Don't be daft, we're all here to learn. #957 was deliberately tongue in cheek (sorry). 😉 But accurate. Going through:
The Frugel horns are horns; they're not mass loaded and have no port -this is explained many times in various places (no reflection -no reason you should have seen it if you hadn't gone looking). A Voigt pipe / horn can be mass-loaded with a restricted terminus area -or not. If it is, it 'should' technically be prefixed by 'mass loaded' although that's not always the case.
Mass loading as far as quarter-wave designs is concerned simply refers to a restricted terminus area -which can be done in different ways, either with a regular vent tube, a slot vent or some alternate means of choking it down. It may or may not also be offset from the end of the pipe (just as the driver may).
A bass reflex / conventional vented box is a Helmholtz resonator; in essence the air volume trapped in the enclosure acts like a spring to couple the [usually] rear of the driver to the air mass in the port or duct. The object of all of these is to use enclosure resonance to boost the tuning frequency or in the case of back-loaded horns, a moderate frequency range.
The Frugel horns are horns; they're not mass loaded and have no port -this is explained many times in various places (no reflection -no reason you should have seen it if you hadn't gone looking). A Voigt pipe / horn can be mass-loaded with a restricted terminus area -or not. If it is, it 'should' technically be prefixed by 'mass loaded' although that's not always the case.
Mass loading as far as quarter-wave designs is concerned simply refers to a restricted terminus area -which can be done in different ways, either with a regular vent tube, a slot vent or some alternate means of choking it down. It may or may not also be offset from the end of the pipe (just as the driver may).
A bass reflex / conventional vented box is a Helmholtz resonator; in essence the air volume trapped in the enclosure acts like a spring to couple the [usually] rear of the driver to the air mass in the port or duct. The object of all of these is to use enclosure resonance to boost the tuning frequency or in the case of back-loaded horns, a moderate frequency range.
No, they have no port, and they're actually designed for boundary loading, i.e. they use the room boundaries to increase the effective size of the terminus (like a Klipschorn, to use one famous example). If you pull them out into the room, they don't function as intended as they no longer have that available.
Maybe this will work for you.
https://www.markaudio.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/Eland-Alpair-10.3-compact-MLTL.png
https://www.markaudio.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/Eland-Alpair-10.3-compact-MLTL.png
I'm flattered -it took quite some time to create the pensil alignment (speaking generically) since it's combining several different types of load & simplicity was a key goal too. So if it looks simple -I've clearly done my job! 😉
Thank you so much @Scottmoose for taking time to explain (and design) speakers for me 😊
I do wonder how the Eland is a MLTL (Mass Loaded Transmission Line). I thought transmission lines had a path for the air on the back of the driver to bring it to the front and in phase with the air directly coming from the front of the driver.
I do wonder how the Eland is a MLTL (Mass Loaded Transmission Line). I thought transmission lines had a path for the air on the back of the driver to bring it to the front and in phase with the air directly coming from the front of the driver.
How long have you got, regarding the term 'Transmission Line'? It'd take a lot longer than I have right now to cover that particular subject (and there are others here who can do a much better job than I could anyway) 😉 so suffice it to say it's a rather unfortunate name that has ended up being used for enclosures that in function / alignment terms are polar opposites of each other. There is (despite desperate claims from some parties) no fixed definition for what an acoustic TL is. Some arguably adhere to its origins closer than others, but as the saying goes, 'what's in a name'?
Short & probably rather boring version: ejecting the 'TL' term as excess baggage, we're dealing with quarter-wave enclosures here, which are essentially enclosures that in some way, shape or form use standing waves (eigenmodes) as a functional part of their alignment. Which is the reverse of, say, a conventional Helmholtz based vented box, which assumes a perfectly uniform internal air-particle density and no standing waves at all. The point of transition is probably best described as the point at which one dimension of an enclosure is stretched sufficiently to the others for eigenmodes to alter the alignment away from what purely Helmholtz based behaviour would provide. So from that, you can probably see there are vast number of ways you can create quarter-wave enclosures -from MLTLs like Eland, to folded labyrinths, chambered lines & many others. None are 'better' or 'worse' than the others -they're just different & with the 'pragmatic design' hat on, you pick what will do the job you need it to do acoustically & aesthetically if that last is relevant (which it usually is).
Short & probably rather boring version: ejecting the 'TL' term as excess baggage, we're dealing with quarter-wave enclosures here, which are essentially enclosures that in some way, shape or form use standing waves (eigenmodes) as a functional part of their alignment. Which is the reverse of, say, a conventional Helmholtz based vented box, which assumes a perfectly uniform internal air-particle density and no standing waves at all. The point of transition is probably best described as the point at which one dimension of an enclosure is stretched sufficiently to the others for eigenmodes to alter the alignment away from what purely Helmholtz based behaviour would provide. So from that, you can probably see there are vast number of ways you can create quarter-wave enclosures -from MLTLs like Eland, to folded labyrinths, chambered lines & many others. None are 'better' or 'worse' than the others -they're just different & with the 'pragmatic design' hat on, you pick what will do the job you need it to do acoustically & aesthetically if that last is relevant (which it usually is).
I have build BlueBuck- MLTL. Superb box.
I like the sound.
https://www.markaudio.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/Bluebuck-CHP90-compact-MLTL.png
I like the sound.
https://www.markaudio.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/Bluebuck-CHP90-compact-MLTL.png
I've been spending quite some hours on Youtube and this forum to gather and filter idea's for my build, based on the Alpair 10.3's. I'm way too unexperienced to interpret numbers and graphs, so I can only judge on looks and say that in general I like a warm, full sound. Clear but not too sharp (which gets tiring).
Would anyone here dare to describe and compare the soundstage of the following designs?
Would anyone here dare to describe and compare the soundstage of the following designs?
- Pensil
- Eland
- Despina
- Derwent (resized for 10.3 drivers)
- Frugel-Horn XL
- Sibelius (with 'normal' 10.3 drivers and woodworking skills)
Last edited by a moderator:
Watch out, all too many of them, you need to know more than they do to tell whenthey are spewing misinformation. Like the last video posted to this thread.
dave
Yes, somehow I fancy those big vents on the front 😊
Would that Derwent design suit the Alpair 10.3, you think?
Also curious about the performance of the Despina. Didn't find any built of them yet.
Would that Derwent design suit the Alpair 10.3, you think?
Also curious about the performance of the Despina. Didn't find any built of them yet.
No, I'd need to do a complete new design from scratch.
I don't think many Despinas have been built -the 10 series was near the end of its retail life when I did it, so not much opportunity, other than my test loads.
As a general observation, you'll get a myriad answers and a hippo for the comparison above. The problem is that 'soundstage' doesn't actually have any technical definition; it's a subjective result from a bunch of different things. Briefly though, most of it is innate to the driver, so for obvious reasons they'll all sound quite similar across a large portion of the range. Assuming all the speakers are in the same place, differences will be mostly below about 1.5KHz, from diffraction effects (baffle dimensions & driver position on it), and most obviously < about 250Hz from the different box loads, with FHXL operating over the widest bandwidth, followed at a distance by Pensil and Sibelius [homages], then Eland. Operating BW and the alignments aren't automatically advantageous or disadvantageous -as described above, they're just different.
I don't think many Despinas have been built -the 10 series was near the end of its retail life when I did it, so not much opportunity, other than my test loads.
As a general observation, you'll get a myriad answers and a hippo for the comparison above. The problem is that 'soundstage' doesn't actually have any technical definition; it's a subjective result from a bunch of different things. Briefly though, most of it is innate to the driver, so for obvious reasons they'll all sound quite similar across a large portion of the range. Assuming all the speakers are in the same place, differences will be mostly below about 1.5KHz, from diffraction effects (baffle dimensions & driver position on it), and most obviously < about 250Hz from the different box loads, with FHXL operating over the widest bandwidth, followed at a distance by Pensil and Sibelius [homages], then Eland. Operating BW and the alignments aren't automatically advantageous or disadvantageous -as described above, they're just different.
Last edited:
I was just like you.
Wanted the right box and the right sound. Bought four different Mark Audio drivers in this order: Alpair 12.2p, Alpair 11MS, MAOP 10.2, CHP-90.
What I have learned about this is that 12.2p,11MS,CHP-90 works best in big boxes. Maop10.2 work best in miniOnken.
It cannot be said that this applies to everyone. You might come up with something else. You have to try several types of boxes to be sure that it will be right for you.
My room is dedicated to sound. I can place the speakers anywhere in the room. Prefer that they stand one meter from all walls. Want as few reflections from the walls.
You want them near the front wall.
CHP-90 probably works well there.
I vote for Eland. With Alpair 10.3.
Because it is a metal cone. I compare with my 11MS.
Might be a bit too much for you probably in a small box. Thinking about what you want. Pensil is also a box that softens the sound. You will probably like them best when they are straight forward. Not angled.
Wanted the right box and the right sound. Bought four different Mark Audio drivers in this order: Alpair 12.2p, Alpair 11MS, MAOP 10.2, CHP-90.
What I have learned about this is that 12.2p,11MS,CHP-90 works best in big boxes. Maop10.2 work best in miniOnken.
It cannot be said that this applies to everyone. You might come up with something else. You have to try several types of boxes to be sure that it will be right for you.
My room is dedicated to sound. I can place the speakers anywhere in the room. Prefer that they stand one meter from all walls. Want as few reflections from the walls.
You want them near the front wall.
CHP-90 probably works well there.
I vote for Eland. With Alpair 10.3.
Because it is a metal cone. I compare with my 11MS.
Might be a bit too much for you probably in a small box. Thinking about what you want. Pensil is also a box that softens the sound. You will probably like them best when they are straight forward. Not angled.
Last edited:
I think the wrong discussions are taking place in this thread. This thread is specifically for building the Sibelius. I think this tuning would be best placed in a thread like: what is the best cabinet for the Alpair 10.3.
soon I will share the experiences of building and testing an exact copy of the Sibelius….
soon I will share the experiences of building and testing an exact copy of the Sibelius….
Now that Alpair 10.3 has become more difficult to get hold of, this thread will die out.
But those who already have a suitable driver for Sibelius can of course make and use this box.
However, it is not a miracle box.
It feels like a lot of people think so. It is very exaggerated.
But those who already have a suitable driver for Sibelius can of course make and use this box.
However, it is not a miracle box.
It feels like a lot of people think so. It is very exaggerated.
The problem with DIY designs is often that you only know what it will sound like to you after you have built it. I was able to listen to the Sibelius with my own music and found that I have never heard such a faithful reproduction and spatial image. So for me this is a very suitable design to build myself. And it's not cheap. The quote for ready-made planed, glued, sanded and 45 degrees sawn solid 1st class oak wood 32mm plates is around 1000 euros! Finnish birch plywood around 550 euros. Last but not least, it remains personal taste and preference (not a miracle box like LeifB60 said)!
For others who are in love with the sound of the Sibelius. It's not cheap, but I can get hold of unused 10.2 Gold Color drivers new in the box. Just send me a personal message.
For others who are in love with the sound of the Sibelius. It's not cheap, but I can get hold of unused 10.2 Gold Color drivers new in the box. Just send me a personal message.
Last edited:
It won't be 'exact' unless Harley has given you full dimensions, materials lists & construction methods. But it will probably be 'near enough'.