I just received a pair of 10.3's and fresh out of the box they are impressing me greatly. I love the simplicity of going with a cabinet like the Pensils but am concerned long term they aren't going to have the bass I'm looking for.
I'd really like to try a small sealed cabinet for the 10.3 drivers coupled to a distributed bass system. I think this would give me the excellent imaging of the full ranger and relieve the 10.3 of bass duties.
Any recommendations on how to proceed? Is there an ideal volume for this driver in sealed applications? I'm thinking I will need response down to 80hz or so.
It is a small room so volume level won't be absurd. Should I have a high pass filter on the 10.3's?
All help is greatly appreciated!
I'd really like to try a small sealed cabinet for the 10.3 drivers coupled to a distributed bass system. I think this would give me the excellent imaging of the full ranger and relieve the 10.3 of bass duties.
Any recommendations on how to proceed? Is there an ideal volume for this driver in sealed applications? I'm thinking I will need response down to 80hz or so.
It is a small room so volume level won't be absurd. Should I have a high pass filter on the 10.3's?
All help is greatly appreciated!
If the upstream electronics allow for capability of playing with XO points and level matching on the fly ( e.g. HT receiver or mini-dsp, etc), then I think you'd definitely be well served with a gentle HP filter on the 10.3 when used in conjunction with distributed woofers - the midrange will benefit substantially.
At a recent DIY group man-love fest, I had the opportunity to compare the 10.2 and 10.3. The vented enclosures were as close to identical as the re-engineered TS parameters would permit. "All things being equal" - of course they never are - the 10.2s will definitely go deeper, at the penalty of sensitivity, while the 10.3 is starting to approach the upper-mid range / top end of the 7.3. Of course the 10.3s playing had several years less playing time that the 7s that I live with, so perhaps the newer drivers just need more time to fully open up.
As for an appropriate (minimum) volume for sealed enclosure - let the modelling experts chime in on that, but may I ask - any particular reason why sealed?
At a recent DIY group man-love fest, I had the opportunity to compare the 10.2 and 10.3. The vented enclosures were as close to identical as the re-engineered TS parameters would permit. "All things being equal" - of course they never are - the 10.2s will definitely go deeper, at the penalty of sensitivity, while the 10.3 is starting to approach the upper-mid range / top end of the 7.3. Of course the 10.3s playing had several years less playing time that the 7s that I live with, so perhaps the newer drivers just need more time to fully open up.
As for an appropriate (minimum) volume for sealed enclosure - let the modelling experts chime in on that, but may I ask - any particular reason why sealed?
A sealed enclosure gives you an automatic acoustic cross-over, prevents over excursion and if done right can provide some BSC. However, as pointed out, an electrical cross-over is a very good idea. While the air spring is stopping cone movement, the electrical signal is still heating up the voice coil. You can let the magic smoke escape from the driver.
Bob
Bob
I've always read that it is easier to integrate a sealed speaker with a subwoofer. I've also found this to be true from the few times I've attempted it. I wouldn't be against a vented enclosure, just trying to find the best solution.
I've got a Crown PSL-2 preamp with dual outputs. I was going to use one set for the amp/10.3 and another for the powered sub chain. I'd like to use a single ended tube amp for the 10.3's, or maybe a class D or low power solid state. I suppose I could use a passive line level filter between the Crown and 10.3 amp.
Ok, even though I go pretty easy on the throttle it still sounds like a filter of some sort might be a good idea.
I have the 7.3 in 7 liters sealed enclosures with two subs (sealed as well) and I like it pretty much.
The 7.3 are fed directly by a 70w solid state amp (Simaudio i5). The subs each have a plate amp and they are lowpassed at 80 hz. It appeared to be easy to integrate both drivers.
I have not heard the 7.3 in a vented enclosure so I cannot compare. In my system, they have a lot of dynamics at moderated SPL but they appear to be limited at high SPL (90 db and more at listening position). Maybe, it is because of coil heating. Anyway, they can play louder then my needs. They might not just be the ideal for loud music.
In the sealed box, the 7.3 really seem to "disapear" and they present a very nice, large and precise image.
So, I think the 10.3 in a sealed box with a sub chain is certainly something to experiment.
Good luck.
The 7.3 are fed directly by a 70w solid state amp (Simaudio i5). The subs each have a plate amp and they are lowpassed at 80 hz. It appeared to be easy to integrate both drivers.
I have not heard the 7.3 in a vented enclosure so I cannot compare. In my system, they have a lot of dynamics at moderated SPL but they appear to be limited at high SPL (90 db and more at listening position). Maybe, it is because of coil heating. Anyway, they can play louder then my needs. They might not just be the ideal for loud music.
In the sealed box, the 7.3 really seem to "disapear" and they present a very nice, large and precise image.
So, I think the 10.3 in a sealed box with a sub chain is certainly something to experiment.
Good luck.
Assuming that you are going to cross the A7's at the same place:
Crossing a sealed box near Fc (system resonance) passively is very difficult because of the large impedance peak. You should cross a sealed box at line level or with DSP. A vented box will have Fc substantially lower, so the impedance peak is less of an issue. You should be crossing the vented box high enough that group delay and boominess are not an issue. Of course, the vented box will be much larger than the sealed box.
Bob
Crossing a sealed box near Fc (system resonance) passively is very difficult because of the large impedance peak. You should cross a sealed box at line level or with DSP. A vented box will have Fc substantially lower, so the impedance peak is less of an issue. You should be crossing the vented box high enough that group delay and boominess are not an issue. Of course, the vented box will be much larger than the sealed box.
Bob
How about using a leaky (aperiodic) rather than a sealed box? Could one thereby supress the resonance impedence peak sufficiently to use a passive Xover (i.e. series capacitor)? Also would this affect the voice coil dissipation at LF at all (compared to sealed)?
Jack
There will still be an impedance peak. But when the leak is introduced, it can create a second lesser impedance peak.
Better to place a resistor (such as 20 ohms or so) in parallel with the speaker to help reduce the impedance peak and make crossover design easier. The tradeoff is a bit of sensitivity. A 20 ohm resistor should cut less than 2dB off sensitivity.
nparadis - If I read you correctly, the A7s are being driven full range? If so you might want to consider highpassing them, perhaps even as high as 100-120Hz - which is what I settled at with mine in 5.1 system ( dual corner mounted subs). Relieving them of the lowest couple of octaves substantially improves their mid-bass /midrange and overall dynamics. Of course I hardly ever listen beyond 90dB peaks.
My experience with the 7s is exactly the opposite - I've heard them only in a variety of vented enclosures, from the standmount MarKens to Pensil MLTLs, small center channel, FH3 & Woden Maeshowe.
I've also mixed combinations of the above enclosures with sealed and vented subs, and when both designs are tuned and damped appropriately for the room, I'm not sure I can hear any discontinuities.
My experience with the 7s is exactly the opposite - I've heard them only in a variety of vented enclosures, from the standmount MarKens to Pensil MLTLs, small center channel, FH3 & Woden Maeshowe.
I've also mixed combinations of the above enclosures with sealed and vented subs, and when both designs are tuned and damped appropriately for the room, I'm not sure I can hear any discontinuities.
Chris, I might try to highpass my A7s someday, or maybe not because I am pretty much pleased with my setup now. For now, I rely on the physical LF limitation of the sealed box to "relief" the A7 from low frequencies and it works fine for me.
Compared to bass reflex speakers I had before. I might feel a limitation in the dynamics at high SPL but as I say, they can play louder than my needs before they reach this limitation. I also suspect that in a sealed box, the A7s might present a better image and a cleaner sound then in a vented setup. In fact, I am very impressed with what I hear from these MA drivers. I have to put together a vented setup to confirm that.
For now, I work more on the source component (Lenco idler-drive turntable).
For the occasionnal hobbyist like me, the beauty of full range drivers is their simplicity, with no or little crossover parts on the way. I am a stereo guy and have no processing system for now. With great drivers like these and help from this forum, the non-experimented hobbyist can put together some very good sounding and cost-effective speaker systems.
The next one I will try might be the A10.3 in a Pensil enclosure.
Thanks for your contribution to the forum.
Nelson
Compared to bass reflex speakers I had before. I might feel a limitation in the dynamics at high SPL but as I say, they can play louder than my needs before they reach this limitation. I also suspect that in a sealed box, the A7s might present a better image and a cleaner sound then in a vented setup. In fact, I am very impressed with what I hear from these MA drivers. I have to put together a vented setup to confirm that.
For now, I work more on the source component (Lenco idler-drive turntable).
For the occasionnal hobbyist like me, the beauty of full range drivers is their simplicity, with no or little crossover parts on the way. I am a stereo guy and have no processing system for now. With great drivers like these and help from this forum, the non-experimented hobbyist can put together some very good sounding and cost-effective speaker systems.
The next one I will try might be the A10.3 in a Pensil enclosure.
Thanks for your contribution to the forum.
Nelson
I'm also thinking of going with a sealed Alpair for mid/tweeter together with some (sealed) woofers for bass. MiniDSP for crossover and Linkwitz transform applied to the woofers to cut down on box volume. Crossing would be moderately low, probably in the 150 - 250 Hz range. Is there any reason to prefer the 10.3 over the 7.3 or vice versa? I was almost ready to order a couple of 7.3's when I learned about the release of the 10.3's.... Now I'm torn. Any advice about 7.3 vs. 10.3, perhaps connected to choice of crossover frequency? My impression is that the 10.3 would allow more flexibility as to crossover, and also that they would be somewhat more comfortable sealed than the 7.3's, so I'm leaning towards the 10.3's. Any advice is appreciated.
It is early days in the head-to-head comparisons -- the A10.3 brings the 10s much closer to the A7.3s in the areas where the A7.3 had the edge, but for an ap like yours, unless significant loudness levels are required, i'd still give the edge to the A7.3 at the moment.
dave
PS: your moniker sounds like me, a BSc in math that never really got used.
dave
PS: your moniker sounds like me, a BSc in math that never really got used.
well, some would opine that the BS part still gets used a lot
sorry, Dave couldn't resist
of course if I'd ever proceeded past grade 12, the only degree would have been an EN - Extemporaneous Nonsense
Thanks for the advice. I did get my PhD before figuring out that math research and sleeping through the night weren't compatible for me. This sums it up rather nicely: Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal.
Anders
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.