Fair enough, so would you say the 10Ps would be more likely to break up when pushed than the 10.3Ms?
I suppose now it's just a case of 10P vs 10.3M
but the 10.3M seems to have a less bumpy, but not as flat response (if that makes any sense 
). I'm guessing I could get the 10.3Ms flatter if I built another amp for them and added a little fixed EQ in there, nothing a few op-amps can't solve.
But what would be the respective pros and cons for each driver? The 10.3Ms are a couple of dBs less efficient and the Qms is lower (although I don't know what that really means ).
Perhaps if I use a suitable grill I could dissipate some of that extra HF response and improve off axis performance as well? Any ideas on the best kind of grill for this?
I suppose now it's just a case of 10P vs 10.3M
but the 10.3M seems to have a less bumpy, but not as flat response (if that makes any sense ). I'm guessing I could get the 10.3Ms flatter if I built another amp for them and added a little fixed EQ in there, nothing a few op-amps can't solve.But what would be the respective pros and cons for each driver? The 10.3Ms are a couple of dBs less efficient and the Qms is lower (although I don't know what that really means
).Perhaps if I use a suitable grill I could dissipate some of that extra HF response and improve off axis performance as well? Any ideas on the best kind of grill for this?
Also loving this back and forth, learning so much more than just staring blankly at datasheets
Yes, these folks are so knowledgeable that you'll find them to be a veritable suppository of useful information
Seriously, there's a ton of interesting ideas here - you may want to check out XRK's foamcore thread which starts here:
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/full-range/223313-foam-core-board-speaker-enclosures.html
and goes on towards infinity - but, building in foamcore entails much less effort, expense, and commitment than wood - so you'll be encouraged to try different ideas before committing to a final build.
I'm wondering if you should look into building a set of foamcore TABAQs as a decent, cheap intro to DIY speakers - worst case, you'll learn a lot, best case they'll keep the family amused until the grandkids destroy them.
Cheers and good luck
Jim
Thanks for the plug Dr Jim.
Monty78,
If you really are stuck on the FE166en, the Karlsonator will be the most compact box with good bass and a balanced sound. It would be easy to make in foam core or a combo of foam core and thin plywood. But is you are looking for a small great sounding speaker with high sensitivity, make the 0.4x Karlsonator in foam core of ply with the Faital Pro 3FE25. 91dB sensitivity. If you make the 0.53x mini Karlsonator with dual 3FE25's you will have a 97dB (at 2.83v) speaker - about as sensitive as any Fostex available and can be powered with a couple of watts.
Monty78,
If you really are stuck on the FE166en, the Karlsonator will be the most compact box with good bass and a balanced sound. It would be easy to make in foam core or a combo of foam core and thin plywood. But is you are looking for a small great sounding speaker with high sensitivity, make the 0.4x Karlsonator in foam core of ply with the Faital Pro 3FE25. 91dB sensitivity. If you make the 0.53x mini Karlsonator with dual 3FE25's you will have a 97dB (at 2.83v) speaker - about as sensitive as any Fostex available and can be powered with a couple of watts.
XRK; I've decided on using the Markaudio 10P or 10.3M. Power isn't too much of an issue as by the time I've made these speakers I will have probably made another amp with 20W or so power (or simply put a new transformer in my current one).
I'm not using a tube amp so don't have just a couple of watts to play with here. I just want to make a simple (carpentry wise) full range speaker that isn't too massive (not more than 15 litres or so).
I'm also not looking to do much experimenting, I just want to put the time and effort into building a good pair of speakers and then leaning back and listening to them .
TBH the FE166s seem to be more trouble than they're worth after a bit of research. Right now I'm wondering whether the Markaudio 10P or 10.3M is better. And if I'm going to use the 10.3M could I use some sort of grill to improve off axis response while dissipating the peak at 10KHz?
I'm not using a tube amp so don't have just a couple of watts to play with here. I just want to make a simple (carpentry wise) full range speaker that isn't too massive (not more than 15 litres or so).
I'm also not looking to do much experimenting, I just want to put the time and effort into building a good pair of speakers and then leaning back and listening to them
.TBH the FE166s seem to be more trouble than they're worth after a bit of research. Right now I'm wondering whether the Markaudio 10P or 10.3M is better. And if I'm going to use the 10.3M could I use some sort of grill to improve off axis response while dissipating the peak at 10KHz?
The 10khz peak is a cone breakup peak and it varies with listening angle. A grille won't change the fact the cone is essentially resonant at that frequency. Think of it as a ringing mode like a bell. What this means is that you may hear sibillance in music. "S" sounds at the end of words from female singers in particular and sharp percussive instruments won't sound as sharp. Some drivers do a good job of damping this mode more than others. Metal cone full range drivers tend to have it more than paper cones. You may want to test listen if you can find someone nearby who has one.
Also there is a small dip around 650Hz where the off axis response seems to pivot on when it drops, what exactly causes this?
The 10KHz peak is fairly smooth and wide, it doesn't look like a resonance, I'm guessing I could Eq it out a fair amount though.
Also what are the advantages of metal cones? The response seems much less bumpy than the paper version but the efficiency is a couple of dB lower, do metal cones suffer less breakup distortion.
The 10KHz peak is fairly smooth and wide, it doesn't look like a resonance, I'm guessing I could Eq it out a fair amount though.
Also what are the advantages of metal cones? The response seems much less bumpy than the paper version but the efficiency is a couple of dB lower, do metal cones suffer less breakup distortion.
Attachments
I theorize that the 10.3M might go a little louder before breakup than the 10p but I'm only guessing. Perhaps one of the forumites who have heard both can comment?? I suspect you will not realistically have an issue with this either way at any typical listening level.
That 650Hz corner on the 10.3M is in just the right spot for baffle step compensation. Unless you listen in an anechoic chamber and have the speakers mounted on an IEC baffle, there will be a 3-4db loss below about this frequency. That bump in the response below 650 allows the speakers to have relatively even response without filtering or eq.
The 10.3m are somewhat directional. It's just the physics of a large single cone full range driver. If you are very concerned about off axis response I'd look at the 7.3 instead. Sure, you might improve dispersion a bit with some brass perf across the driver, but you'd be experimenting, which you don't want to do you say.
Think in terms of power response - total amount of treble spilled into the room, that's what matters most. The 10.3 is very even and neutral in a simple box with no filtering. Frankly a bit of directionality in the upper frequencies is helpful, as it reduces room interaction.
That 650Hz corner on the 10.3M is in just the right spot for baffle step compensation. Unless you listen in an anechoic chamber and have the speakers mounted on an IEC baffle, there will be a 3-4db loss below about this frequency. That bump in the response below 650 allows the speakers to have relatively even response without filtering or eq.
The 10.3m are somewhat directional. It's just the physics of a large single cone full range driver. If you are very concerned about off axis response I'd look at the 7.3 instead. Sure, you might improve dispersion a bit with some brass perf across the driver, but you'd be experimenting, which you don't want to do you say.
Think in terms of power response - total amount of treble spilled into the room, that's what matters most. The 10.3 is very even and neutral in a simple box with no filtering. Frankly a bit of directionality in the upper frequencies is helpful, as it reduces room interaction.
Last edited:
xrk - The 10.3M really doesn't have any audible metallic coloration. Somehow it seems to have been engineered out of it. The cone material is very thin, and doesn't ping if tapped. Sounds more like plastic. I've been playing with various metal FR (and midbass) since the 'whamodyne' days, and i know what you are talking about, as most of them do have a bit of zing. The CHR70 has just a slight hint, but of course it is much cheaper.
Are you using baffle step correction with yours, at what frequency? Is it necessary for nearfield use (say 1 metre or so?). It also looks like there is an increase of about 3dB above this point. Perhaps this was cleverly designed in to avoid the need for baffle step correction. Will this frequency change if the enclosure is different. I.E using Scott's cabinet as opposed to the one recommended on Madisound?
I should probably make an equaliser circuit for these.
I should probably make an equaliser circuit for these.
No, I am not using baffle step correction with mine. They don't need it.
Yes, they were cleverly designed to avoid the need.
Yes, the baffle frequency changes with the cabinet width, but it doesn't have to be that precise in practice. 650 is about right for a narrow baffle - 18cm in theory, except it's the -3db point we worry about, not the actual corner, so more like 450-500hz. Therefore about 25cm baffle is ideal. That's why I built the GR box...
Baffle Step Compensation
Last edited:
It's the golden ratio reflex from the factory recommended plans... Alpair 10 Gold | Markaudio
My suggestion is simply to place the boxes facing forward, with your listening position in between. Note that they are around -5db down at 10k 15 degrees off axis. If you listen a few degrees off, it will be correct. I think that if you eq the on-axis response dead flat, the room response (power response) will be too dull.
Digital eq is a good option if you require them to be exactly flat at the listening position. There's been a good discussion recently of modern methods in wesayso's line array thread.
To achieve a wider listening angle with dead flat response, it really requires a 2-way, or a smaller full range driver.
My suggestion is simply to place the boxes facing forward, with your listening position in between. Note that they are around -5db down at 10k 15 degrees off axis. If you listen a few degrees off, it will be correct. I think that if you eq the on-axis response dead flat, the room response (power response) will be too dull.
Digital eq is a good option if you require them to be exactly flat at the listening position. There's been a good discussion recently of modern methods in wesayso's line array thread.
To achieve a wider listening angle with dead flat response, it really requires a 2-way, or a smaller full range driver.
Last edited:
Ah, that seems like a good option. I could align them so that they're just right for where I sit!
Kind of handy, I suppose. Increases the listening area to a certain degree.
Let's say I was to use a smaller full range driver, backed up with a woofer. Would that significantly decrease the doppler distortion that fullrange drivers supposedly suffer from?
Kind of handy, I suppose. Increases the listening area to a certain degree.
Let's say I was to use a smaller full range driver, backed up with a woofer. Would that significantly decrease the doppler distortion that fullrange drivers supposedly suffer from?
The A12p fits in a similar box to A10p. Doesn't go as low. It is marginally more efficient (in my measures of actual units about a dB). It is a good speaker, but i feel the A10p is better.
dave
Still feeling a little uneasy about that peak at 10KHz, though. It's a good 7dB higher than it should be and I want monitor-flat response
If you want a monitor flat on-axis response, then you need monitors with carefully selected Seas or Scan Speak tweeters. Wideband drivers do not achieve it, though you can achieve an amplitude response that many people find reasonable.
That's what the rising on-axis top end is there for in many wideband units -to improve off-axis HF response, which makes them more practical for many domestic situations.
FMD exists, but you have to be going some for it to be a significantly audible issue. Since few people would be pushing them that hard (a distinct lack of mechanical sympathy would be necessary), it's not something to get overly concerned about. Depends what you're doing. If you're after filling a large space at high average SPLs & want 20dB dynamic range on top of that, wideband drivers are not going to be for you (neither would be a 2-way standmount with a 6 1/2in midbass + tweeter for that matter).
Air velocity in the vent will be higher; probably audible at higher SPLs. But it's a smaller box. Everything's a compromise, it's just about selecting which you are willing to accept.
As Dave says, it will work in a similar cabinet volume, albeit it wants to be tuned a little higher. Slightly higher efficiency & an extra dB or two sensitivity. The 10 gets up a touch higher. Dave and I amicably disagree over which driver we prefer. As you see above, he likes the 10. I prefer the 12. They have a slightly different balance of properties / compromises so YMMV on that one.
So how do the 10P, 10M and 12P compare? What are the respective advantages and disadvantages in terms of cabinet size, distortion, and off axis frequency response?
I'm guessing the 12Ps will need baffle step compensation for a simple BR as they don't have that slight boost in the LF response that mitigates the need for it.
I'm looking to fill a fairly small room with fairly low volume sound, with the best off axis performance possible for a full range. I don't like to make the windows rattle and I can't be bothered to build a bi-amplified system. I also like good imaging. I know and accept the limitations of fullrange but want to get the best performance possible.
Sensitivity isn't too great an issue (solid state all the way for me). What I'm really after is low distortion with little breakup, as little off axis response deviation as possible and as flat on axis response as possible. I know I'm asking a bit much here !
Thanks for putting up with my questions guys !
I'm guessing the 12Ps will need baffle step compensation for a simple BR as they don't have that slight boost in the LF response that mitigates the need for it.
I'm looking to fill a fairly small room with fairly low volume sound, with the best off axis performance possible for a full range. I don't like to make the windows rattle and I can't be bothered to build a bi-amplified system. I also like good imaging. I know and accept the limitations of fullrange but want to get the best performance possible.
Sensitivity isn't too great an issue (solid state all the way for me). What I'm really after is low distortion with little breakup, as little off axis response deviation as possible and as flat on axis response as possible. I know I'm asking a bit much here
!Thanks for putting up with my questions guys
!
Sounds to me like you're looking for a multi-way project.
If you want to buy something and have done with it, I'd recommend a pair of Behringer B2031P monitors. The active ones (B2031A) are worth a look if you'd rather have a built-in amplifier. Either way, the drivers used are decent, and everything's implemented well. There's piles of measurements online.
The only downside is the exposed woofer. You can use these for a fairly loud party, but make sure no-one can poke/prod. If they can, they will...
If you'd like to build something, I don't think a single full-range driver will do what you're after. I'd recommend you buy a pair of the above monitors, and then look at building a subwoofer to cover <80Hz. Messing with mid-range crossovers is very difficult. A known-good kit would be worth a try, but those Behringers have value for money like nothing else I've seen.
Have a look at Zaph Audio for some inspiration. I'm pretty sure he's got some measurements of some Mark Audio and Fostex drivers there, too.
HTH
Chris
If you want to buy something and have done with it, I'd recommend a pair of Behringer B2031P monitors. The active ones (B2031A) are worth a look if you'd rather have a built-in amplifier. Either way, the drivers used are decent, and everything's implemented well. There's piles of measurements online.
The only downside is the exposed woofer. You can use these for a fairly loud party, but make sure no-one can poke/prod. If they can, they will...
If you'd like to build something, I don't think a single full-range driver will do what you're after. I'd recommend you buy a pair of the above monitors, and then look at building a subwoofer to cover <80Hz. Messing with mid-range crossovers is very difficult. A known-good kit would be worth a try, but those Behringers have value for money like nothing else I've seen.
Have a look at Zaph Audio for some inspiration. I'm pretty sure he's got some measurements of some Mark Audio and Fostex drivers there, too.
HTH
Chris
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.