Best floorstanding plan for Alpair 10.2 ? - diyAudio
Go Back   Home > Forums > Commercial Sector > Manufacturers > Markaudio

Markaudio Designers and builders of audiophile grade drivers

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 18th September 2012, 03:24 PM   #1
diyAudio Member
 
dekiller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Default Best floorstanding plan for Alpair 10.2 ?

My order of Pencil 10.2 was cancelled by the builder as he is too busy at the moment. So, I want to have more opinons before going on. Any idea is wellcome.

My preferrance:
Jazz & Classical
Good imaging and detail
Bass response is not important as I will use it with subs most of the time.


Thanks, Brian
  Reply With Quote
Old 18th September 2012, 03:53 PM   #2
diyAudio Member
 
Scottmoose's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: UK
Depends what you mean by 'best.' However, if you're planning on using them with dedicated subs, and therefore aren't too concerned about LF extension, there doesn't seem much need for floorstanders unless you want them for aesthetic reasons. A standmount should go low enough to mate to your bass units.

Note that 'imaging' is not really affected by the box except in terms of diffraction effects etc., while 'detail' just means 'low distortion.' Essentially that means you want to ensure driver deflection is held low, and remains well controlled, while group delay is minimised and the aforementioned edge diffraction is addressed. This latter point tends to be less significant with wideband drivers than in many multiway setups, but can be worth looking at depending on the design.
  Reply With Quote
Old 18th September 2012, 04:31 PM   #3
diyAudio Member
 
Bob Brines's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Hot Spring Village AR
How about these?

Click the image to open in full size.

A bit slimmer than the Pensil's, pretty much the same performance.

Bob
  Reply With Quote
Old 18th September 2012, 04:46 PM   #4
diyAudio Member
 
sandyhooker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Arizona
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Brines View Post
How about these?

Click the image to open in full size.

A bit slimmer than the Pensil's, pretty much the same performance.

Bob

What precisely are "these" ??
  Reply With Quote
Old 18th September 2012, 04:51 PM   #5
diyAudio Member
 
Bob Brines's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Hot Spring Village AR
M10-A10
  Reply With Quote
Old 18th September 2012, 04:52 PM   #6
diyAudio Member
 
dekiller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scottmoose View Post
Depends what you mean by 'best.' However, if you're planning on using them with dedicated subs, and therefore aren't too concerned about LF extension, there doesn't seem much need for floorstanders unless you want them for aesthetic reasons. A standmount should go low enough to mate to your bass units.

Note that 'imaging' is not really affected by the box except in terms of diffraction effects etc., while 'detail' just means 'low distortion.' Essentially that means you want to ensure driver deflection is held low, and remains well controlled, while group delay is minimised and the aforementioned edge diffraction is addressed. This latter point tends to be less significant with wideband drivers than in many multiway setups, but can be worth looking at depending on the design.

Scottmoose, thanks for advise. My ultimate choice of loudspeaker type is electrostatic, but, they cannot live with the humidity at South China. So, I am looking for something close.
  Reply With Quote
Old 18th September 2012, 05:01 PM   #7
diyAudio Member
 
dekiller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Brines View Post
How about these?

Click the image to open in full size.

A bit slimmer than the Pensil's, pretty much the same performance.

Bob
Very beautiful.
  Reply With Quote
Old 18th September 2012, 05:06 PM   #8
chrisb is offline chrisb  Canada
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: victoria BC
I've built a ton of different styles of boxes for almost the entire range of MA drivers, this is the only one so far for the A10 - so I can't compare directly to a Pensil (probably, neither can Bob)

It works very well, and not a complicated build at all.

Sorry Bob, but this one probably took me longer than necessary, as I had to unlearn my normal construction techniques - particularly the bracing scheme

BTW, the elliptical supra baffle is not just cosmetic, and with any well executed full length QW action enclosure for this driver (including more elaborate BLH types) you could be surprised about how little you need to dial in your subs.
__________________
now on sabbatical

Last edited by chrisb; 18th September 2012 at 05:13 PM. Reason: added detail
  Reply With Quote
Old 18th September 2012, 05:17 PM   #9
diyAudio Member
 
Bob Brines's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Hot Spring Village AR
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisb View Post
I've built a ton of different styles of boxes for almost the entire range of MA drivers, this is the only one so far for the A10 - so I can't compare directly to a Pensil (probably, neither can Bob)
Ah, but I can! Just to make that comparison, I built a pair of Pensil 10.2's -- as per the plans without bracing. (Sidebar: I certainly would not recommend that you build the Pensil's without bracing. How difficult the Pensil is to build depends on how complicated your bracing scheme is.) The sonic differences between them is subtle and at the lower end. Mine go a bit deeper and stronger. But again, the difference is not much.

So why my design? Scott did the Pensil series for ease of build first and still maintain good sonics. Mine are designed to get the most out of the A10.2 with ease of build secondary. The result is that my cabinets are a bit taller and about half the depth. I like to think of mine as being more pencil-like.

Bob
  Reply With Quote
Old 18th September 2012, 05:28 PM   #10
chrisb is offline chrisb  Canada
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: victoria BC
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Brines View Post
Ah, but I can! Just to make that comparison, I built a pair of Pensil 10.2's -- as per the plans without bracing. (Sidebar: I certainly would not recommend that you build the Pensil's without bracing. How difficult the Pensil is to build depends on how complicated your bracing scheme is.) The sonic differences between them is subtle and at the lower end. Mine go a bit deeper and stronger. But again, the difference is not much.

So why my design? Scott did the Pensil series for ease of build first and still maintain good sonics. Mine are designed to get the most out of the A10.2 with ease of build secondary. The result is that my cabinets are a bit taller and about half the depth. I like to think of mine as being more pencil-like.

Bob

mea culpa Bob - and yes these are certainly a more elegant shape than the Pensils for the larger Alpairs (Pensils for the 70mm family are much "slimmer")
__________________
now on sabbatical
  Reply With Quote

Reply


Hide this!Advertise here!
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Alpair 10 vs Alpair 7 - Open baffle with boxed woofer. Passive Xover. TiMBoZ Markaudio 56 3rd March 2014 08:21 PM
Alpair 12 vs Alpair 10.2 and a little Fostex 166 germpod Full Range 4 28th January 2011 04:19 PM
Alpair 7 - 10 Litre BR Tower plan markaudio Markaudio 14 8th November 2010 06:45 AM
Alpair 10 Bass + Alpair 5 - Woodwill Japan markaudio Markaudio 16 26th January 2010 12:48 PM
Alpair 10 wide bass driver and Alpair 10 Fullrange _henry_ Full Range 71 15th March 2009 12:37 PM


New To Site? Need Help?

All times are GMT. The time now is 12:34 AM.


vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright 1999-2014 diyAudio

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2