I am about to pull the trigger on a pair of Mark Audio Alpair 10.3 drivers. The two finalists are 1) The Pensil 10.3 and 2) the Eland. Much of this is dictated by the small footprint (consequently the appropriate Frugal horn is NOT on the table)
This is the Pensil
http://frugal-phile.com/boxlib/pensils/Pensil103-plan-300114.pdf
And this is the Eland
https://www.diyaudio.com/community/...audio-fostex-tb-dayton-seas-etc.323051/page-3
Both of these are MLTLs (although I am an old guy and would simply call them Bass Reflex since neither has any sort of tapered line behind the driver)
The highlights are the Eland has a CSA of about 40 sq in and a volume of 1450 cu in. The Pensil is a few inches taller and has a CSA 2.5 times larger and a volume that is 2.9 times larger. The Fb on the Eland is 40 Hz and a F6 of 32 Hz (this is more than adequate since they will be near a wall / corner). I did not find the comparable specs on the Pensil. Since the Pensil is larger my assumption that there will be adequate bass.
Both seem like easy builds. The recommended bracing in the Eland is simpler and only calls for felt lining on the walls. The bracing on the Pensil is more elaborate but achievable and the the cabinet calls for stuffing (fluffy) only.
Here is my confusion. Both designs were done by Scott ( I saw no others mentioned so I hope I did not slight anyone), but I get the impression that many Pensils (10.3 version) have been made. The Eland, however, is not widely discussed. Was it a prototype that was never fine-tuned or was it overtaken by the favorable success of the Pensil? I am only guessing.
Big question: given the geometry of the boxes (mostly overall size) are different, so has anyone listened / measured both and what was the outcome.
Just as an aside. I noticed the Sibelius by Pearl (similar driver and similar size) has enjoyed some enthusiasm (certainly in the cosmetics category). But it appears to have a tapered line behind the driver ( although the advertising refers to it as "a front loaded "V" shaped horn"). Intriguing and fun to think about, but it would tax my limited knowledge trying to mimic that alignment.
Thanks in advance for any knowledge and feedback that you can provide
This is the Pensil
http://frugal-phile.com/boxlib/pensils/Pensil103-plan-300114.pdf
And this is the Eland
https://www.diyaudio.com/community/...audio-fostex-tb-dayton-seas-etc.323051/page-3
Both of these are MLTLs (although I am an old guy and would simply call them Bass Reflex since neither has any sort of tapered line behind the driver)
The highlights are the Eland has a CSA of about 40 sq in and a volume of 1450 cu in. The Pensil is a few inches taller and has a CSA 2.5 times larger and a volume that is 2.9 times larger. The Fb on the Eland is 40 Hz and a F6 of 32 Hz (this is more than adequate since they will be near a wall / corner). I did not find the comparable specs on the Pensil. Since the Pensil is larger my assumption that there will be adequate bass.
Both seem like easy builds. The recommended bracing in the Eland is simpler and only calls for felt lining on the walls. The bracing on the Pensil is more elaborate but achievable and the the cabinet calls for stuffing (fluffy) only.
Here is my confusion. Both designs were done by Scott ( I saw no others mentioned so I hope I did not slight anyone), but I get the impression that many Pensils (10.3 version) have been made. The Eland, however, is not widely discussed. Was it a prototype that was never fine-tuned or was it overtaken by the favorable success of the Pensil? I am only guessing.
Big question: given the geometry of the boxes (mostly overall size) are different, so has anyone listened / measured both and what was the outcome.
Just as an aside. I noticed the Sibelius by Pearl (similar driver and similar size) has enjoyed some enthusiasm (certainly in the cosmetics category). But it appears to have a tapered line behind the driver ( although the advertising refers to it as "a front loaded "V" shaped horn"). Intriguing and fun to think about, but it would tax my limited knowledge trying to mimic that alignment.
Thanks in advance for any knowledge and feedback that you can provide
Last edited:
Don't recall ever seeing an Eland build, or was there one in the thread you linked? You could be the first. 🙂
Pensil is a solid performer FWIW.
jeff
Pensil is a solid performer FWIW.
jeff
They are ML-TLs, definitely not reflex. As soon as one dimension becomes signifcantly larger than the others the box starts to produce ¼-wave eigenmodes. The restricted terminus acts both as another low pass (meaning less internal damping needed), and forces the tunign of the box lower.
Pensil has an alignment that ensures solid midbass at the expense of ultimate extension. The Eland is tuned lower.
dave
Pensil has an alignment that ensures solid midbass at the expense of ultimate extension. The Eland is tuned lower.
dave
Dave thanks for your input.
As an aside, since the Eland is smaller and has a lower frequency extension, may I assume that those two features bring the penalty of decreased efficiency / output (my folksy interpretation of Hoffman's Iron Law) ? Maybe this is what you meant by "solid midbass" for the Pensil.
As an aside, since the Eland is smaller and has a lower frequency extension, may I assume that those two features bring the penalty of decreased efficiency / output (my folksy interpretation of Hoffman's Iron Law) ? Maybe this is what you meant by "solid midbass" for the Pensil.
Jeff, I have not seen any mention of an actual build. Certainly no photos or response graphs of someones build.
I am thinking that the Pensil may be a better candidate for me. At the very least it will get me started on breaking in the drivers
The Pensil alignment allows for more output in the 40-80hz (and a bit above), the place where “punch” comes from. Scott describes it as a pro alignment. The Eland will trade that for greater extension.
Both good. But different. At least below 300 Hz, not FR so much as potential for impact.
Efficiency is set in the midband and an enclosure (except for a front-loaded horn) does not increase efficiency.
This kind of thing comes from the myth that vented boxes are more efficient. In reality they are not, they only (typically) have more output before rolloff (but less below). I very specific reality turned into a something misleading by leaving out the important bit.
dave