Are you sure about that?
well, we do need an excuse for you to drop by and visit the madhouse - there might even be a spare basement room by then ....
Just finished the woodwork and installed the drivers. Unfortunately the local shop did not have enough stuffing fiber, so I have about half of the recommended stuffing inside the speaker. What happens sound wise when I add more?
Now the drivers are breaking in. They are a bit edgy in the midrange but I think that'll change. LF extension is very good, as is spatial resolution.
Now the drivers are breaking in. They are a bit edgy in the midrange but I think that'll change. LF extension is very good, as is spatial resolution.
Typically, the midrange gets less edgy...
How many hours did you find required before they opened up / smoothed out in the 1200-8000Hz range? A wild a$$ed guess is fine, unless you have a detailed log handy
. There probably are folks who actually do that.
Last edited:
How many hours did you find required before they opened up / smoothed out in the 1200-8000Hz range? A wild a$$ed guess is fine, unless you have a detailed log handy
By edgy, do you mean that the 1200-8000Hz range is too loud, or are you just hearing distortion/coloration in this region? One of the main reasons for stuffing is to reduce midrange and treble from bouncing around inside and coming out through the cone. This can make the sound edgy and not clear. This is not specific to MA drivers. It's true for all drivers - especially thin coned full range drivers.
AFA break in - to be honest I am not a believer.
There's just not much to break in on a metal cone. The spider will break in a little bit, perhaps the adhesives. I don't have the 10.2, but the MA 10.3 was just a little dull for the first week or so. After that it more or less sounded like itself: clear but mellow. At no point was it edgy. If the 1200-8000Hz is elevated rather than simply not clear, break in certainly will not change this. It's a baffle step issue, and it's exacerbated by the narrowness of the Pencil enclosures. New MA drivers have built in BSC, but the older ones do not.
It's also possible that you have some issues with your amplification or source.
FWIW, I found that the CHR70 generation 2 required BSC compensation. They were too bright. I ran them a while with a passive filter, but this kind of kills the sound. Eventually I put them in Karlsonators, where the BP gain effect fills in the dropoff below the baffle step, and they are much more pleasant.
Last edited:
LOL, Yeah, I actually have to admit I see a bit of my younger self in the Sheldon character.
Sorry, no detailed log this time.
AFA the subjective edginess, you really have to do it by ear. Add enough to make things clear. When you've added too much damping, the sound will start to get dull and dead. I would suggest you take a basic frequency response reading. No amount of stuffing will change a 4-5 db shelf caused by baffle step or whatever.
OK, let's agree to disagree on how many of the separate parts in a speaker may or not break-in, or how long it might take, and move on. The edginess I referred to on my initial listening of this particular pair of 10.3's was early in their life cycle, and would best be described as being a bit too aggressive on leading edge of dynamics of percussion, brass and female vocals - certainly when compared to 10Ps with approx the same number of hours. Not a measurable metric, but I'd describe the papers as more "relaxed / organic"
I certainly didn't find the 10.3s as dull when I heard them, but they did already have at least some break-in, in accordance to the manufacturer's own recommendations.
Agreed that excessive damping can deaden overall dynamics and bass extension - I found in my Pensil build that removing approx 1/3 of originally calculated amount of fill brought things back into acceptable balance for my taste.
And I could be wrong, but I thought that Mark has for some time now engineered a degree of BS compensation in the FR contours of his drivers.
As for taking a basic frequency response reading, if that's directly at me, for some reason I just can't erect the necessary excitement to acquire the requisite kit - maybe there's a pill for that.
I certainly didn't find the 10.3s as dull when I heard them, but they did already have at least some break-in, in accordance to the manufacturer's own recommendations.
Agreed that excessive damping can deaden overall dynamics and bass extension - I found in my Pensil build that removing approx 1/3 of originally calculated amount of fill brought things back into acceptable balance for my taste.
And I could be wrong, but I thought that Mark has for some time now engineered a degree of BS compensation in the FR contours of his drivers.
As for taking a basic frequency response reading, if that's directly at me, for some reason I just can't erect the necessary excitement to acquire the requisite kit - maybe there's a pill for that.
Chris, I was kind of responding to both morfeus and you, though I only quoted you. Sorry that I wasn't more clear, it was before coffee...
RE break in - agreed. It's probably one of those circular semantic things anyway, where we are describing the same thing differently... The sound certainly did change over the first few days. It's just that I think people expect too much from it.
Strangely enough, my 10.3 were not edgy at all, even when first plugged in. As I said, they were a little dull if anything, and grew more detailed and natural sounding.
I've not heard the 10.2 so I can't really say. Just inferring from FR charts and others observations. My 10.3 certainly don't need BSC, but the CHR70 gen 2 did.
Freq response suggestion was directed at morfeus, not chris. Oops.. But it's a good suggestion anyway.
RE break in - agreed.
It's probably one of those circular semantic things anyway, where we are describing the same thing differently... The sound certainly did change over the first few days. It's just that I think people expect too much from it. Strangely enough, my 10.3 were not edgy at all, even when first plugged in. As I said, they were a little dull if anything, and grew more detailed and natural sounding.
I've not heard the 10.2 so I can't really say. Just inferring from FR charts and others observations. My 10.3 certainly don't need BSC, but the CHR70 gen 2 did.
Freq response suggestion was directed at morfeus, not chris. Oops.. But it's a good suggestion anyway.
Last edited:
This discussion has got me wondering something new: could it be that some part of break in changes are actually due to the wooden enclosure breaking in, and not the driver at all??
The reason is that my 10.3 boxes were very well damped, and the baffles are covered with a thick layer of cork. They don't sing much at all compared to a typical speaker box made from plain BB or whatever. Therefore, I expect most or all of the subtle changes I heard over break in to the driver (spider etc) breaking in, not the box. I didn't hear harsh at all at first, only 'dull'. That might account for the differences we respectively heard during break in.
My other hobby is instrument building, and guitars (etc) very much break in. It is completely un-subtle, and easily verified with measurements if you are so inclined. Speaker boxes and soundboxes are both wood boxes. Wouldn't they both behave at least somewhat similarly? Obviously a speaker box is made much stiffer and is less resonant, but like it or not they do contribute to the sound. It makes sense that this box sound might mellow out a bit over the first month or so, as a guitar soundbox does.
Comments? Does this sound ridiculous?
The reason is that my 10.3 boxes were very well damped, and the baffles are covered with a thick layer of cork. They don't sing much at all compared to a typical speaker box made from plain BB or whatever. Therefore, I expect most or all of the subtle changes I heard over break in to the driver (spider etc) breaking in, not the box. I didn't hear harsh at all at first, only 'dull'. That might account for the differences we respectively heard during break in.
My other hobby is instrument building, and guitars (etc) very much break in. It is completely un-subtle, and easily verified with measurements if you are so inclined. Speaker boxes and soundboxes are both wood boxes. Wouldn't they both behave at least somewhat similarly? Obviously a speaker box is made much stiffer and is less resonant, but like it or not they do contribute to the sound. It makes sense that this box sound might mellow out a bit over the first month or so, as a guitar soundbox does.
Comments? Does this sound ridiculous?
Last edited:
Greg, this is DIY - even the most outrageous thought exercises (yours not included in that category) are valid points for conversation.
We could of course entertain the discussion as to what design parameters / construction materials & techniques make for an ideal speaker enclosure - wait, that's been done, and consensus already codified.
We could of course entertain the discussion as to what design parameters / construction materials & techniques make for an ideal speaker enclosure - wait, that's been done, and consensus already codified.
I managed to get more fiber stuffing today and added the same amount that I already had in the enclosure. FQ is much better now, did a quick measurement at the listening position.
I'll see how the sound develops in the next days. In my experience the speakers break in, at least some of them I had in the past did.
I'll see how the sound develops in the next days. In my experience the speakers break in, at least some of them I had in the past did.
Hmm, for a typical 'FR' driver it would need to be either pretty flimsy or very tiny WRT driver size/excursion. Depending on the type, loose stuffing OTOH could be realigned enough to maybe audibly alter driver loading though, especially very light and/or flimsy diaphragms.
GM
Tricky placement: which enclosure (for Alpair 10.1)?
Dear Friends,
after taking a hiatus for some time (resulting in a now 2.5 year old boy!) I want to put some new loudspeakers into my living room which is a bit challenging (see picture below). I have a pair of original Alpair 10 (the ones with the conic center) which I want to use for this (unless that's a really bad idea...).
The photo shows one of the head walls of my living room (as we were moving in, there is more furniture there now, but you get the idea). The speakers need to go on top of the shelf and since the room isn't very wide (about 12ft wide and 25ft long) I am thinking the speakers need to go into the corners on top of that shelf. The space available there is 15in deep (shelf depth), 11in high (to the bottom of the window), and as much as 43in wide (width of the windows). So that's the volume I have to play with.
I am thinking that either one of the BR designs from Mark Audio (one called BR the other GR) might be appropriate or else Pensil, M10-A10, or Marken. With Pensil (also M10-A10) in particular I wonder how it would hold up given the corner loading (I would lay it horizontal on top of the shelf...). The corner loading might be an advantage for those designs that do not have as much bottom extension. The other interesting acoustic effect of course would be that by laying the speakers on the top shelf they would be flush with an extended front going all the way to the floor. Not sure how much that might mess with the alignment.
Also what about differences between Alpair 10.1(?) and 10.2 resp. 10.3? I presume the original ones would be considered 10.1 which is what I have on hand.
Your advice would be much appreciated!
Dear Friends,
after taking a hiatus for some time (resulting in a now 2.5 year old boy!) I want to put some new loudspeakers into my living room which is a bit challenging (see picture below). I have a pair of original Alpair 10 (the ones with the conic center) which I want to use for this (unless that's a really bad idea...).
The photo shows one of the head walls of my living room (as we were moving in, there is more furniture there now, but you get the idea). The speakers need to go on top of the shelf and since the room isn't very wide (about 12ft wide and 25ft long) I am thinking the speakers need to go into the corners on top of that shelf. The space available there is 15in deep (shelf depth), 11in high (to the bottom of the window), and as much as 43in wide (width of the windows). So that's the volume I have to play with.
I am thinking that either one of the BR designs from Mark Audio (one called BR the other GR) might be appropriate or else Pensil, M10-A10, or Marken. With Pensil (also M10-A10) in particular I wonder how it would hold up given the corner loading (I would lay it horizontal on top of the shelf...). The corner loading might be an advantage for those designs that do not have as much bottom extension. The other interesting acoustic effect of course would be that by laying the speakers on the top shelf they would be flush with an extended front going all the way to the floor. Not sure how much that might mess with the alignment.
Also what about differences between Alpair 10.1(?) and 10.2 resp. 10.3? I presume the original ones would be considered 10.1 which is what I have on hand.
Your advice would be much appreciated!
Attachments
Peter - you might want to consider Dave's compact floorstander for 10.3 - official full name on my drawings dated May 15, 2014 is Trapezoid flooorstander MarKen10.3
They have a very compact footprint of approx 8"Wx7 1/2" D x 31" tall (depending on feet / pads used), and with a 5 dg tilt to front baffle, give a nice "launch" in a small space. I have a pair with tuning for A10P, along with coordinating centre channel, in my small 5.1 system. Room is 16x23ft, and main listening position is at 10ft
Second photo shows contrast to profile of Pensil 7.3
Maybe you could post a photo of the back of actual drivers, or their packing box if still on hand. The original Alpair 10s were certainly excellent performers in the bottom end, but would have definite shortcomings in the mid to top end compared to either the 10.2 or 3s.
At the very least, we found the original 10s benefited from addition of tweeters.
There is also a variant on tuning of the cited enclosure for the 10.2, but as those are long since out of production, that might be moot?
They have a very compact footprint of approx 8"Wx7 1/2" D x 31" tall (depending on feet / pads used), and with a 5 dg tilt to front baffle, give a nice "launch" in a small space. I have a pair with tuning for A10P, along with coordinating centre channel, in my small 5.1 system. Room is 16x23ft, and main listening position is at 10ft
Second photo shows contrast to profile of Pensil 7.3
Maybe you could post a photo of the back of actual drivers, or their packing box if still on hand. The original Alpair 10s were certainly excellent performers in the bottom end, but would have definite shortcomings in the mid to top end compared to either the 10.2 or 3s.
At the very least, we found the original 10s benefited from addition of tweeters.
There is also a variant on tuning of the cited enclosure for the 10.2, but as those are long since out of production, that might be moot?
Attachments
Last edited:
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.