I think I'm gonna end up going with the pensils. What's the difference between the pensil 12.2 and the superpensils? They both use the same driver, right? What's the advantage of one over the other?
Note that the drivers employed in the MTMs shown is the "woofer" version of the A12P, and at the sacrifice of a little sensitivity actually requires a much smaller enclosure to deliver deeper bass than the A12P.
My only experience with the A12P was in a pair of "smallish" standmouter vented enclosures in which they were rather underwhelming in the bass department, and in the SuperPensils, in which they definitely are not.
IINM, the only difference between the two enclosures on this plan http://frugal-phile.com/boxlib/pensils/PensilsA122p-191012.pdf is the approx 7" in depth, which yields approx 62in^2 additional CSA on the Super Pensil. They are not a compact floorstander. NO doubt the performance advantages that should theoretically deliver can be modeled - perhaps already have been? - but am not sure if anyone has directly compared them in a real room.
My only experience with the A12P was in a pair of "smallish" standmouter vented enclosures in which they were rather underwhelming in the bass department, and in the SuperPensils, in which they definitely are not.
IINM, the only difference between the two enclosures on this plan http://frugal-phile.com/boxlib/pensils/PensilsA122p-191012.pdf is the approx 7" in depth, which yields approx 62in^2 additional CSA on the Super Pensil. They are not a compact floorstander. NO doubt the performance advantages that should theoretically deliver can be modeled - perhaps already have been? - but am not sure if anyone has directly compared them in a real room.
Last edited:
Correction. A12pw needs about twice the volume of the A12p. The MTM is a relativly compact line. SuperPensil is not. Scott says his personal preference is the regular Pensil.
I do like the A12pw (used FR) over the A12p, some thou may find some top end deficit. Don’t get me wrong, Jeff’s SuperPensil12p with A12PeN are very good speakers.
dave
PS: the small enclosures Chris was talking about now house A10PeN and sound really good.
I should also suggest that the height of the Pensil for the A12p and the MTM ML-TL for the A12pw are an indication of how low these 2 respective lines are tuned.
dave
dave
Thank you.
I'm still looking for that "magical" driver or drivers to handle > 300hz (1st order) with essentially no dynamic limits. The A7.3s were pretty good, but ultimately displayed an audible ringing / cone break up. The A10 metal cones (.2 and .3) were worse. I'm hoping that the paper cone drivers might be the answer.
Any suggestions? Am I heading down the right path?
I'm still looking for that "magical" driver or drivers to handle > 300hz (1st order) with essentially no dynamic limits. The A7.3s were pretty good, but ultimately displayed an audible ringing / cone break up. The A10 metal cones (.2 and .3) were worse. I'm hoping that the paper cone drivers might be the answer.
Any suggestions? Am I heading down the right path?
I didnt hear any break up issue from the 7.3M so far.
They only have about 20hrs on them
What should I be hearing and when is it evident?
They only have about 20hrs on them
What should I be hearing and when is it evident?
Perceval - I have not heard that particular model, but am currently using a TangBand sourced driver, FR125SR. I have also heard several other full range TB drivers used as midranges. They are generally smooth, there does not seem to be much of a sonic signature (mostly), but they all ultimately lack very fine detail, a characteristic that seems common to TB drivers). Maybe the newer generations of TB drivers have addressed that shortcoming.
silverhairbp - what enclosure were the 7.3's in when you heard the ringing / cone break up? Were they running full range or were they high passed? I'm not saying you are mistaken, I'd just like to know under what conditions you found these problems.
Octavia - Good questions. The A7.3s were [and still are] mounted in Pensil 7.3 enclosures running full range. Only copper wire between the amps and the drivers. No filters or tone controls in the circuit save for the RIAA eq circuitry in the phono stage. Distance from speaker to ear position was 7 feet, +/-, where I actually sat in the recliner. Mixed sources most of which were full symphony orchestra. Moderate, not loud, listening levels. Breakup was most notably related to triangle, masses strings and piccolo. Subtle, but audible. The rest of the system include:
VPI Aries Extended w/ JMW-12 arm and AT-OC9/II cart
Douk DAC using an Onkyo transport
Herron Audio VTPH-2
Herron Audio VTSP-3a(r03)
Herron Audio M-160 updated to M-1
VPI Aries Extended w/ JMW-12 arm and AT-OC9/II cart
Douk DAC using an Onkyo transport
Herron Audio VTPH-2
Herron Audio VTSP-3a(r03)
Herron Audio M-160 updated to M-1
Quick follow-up question for those willing to opine....
Of the A12PW, A12P and 10P, could these be ranked by DDR? I think that's the term for very subtle detail. Maybe also ranked by their ability to provide dynamic contrast (as opposed to what might be considered compressed dynamics).
I know this is very subjective, but the enjoyment gained through listening to music is very subjective.
Of the A12PW, A12P and 10P, could these be ranked by DDR? I think that's the term for very subtle detail. Maybe also ranked by their ability to provide dynamic contrast (as opposed to what might be considered compressed dynamics).
I know this is very subjective, but the enjoyment gained through listening to music is very subjective.
OK Dave - Which driver would you rank the absolute best for DDR? The A7.3 or something else? Also how much do you think the Enable treatments add to DDR? As long as the enclosure is dampened correctly do you think sealed versus vented has any DDR advantage?
Thanks
Thanks
A7.3eN or A7 MOAP. I’d love to get a pair of the latter to EnABL.
But all the current Alpairs are quite good.
Quite a bit. That sufficiently extra information is provided to have the soundstage go from good with a stock driver to notably deeper, and with better expression with a treated driver. Listening just for that (with source material that actually has a great soundstage/image) is what i use to quickly tell EnABLed from not in blind tests.
That i can’t say.
Far to many traditionally vented boxes are poorly done. But with most drivers you have to recover part of the back radiation to get decent bass so we don’t often do sealed. Our vented boxes use a high resistance vent. This adds an R to the vent equation damping it. We get very nuanced bass, at the sacrifice of ultimate extension. My subs are sealed as were the SDX7 in our ellipse shaped floorstander. We have gotten very good bass (amazing really) out of a number of Woden Design specified ML-TLs.
I guess you could say we mostly do damped boxes with a hole in it.
With all the modern digital EQ coming on strong, and the room dominating down low, sealed subs give you more latitude for control.
dave
An underappreciated driver. It and the metal are 6 of one, halfdozen of another. In an LS3/5A sized enclosure can give impressive performance… better than the LS3/5a i restored for a friend.
dave
Re the A6 - as Dave hinted, both are quite good performers, and a bit of an orphan in the line - or at least unfortunately overlooked. I could live with either - the same could be said about the 2 A10 models. OTOH, I much prefer the metal versions of the A7 over the paper. Oh, and it's MAOP.