suitable for a budget-constrained audio enthusiast like myself? Or should I aim high with the A7.3 and gradually match the rest of my gear up to it?
Sorry for using such vague terms, I have not come to terms with most of the technicalities yet.
My application is this: on my desk, source is computer, and speakers will be 2-3 feet away from me.
I was extremely tempted to go for the EL70 with dave's mMar-Kel70 to fulfil this application. But I've read great things about MA Alpairs, and I thought, why not step it up?
I'm deciding between the Alpair 6M or 6P in the mMar-Ken6 (http://www.frugal-phile.com/boxlib/P10free/mMar-Ken6-1v0-map-231009.pdf) or the Alpair 7.3 in the Slim Classic GR dMar-Ken7.3 (http://www.frugal-phile.com/boxlib/P10free/CGR-dMar-Ken73-301011.pdf).
From what I've read, the A7.3 is superior to the A6M/P, but I have a few concerns:
1. I know both drivers are good for nearfield (i.e. small room) setups. But at such 'extreme' nearfield range (2-3 feet), is there any significant difference between the A6 and A7.3? Mark specifically identified the A6M as suitable for desk-top usage (he said this in the spec sheet).
2. I intend to run the audio straight from my PC to the Lepai LP 2020A+. This is a less-than-ideal setup, and I do hope to upgrade. But the point is, I heard that the A7.3 is extremely revealing, whilst the A6 is more forgiving. Does this make the A6 more suitable for a budget-constrained audio enthusiast like myself? Or should I aim high with the A7.3 and gradually match the rest of my gear up to it?
Sorry for using such vague terms, I have not come to terms with most of the technicalities yet.
I think your solution will depend on how much bass you want and how you intend to get it. If these will be the only speakers in the room for your listening, EL70 or A7.3 would probably be better suited.
If you have plans to use a sub (under the desk, like I use at work), you may find either of the A6 designs will work better. Smaller drivers will theoretically have wider dispersion.
Ultimately, I think this is splitting hairs. All of these drivers are widely reported as great. If you know your preference for metal vs. paper, that could help you decide. Good luck!
If you have plans to use a sub (under the desk, like I use at work), you may find either of the A6 designs will work better. Smaller drivers will theoretically have wider dispersion.
Ultimately, I think this is splitting hairs. All of these drivers are widely reported as great. If you know your preference for metal vs. paper, that could help you decide. Good luck!
For my own little computer monitor system, I was recently gifted a gorgeous pair of solid walnut enclosures fitted with a 3" paper cone driver by different brand maker.
As with many desk top computer setups, these are very nearfield ( less than 3 ft at chair), and powered by a Topping TP30 (quite a delightful performer for the $109 priced tag).
If for no other reason than the size of enclosure required to physically fit the 7.3s, I'd be more inclined towards the A6P myself - at these close distances the ruthless accuracy of the Alpair metals will not make any apologies for the qualities of PC sound card and budget DAC/amp combos, while the papers can be "more forgiving".
As with many desk top computer setups, these are very nearfield ( less than 3 ft at chair), and powered by a Topping TP30 (quite a delightful performer for the $109 priced tag).
If for no other reason than the size of enclosure required to physically fit the 7.3s, I'd be more inclined towards the A6P myself - at these close distances the ruthless accuracy of the Alpair metals will not make any apologies for the qualities of PC sound card and budget DAC/amp combos, while the papers can be "more forgiving".
I do intend them to be the only speakers in my room. I also intend to use the same drivers for quite a while, only possibly trying out different cabinets.
Hi Chris, I highly value your opinion, but having read that the 7.3s are Dave's favourite FRs alongside the EL70, I am extremely tempted to build a system around the 7.3 instead of choosing the driver around my current system.
To build a system around the 7.3, how hi-fi would I have to go? For starters, I am interested in the HRT Music Streamer II as my DAC, and the Trends TA-10.2 as the amp. Would the 7.3 be harsh on these?
Just out of curiosity, what exactly do people mean when they say a speaker is "unforgiving"? I suppose it means they would reveal the flaws in the equipment used, but how so? Would it sound noisy or distorted?
I generally like to consider the application, which in this case I'd interpreted as "small desktop speaker for computer use" - what I'd call an "immediate field monitor" . This entails several factors, not the least of which for me is enclosure size, and the Alpair 6 (paper or metal) can work quite nicely in a much smaller box than the 7. If size is less of a constraint for you, then certainly the 7 is capable of wider bandwidth while not giving up any resolution.
by all accounts the HRT would not be the weak link in this rig - it's been a while since I've listened to the Trends, but I currently have 2 Tripath based amps at home, one of which ( Kingrex T20) is driving a system of dual EL70s, the other (Topping TP30 with DAC) is driving Fostex FF85WK in my computer system. Neither is hurtful, but in the very near field, the Fostex (with metal dome) is very revealing of vagaries in computer sourced audio - iTunes basic player on loss-less files is fine, but many You-tube links that folks like to send or other streamed content is excruciating. To be honest, I haven't yet had a pair of 7s in enclosures small enough to fit on my computer desk to try out, but I'm fairly confident they'd be ruthless as well.
coarse grain (lack of finely resolved detail), highly compressed (lack of dynamics) , FR coloration, are several of numerous types of distortion likely to be encountered, not to mention the program material itself - of course for much of current popular music those items just listed are considered part of the artistic expression
Hi Guys,
I designed the 6M with nearfield and desktop applications in mind. Its power-train is set up for small box uses. For example, BR box sizes of around 2.5 to 3.5 litres should be nice. The 6M's cone substrate is a softer grade than other Alpairs so it is slightly more forgiving. However, like other Alpair's, the 6M will perform best on decent amp and source. A case of rubbish in, will produce rubbish out.
Cheers
Mark.
I designed the 6M with nearfield and desktop applications in mind. Its power-train is set up for small box uses. For example, BR box sizes of around 2.5 to 3.5 litres should be nice. The 6M's cone substrate is a softer grade than other Alpairs so it is slightly more forgiving. However, like other Alpair's, the 6M will perform best on decent amp and source. A case of rubbish in, will produce rubbish out.
Cheers
Mark.
I find the 6Ps are a softer / warmer sound than the Ms, perhaps halfway between the current CHR and CHP70? Perhaps it's my insidious tinnitus, but I find that easier going in nearfield situation.
and to iterate for the last time, the 6s will fit quite nicely into more compact enclosures
That would be one way to avoid building stands.
The milli size box for the A6 is not to be sneezed at.
jeff
That would be one way to avoid building stands.
The milli size box for the A6 is not to be sneezed at.
jeff
unless you build with MDF and forget your NIOSH mask
I haven't heard a thing. Was I supposed to contact him, or was it the other way around?
jeff
Ignoring the Fonkens at the ends, the 3.6L for 6M, 4.7L (milliSize) for 6P and the 2.5L that works with both 6P & 6M (perspective makes it hard to see tat it is about half as deep as the milli). All are in the same vent style as the CGRs, the trapezoid for 6P is still in my head, and if there is a trapezoid for the 6M it will be kinda swat.
dave
Ignoring the Fonkens at the ends, the 3.6L for 6M, 4.7L (milliSize) for 6P and the 2.5L that works with both 6P & 6M (perspective makes it hard to see tat it is about half as deep as the milli). All are in the same vent style as the CGRs, the trapezoid for 6P is still in my head, and if there is a trapezoid for the 6M it will be kinda swat.
dave
As the builder of the enclosures in above family picnic photo, I can tell you the "milli" format was designed to be a simple build (there are kits for same) - and can accommodate a range of driver models by adjusting the length of internal slot shelf or including vent spacer/filler blocks (as can be seen on the 6M vs 6P)
As much as I like the aesthetics of the trapezoid shape, it does offer some challenges with small / shallow drivers having mounting flanges as wide as the Mark Audios.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.