I can only say that what people, including me, hear. Better detail on voice & instrument that make them more real sounding, the very small bits of information needed to create a 3D soundstage/image — that is what i listen for in a blind test, and from taking a whole afternoon to get a feel for what it does on the 1st exposure, to now when the right sone, the image and a couple switches of the switch box and it is easy to tell which drivers are EnABLed.
The important thing in any hifi is how well does the system connect the listener to the emotion of the music. EnABL reduces the amount of work needed to fill in the missing piece (ie not as much is missing), so one relaxes mire and tunes into the music.
dave
There are no Mar-Kens yet designed — no CAD sw for near a month, and now i have to work thru a backlog). The A7ms on 1st look will have an optimum box of 13 litres (A10.3/FE127/EL70 — but should be workable all the way down to the 4.7 litre millSize box). A7p is currently done in the 9 litres same/similar to A7.3 and many of the CHx.
So you can look at the CGR for the EL70, the smaller one for the A7.3. Venting & driver specific details are all that should change.
dave
So you can look at the CGR for the EL70, the smaller one for the A7.3. Venting & driver specific details are all that should change.
dave
Dave,
What is DDR?
I could not find it when I looked up Theile Small Parameters.
Thanks
Steven
Thanx Octavia, DDR is a term that Allen Wright (sadly passed too earl) as a more technical approach to cover all the audiophile reviewer terms that have meanings that are kinda “squishy”.
DDR is the ability of device to reproduce the tiny details even in the presence of a full strength music.
He used it mostly for amps, but it really stands out in a speaker. When i finally grooked what EnABL did it was like a revalation… like flying over a valley and a mist hiding the details clearing out and all of a sudden the valley can be seen.
dave
DDR is the ability of device to reproduce the tiny details even in the presence of a full strength music.
He used it mostly for amps, but it really stands out in a speaker. When i finally grooked what EnABL did it was like a revalation… like flying over a valley and a mist hiding the details clearing out and all of a sudden the valley can be seen.
dave
Well said Dave. I had that exact same experience after a visit with Frank Van Alstine and going home and trying his suggestion of adding a thin layer of plastic modeling clay over the frame of the speaker drivers. All these little things do add up like cleaning the window for a clearer view outside (or inside if you name is Tom)
I think Downward Dynamic Range is the same thing as Dynamic Range. In principal you can improve dynamic range by lowering noise floor or raising the peaks. So essentially DDR is referring to simply lowering the noise floor in an effort to improve Dynamic Range? Why not just say it improves dynamic range? As I think cancellation effects from time domain decay resonances will lower the peaks as well as raise the noise floor. Maybe this has been discussed over and over but to me it's a distinction without a difference. It's just that most people look at Dynamic Range strictly in terms of electronic noise, and don't consider transducer dynamic range because the math is not straightforward like it is with electronic circuits.
After having my A11MS running for a few weeks now, I am continually impressed with their effortless, detailed, extended & beautifully smooth sound quality, the midrange/vocal region in particular is just sublime (for my taste anyway).
I can’t help wondering what Mark Fenlon would be capable of producing if he developed a driver dedicated to Mid/high only, freed from the need to produce bass & the Xmax associated, surely more focus could be applied to aspects like wider dispersion?
I am currently crossing over to my bass cabinets at 200hz, even at very high levels with electronic dance music, the cones are probably moving less than 1mm.
This may be a bit of a personal wish, but with the popularity of woofer assisted wideband, availability of dsp & like myself, sub sat systems with wideband bass cabs that are able to cross at 300-500hz, surely a mid/high driver would be very popular ?
I can’t help wondering what Mark Fenlon would be capable of producing if he developed a driver dedicated to Mid/high only, freed from the need to produce bass & the Xmax associated, surely more focus could be applied to aspects like wider dispersion?
I am currently crossing over to my bass cabinets at 200hz, even at very high levels with electronic dance music, the cones are probably moving less than 1mm.
This may be a bit of a personal wish, but with the popularity of woofer assisted wideband, availability of dsp & like myself, sub sat systems with wideband bass cabs that are able to cross at 300-500hz, surely a mid/high driver would be very popular ?
Last edited:
Jason - your wish list kind describes what the A5.2 does so very well. I’m using a pair in small vented enclosures for rear surrounds in 7.1 system with LF filter at 150Hz. Absent the ability- or frankly inclination- to measure spectral content of unfiltered surround effects channels on a wide range of program material, it’s only my WAG that there’s not enough going on there to overburden them at my listening levels of under 90dB peaks.
For me at least, context is everything.
For me at least, context is everything.
We need to keep building WAWs to encourage him.
Now when one considers a WAW one does want some extended bass response. For an XO of 300 hz, response to 75 hz would be nice). There is a relation between bass extension of the midTweeter and how loud one can play.
And there has been a tendency for the Mark Audio drivers (at least the larger ones) over time for the drivers to be less capable in exchange for smoother top-end and efficiency.
I haven’t really looked at the A7ms, but the A10.2 (a relevation compared to the original, very Jordan-like A10.10 is the Mark Audio bass leader (ignoring A12pw), both the A10.3 and A10p give up bass extension, and the A11ms seems to take that even further. The 1st gen A7 (A7, A7.2 only differed in the addition of the molded in super-gasket (since replaced by just a stick on super gasket), went lower than the A7.3.
So in some senses we might well be getting what we are asking for.
dave
Now when one considers a WAW one does want some extended bass response. For an XO of 300 hz, response to 75 hz would be nice). There is a relation between bass extension of the midTweeter and how loud one can play.
And there has been a tendency for the Mark Audio drivers (at least the larger ones) over time for the drivers to be less capable in exchange for smoother top-end and efficiency.
I haven’t really looked at the A7ms, but the A10.2 (a relevation compared to the original, very Jordan-like A10.10 is the Mark Audio bass leader (ignoring A12pw), both the A10.3 and A10p give up bass extension, and the A11ms seems to take that even further. The 1st gen A7 (A7, A7.2 only differed in the addition of the molded in super-gasket (since replaced by just a stick on super gasket), went lower than the A7.3.
So in some senses we might well be getting what we are asking for.
dave
Thanks Chris, I really appreciate your experience, I may invest in a pair of those to compare with my A11’s.
It’s a steep learning curve for those of us new to full range drivers, especially with no guidance between the different drivers on the manufactures website, isn’t the cone profile on the MS series designed to give wider dispersion than the standard Apair cone though ?