Picture 3 is a voighthorn. This was big in 70th and 80th.
They used Philips 9710 from beginning. But it works with nearly every 8" with Qts 0.35-0.45.
They had a clean bass and many did a pair.
They used Philips 9710 from beginning. But it works with nearly every 8" with Qts 0.35-0.45.
They had a clean bass and many did a pair.
Attachments
Last edited:
Yeah, I was lucky enough to buy them from a friendly man who cancelled his plans to build something himself (Frugel-Horn). He broke in the drivers 150 hours, but other than that they're new.
I'll take another look at the Pensil as well. I feel tempted to adopt all the aspects of speakers I like and build something of it. Mixing it with aesthetics as well, I'm a bit scared to end up with some Frankenstein-speaker (soundwise).
Last edited by a moderator:
if you stick with Scott and Dave's designs and respect the important parameters they set out, you shouldn't go wrong.
and they're really really helpful if you have questions regarding changes you want to make.
one suggestion -- consider Dave's Enabl treatment for the 10.3 cones.
and they're really really helpful if you have questions regarding changes you want to make.
one suggestion -- consider Dave's Enabl treatment for the 10.3 cones.
Impressive stuff, Planet 10. Making it harder to stick to my plan! :$ I took me a while to understand the terms and shorts. Overall I prefer the tall, slim designs (aesthetically). Is any of these designs better or worse to use in a room of 4x8 meter? (I sit at 3,5 meters from my speakers)22 minute video, he started spewing crap within the second minute. So i couldn’t watch moire and i would not pay attention to anything he says.
A properly designed ML-Voigt has a Zd right at 50%. Aslong as you fold the basic “festival” style straight Voigt such that the driver fires in the dirction you need it to face.
Festival style:
The usual single folding. You can put the driver on any of the 4 sides bu will need to adjuat where the point starst to get the appropriate Zd
View attachment 1372862
We sed this folding in Mileva, Demetri
Here a clever folding that rose from opposite sides of the planet… Scott (Yorkshire) for the FF108e∑ and FF165wk, and Nadape (Japan) for more than that.
And just to throw a fish intothe works, Zd is not always 50%.
View attachment 1372863
And then there is the folded Metronome, a good start for an upfiring omni
View attachment 1372866
dave
I know this is a total noob question, but to get it clear:
- The Frugel-Horn or Voigt Tubes have a port, large enough not to restrict air moving in and out. Right?
- Mass Loaded designs have a smaller opening (than ported), pressurising the cabinet. Right?
- Bass reflex is also a mass loaded principle, but utilise the resonance of the reflex pipe to increase certain frequencies. Right?
Last edited by a moderator:
If you want to use the Markaudio Alpair 10.2 or 10.3, I would stick to the design of the Sibelis. Harley tinkered with the design for many years until the speaker reproduced an instrument faithfully. I listened to the Sibelius in Belgium and can say that singing voices, for example, have never sounded so natural. If you want a slim speaker, you can stick to the internal dimensions of the sibelius and, for example, use 18mm birch plywood. And possibly the front thicker. I think my drawing corresponds to the original within the margin of 1 cm. The only thing that cannot be copied is the driver of the Sibelius itself, which is an Alpair 10 adapted to Harley's wishes. The coil appears to have been adjusted. But this is all secret. It is striking that Markaudio has stopped production of the Alpair 10 and not the other sizes. If you look at the electrical properties of the driver, the Alpair 10.2 will come closest. This driver can make a greater impact and @Hondasnl has determined that the 10.2 produces more bass in the Sibelius housing.
Last edited:
Hmmm...
I think the lesson takeaway from all I've read on this thread is that if you have a pair of 10.3s you do not have the foundation for a pair of Sibelius unless you're willing to solve a lot of your own design problems. The Sibelius drivers are different drivers. The enclosure assumes drivers you do not have.
best to stick with Pensils or FHXLs or another product of the Scott-Dave design juggernaught.
just my 2¢
I think the lesson takeaway from all I've read on this thread is that if you have a pair of 10.3s you do not have the foundation for a pair of Sibelius unless you're willing to solve a lot of your own design problems. The Sibelius drivers are different drivers. The enclosure assumes drivers you do not have.
best to stick with Pensils or FHXLs or another product of the Scott-Dave design juggernaught.
just my 2¢
When my cabinets are ready I will take measurements. Also to determine how much damping material is desirable.
I bought compact and cheap self-built TQWT cabinets (18mm MDF) with the Alpair 10.2 and they already sound fantastic. The measurements show how good the driver is, measured at a distance of 1 meter and the measurement at the bass opening shows that too little and/or wrong damping material has been used.
Last edited:
Proberly best to use ready projekt.
But I think the only who know is you.
I cant make a Sibelius. Maybe if you use 10.3 you will get 80-90% of Sibelius.
But if you use Pensil or FHXL you will get 100%.
But I think the only who know is you.
I cant make a Sibelius. Maybe if you use 10.3 you will get 80-90% of Sibelius.
But if you use Pensil or FHXL you will get 100%.
Thank you @Wil_NL and @mhenschel. I'm aware that my 'default' 10.3's may not be similar to the ones used in the Sibelius. But maybee perhaps they are? Without blaming Pearl to market their products as unique, they might have done less to the driver than they suggest, just to discourage copying the design.
I am curious though, so hypothetically:
Just to give some context: I'm streaming Spotify over a Sonos Amp into a 4x8m room, sitting 3,5 meters from the speakers. I don't have a workshop and will probably be working with 18mm plywood (double where needed).
I am curious though, so hypothetically:
- What could they have changed to the units?
- And how would that modification make the "normal 10.3" unsuited for that cabinet?
Just to give some context: I'm streaming Spotify over a Sonos Amp into a 4x8m room, sitting 3,5 meters from the speakers. I don't have a workshop and will probably be working with 18mm plywood (double where needed).
I do like the concept of the FHXL, but I don't like the footprint (too big). Also, since the port is on the back side, I assume the speakers need some distance from the walls? (which I don't have).
So perhaps the Pensils are a good alternative to consider. But for some reason I find the internal design a bit simple. As if there is more to gain?
Sibelius is not directly unsuitable. It is perhaps their tuning frequency that may be too low. 10.2 goes a little lower in the bass.
FHXL are close to wall design, thats why I made them. Footpront is a bit deep, but I have no need to pull them more than 20cm from rear wall
I do like the concept of the FHXL, but I don't like the footprint (too big). Also, since the port is on the back side, I assume the speakers need some distance from the walls? (which I don't have).
So perhaps the Pensils are a good alternative to consider
Well, that clears things up 🤣
I'll try to educate myself a bit without polluting the forum any more