Scott, Dave, Chris, et. al.
The thought occurred to me, since I appreciate so much about my EL70 microTower "Castles" and I am completely blown away by my Pensil 10.2s...
Have any of you ever considered a "Castle" design for the Alpair 10.2?
It would be a large speaker, to be sure, but I can only imagine the dynamics and power!!! The extra upfiring driver would assist the A10.2 with dispersion as well...
If this has not occurred to any of you, then I suggest designing and naming it the "megaTower."
I volunteer to do an Alpha build!
The thought occurred to me, since I appreciate so much about my EL70 microTower "Castles" and I am completely blown away by my Pensil 10.2s...
Have any of you ever considered a "Castle" design for the Alpair 10.2?
It would be a large speaker, to be sure, but I can only imagine the dynamics and power!!! The extra upfiring driver would assist the A10.2 with dispersion as well...
If this has not occurred to any of you, then I suggest designing and naming it the "megaTower."
I volunteer to do an Alpha build!
Last edited:
Hmmm.... Two Mar-Ken10.2, duct-taped together, balanced on a speaker stand.
Not sure what would be lower; stability or WAF.
But seriously, what physical arrangement do you have in mind?
The referenced enclosure is part of a paid plan-set for the Alpair 10.2 - two drivers mounted on face of approx 30L (?) typical MarKen style ( side mounted narrow slots, etc). Overall height of working enclosure is 730mm, which clearly need some type of short base, or void cavity (as seen on photo of FE167 version of several years back) . Second photo is veneered cabinet awaiting finish booth.
While these enclosures don't rely on 1/4 w/l action as do MLTLs, the length of port slots on the whole "Ken" series is a critical part of the tuning, and massaging CSA to maintain volume and increase height wouldn't be benign. It would require a complete recalculation, which doesn't follow conventional methods / modeling software.
Mount front facing driver centered approx 130mm from top, you should be able to squeeze the second one on the top.
Attachments
Please note the photos are for an approx 4 year old design for the now discontinued FE167E - there is document with detailed plans and build photos available from Dave. While the overall topology will be the same for Alpair10.2, the dimensions will be different.
That said, the rough dimensions on the enclosures shown above are 299mm W x 286 mm D - my builds were 960mm H less the plinth seen below the reveal strip in photo below. After the first build, they all had input terminal cups mounted on bottom resulting in a clean back panel, and the lower voids were filled with glass blasting media; heavy MFs they turned out to be - my chiropractor loves it when I move them .
Thanks for the info, Chris.
At the risk of offending Dave (I really hope I don't) I have to be honest and say that the "Kens" have never really appealed to me visually. On top of that, they look considerably more difficult to build than many others.
My only conclusion is; they must sound amazing!
At the risk of offending Dave (I really hope I don't) I have to be honest and say that the "Kens" have never really appealed to me visually. On top of that, they look considerably more difficult to build than many others.
My only conclusion is; they must sound amazing!
You can start with single Alpair 10.2 MLTL designs. When doubled together you can attain a bipolar or a castle as you please. I've done several bipolar MLTLs with both drivers in the same volume and one design (offset arrangement) with a common shared panel between the two MLTLs.
MLTL designs are somewhat more forgiving/easier in tuning than other approaches.
MLTL designs are somewhat more forgiving/easier in tuning than other approaches.
Last edited:
That's an interesting perspective regarding volume flexibility, Jim.
This is really more of a brain-storming session for me than anything, but some day I might just get the urge to buy another pair of Alpair 10.2 and do some experimentation.
never apologize for your aesthetic taste,
yes they are rather more bother than a simple MLTL of same approx size and tuning
yes, they do offer some benefits in terms of more control from mid-bass on down, at the sacrifice of less slam / weight
TUX:
agreed on the A10.2 - for my taste it has more than adequate response without any BSC EQ - 2 might very well be too fat in a less than critically damped enclosure -
Personally, I'd be more inclined to try 7.3s in a Castle, or wait for the new 8
It'd be only a little bit silly and expensive to go for dual MAOP7s
What am I saying, it'd probably be stupid good - expensive yes, but far less than the premium meal and adult beverage upgrade package on a 10 day Caribbean cruise , or the HST on this spring's sundeck renos ( motorized awning, staircase, vinyl and glass railing system.) That's a $20,000 check mrs B has no trouble writing - go figure.
Yep, Chris often cracks me up, but I never have anything quite as witty to reply with, so I just giggle by myself.
Re: the original topic; I think I could handle the "fat" of an Alpair 10.2 Castle. The need to attenuate bass is more attractive than never having enough.
Granted, the bass of the single Alpair 10.2 is impressive, but (again at the risk of offending someone) it is not very balanced or well controlled so far. I wouldn't call it a one-note wonder, but there are tracks that just sound completely wrong on the bass. Example: U2 - "One". The bass line is a complete mess on my Pensil 10.2s.
Re: the original topic; I think I could handle the "fat" of an Alpair 10.2 Castle. The need to attenuate bass is more attractive than never having enough.
Granted, the bass of the single Alpair 10.2 is impressive, but (again at the risk of offending someone) it is not very balanced or well controlled so far. I wouldn't call it a one-note wonder, but there are tracks that just sound completely wrong on the bass. Example: U2 - "One". The bass line is a complete mess on my Pensil 10.2s.
Woke up at 3am with terrible sinus pain, and a single thought in my head: "my pensils have a null."
You see, the bass it great, it is just almost completely missing a note or two...
Am I correct to suspect standing waves due to sub-optimal bracing implementation?
...But I should probably take this over to my build thread...
You see, the bass it great, it is just almost completely missing a note or two...
Am I correct to suspect standing waves due to sub-optimal bracing implementation?
...But I should probably take this over to my build thread...
I hope that isn't the case, because a) the speakers pretty-much have to remain where they are and b) my microTowers have no issues with bass sitting in the exact same position.
I'm going to run some sweeps after work today and see exactly where the problem is. Will run sweeps of the microTowers in the same position. Probably will run sweeps with the nanoTowers, too, as I have been meaning to do that for quite some time.
Last edited:
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.