Hello all,
After being a happy listener for several years with below speakers, I am planning upgrade drivers to MAOP 11 in place of Alpair 10.2
https://www.diyaudio.com/community/threads/erich-hartmann-alpair-10-2-bookshelf-speakers.227999/
so I have few questions,
1. is there going to be considerable sound quality upgrade from A10.2 to MAOP11, given the huge price difference between them?
2. I am using class AB 80W amp for A10.2, whats recommended for MAOP11?
3. can the above Erich's slot vented box can be used with same dimensions for MAOP11? or there exist better design? I see below designs in the MA site,
Lhotse-MLTL-11.2MAOP
MAOP11.2-TL
MAOP11.2-RTL
LS-MAOP11.2
4. are they good to handle bass frequencies as good as or better than A10.2? or should i consider adding sub/woofer?
5. do they need tweeter? I see one guy used tweeters
https://www.diyaudio.com/community/attachments/img_20211123_123101-jpg.999675/
6. How do they perform near field listening. Just 8 feet from them?
thanks in advance
After being a happy listener for several years with below speakers, I am planning upgrade drivers to MAOP 11 in place of Alpair 10.2
https://www.diyaudio.com/community/threads/erich-hartmann-alpair-10-2-bookshelf-speakers.227999/
so I have few questions,
1. is there going to be considerable sound quality upgrade from A10.2 to MAOP11, given the huge price difference between them?
2. I am using class AB 80W amp for A10.2, whats recommended for MAOP11?
3. can the above Erich's slot vented box can be used with same dimensions for MAOP11? or there exist better design? I see below designs in the MA site,
Lhotse-MLTL-11.2MAOP
MAOP11.2-TL
MAOP11.2-RTL
LS-MAOP11.2
4. are they good to handle bass frequencies as good as or better than A10.2? or should i consider adding sub/woofer?
5. do they need tweeter? I see one guy used tweeters
https://www.diyaudio.com/community/attachments/img_20211123_123101-jpg.999675/
6. How do they perform near field listening. Just 8 feet from them?
thanks in advance
A few questions there; going though in order:
- It's different. Keep in mind, these are different size drivers with different electromechanical parameters, so it's not really a like-with-like comparison. MAOP 11 (current version) is a little more controlled on the top end & has lower overall distortion levels / greater headroom than the smaller 2nd generation Alpair 10.
- Anything you like providing it's got sufficient clean power to drive it as desired. 😉 Beyond that, it's really a matter of individual taste, so if you ask a thousand people, you'll probably get a thousand answers about what they prefer, but that's essentially what it is: what they happen to like
- You can, but it will be overdamped; MAOP 11 has significantly more electrical damping than Alpair 10.2, a slightly higher Fs and lower Vas so it benefits from a dedicated enclosure design -in the case of a conventional vented, smaller & tuned higher. So like always, I'd recommend using an enclosure that was designed for the driver rather than trying to force it into one designed for something else; generally speaking you'll get better results that way.
- The two hybrid TLs I did are very different sorts of alignment, & lurk somewhere in their general characteristics between a vented & a classic type of TL alignment; mildly damped, relatively controlled impedance. As you can see from the tuning, the LS box I designed as a very compact enclosure using the same baffle dimensions as the evergreen BBC LS3/5a, and as a compact design it isn't intended for maximum LF extension, but for a slightly peaking alignment in the octave above Fb (which is about the only other thing it has in common with the BBC design). Lhotse is a low-forced MLTL that gets about as low as I'm happy to extract from the driver in a vented load & is usable down to just below 40Hz or so -perhaps a little more in a sympathetic room acoustic. The 10.2 arguably gets lower in some enclosures, but with slightly reduced sensitivity & less in the way of dynamic range. Whether you want to add a subwoofer or not is up to you -only you can know your requirements in that regard
- Most don't. Some people do. YMMV as always.
- They produce sound. 😉 That's not meant to be facetious -it's just that it isn't a question that really has an answer. People buy and like them, some use in relative nearfield like that; as a point-source single driver there shouldn't be any issues -this is something that wideband units tend to be good at for that reason.
Last edited:
Thanks Scott for detailed reply.
The nearest box to Erich's BS by dimensions is LS-MAOP11. I will be sacrificing lots of bass though. I wish vented box with similar dimensions of Erich's BS would have been great. Even if it achieves 55-60Hz, that would be enough for me.
visited the MA site and noticed there are A12P, A11ms and CHR-120 with good reviews and having BS box plans available. Now we all know MAOP are superior of all the models, but want to understand (purely from sound quality point of view), how do other models do? Are they like 90% of MAOP or 80% of MAOP or 50% of MAOP!? If they are inferior then in which areas they are? Surprisingly cost of these 3 large models is literally half of MAOPs in my country. Want to understand what I will be sacrificing if I chose one of the above instead of MAOP11.
The nearest box to Erich's BS by dimensions is LS-MAOP11. I will be sacrificing lots of bass though. I wish vented box with similar dimensions of Erich's BS would have been great. Even if it achieves 55-60Hz, that would be enough for me.
visited the MA site and noticed there are A12P, A11ms and CHR-120 with good reviews and having BS box plans available. Now we all know MAOP are superior of all the models, but want to understand (purely from sound quality point of view), how do other models do? Are they like 90% of MAOP or 80% of MAOP or 50% of MAOP!? If they are inferior then in which areas they are? Surprisingly cost of these 3 large models is literally half of MAOPs in my country. Want to understand what I will be sacrificing if I chose one of the above instead of MAOP11.
BS plans? I don't think you quite mean that (at least I hope not! 😉 ).
The MAOP versions are in effect upgraded versions of the drivers they are based on, but that doesn't necessarily mean the range, such as it is, are necessarily the top performers. MAOP11.2 for e.g. is based on an adapted Pluvia 11. Whether that is necessarily 'better' than or just different to, say, Alpair 11MS, is a different question, because they're not the same unit. The MAOP models are expensive because the production cost of the cones is extremely high, with a large reject rate, and the fact that they are custom built in small batches, and individually measured & pair matched at the factory. As for a percentage different -it's not really something you can put a number to. Assuming equivalent units, the MAOP models with their pair-matching and variable hardness cones (in essence the outer layers are converted to the ceramic oxide of the base material so you have variable hardness with depth, combined with a surface that has greater boundary losses due to its altered structure) have a little more control / self damping through the resonant part of their operating range (most of it) and a more linear response with fractionally lower HD too.
All three of the units you mention are capable; CHR-120 offers the most LF extension potential, though needs larger enclosures to do so, and isn't quite as refined as the Alpairs -though still decent in the scheme of things. Depends where your priorities lie.
The MAOP versions are in effect upgraded versions of the drivers they are based on, but that doesn't necessarily mean the range, such as it is, are necessarily the top performers. MAOP11.2 for e.g. is based on an adapted Pluvia 11. Whether that is necessarily 'better' than or just different to, say, Alpair 11MS, is a different question, because they're not the same unit. The MAOP models are expensive because the production cost of the cones is extremely high, with a large reject rate, and the fact that they are custom built in small batches, and individually measured & pair matched at the factory. As for a percentage different -it's not really something you can put a number to. Assuming equivalent units, the MAOP models with their pair-matching and variable hardness cones (in essence the outer layers are converted to the ceramic oxide of the base material so you have variable hardness with depth, combined with a surface that has greater boundary losses due to its altered structure) have a little more control / self damping through the resonant part of their operating range (most of it) and a more linear response with fractionally lower HD too.
All three of the units you mention are capable; CHR-120 offers the most LF extension potential, though needs larger enclosures to do so, and isn't quite as refined as the Alpairs -though still decent in the scheme of things. Depends where your priorities lie.
Hello Scott, I understand what you explained.
Actually I am looking more towards a speaker that sounds 'more intimate'!! and this is where I am hoping to hit the spot with MAOP11
I will be driving them with tube amp or tube pre+SS amp with a very good DAC and high resolution audio, focused more on jazz and classical/vocal centric music. This speaker will also be connected to TV for watching occasional netflix (I can always switch on the sub for movies and will make an arrangement to cutoff the audio feed to these speakers to play only above say 120hz)
So I guess I am not very inclined at hitting 30hz for music. 50hz would be good enough and preferred to my taste. Male voice starts from somewhere at 55hz so I should be safe.
I also went thro almost all box plans meant for MAOP11, A12P, CHR-120 and 11MS. Out of them, Poplar and Golden ratio bass reflex had more WAF. I liked Lhotse as its width and depth footprint is room friendly and height matches with TV level. However, I am not sure if I can place them close to wall or not. If not, whats the preferred distance from back wall and side wall? Pensils also preferrable except that depth is more to my taste. For the same reason, keeping frugal plans out of the list.
Actually I am looking more towards a speaker that sounds 'more intimate'!! and this is where I am hoping to hit the spot with MAOP11
I will be driving them with tube amp or tube pre+SS amp with a very good DAC and high resolution audio, focused more on jazz and classical/vocal centric music. This speaker will also be connected to TV for watching occasional netflix (I can always switch on the sub for movies and will make an arrangement to cutoff the audio feed to these speakers to play only above say 120hz)
So I guess I am not very inclined at hitting 30hz for music. 50hz would be good enough and preferred to my taste. Male voice starts from somewhere at 55hz so I should be safe.
I also went thro almost all box plans meant for MAOP11, A12P, CHR-120 and 11MS. Out of them, Poplar and Golden ratio bass reflex had more WAF. I liked Lhotse as its width and depth footprint is room friendly and height matches with TV level. However, I am not sure if I can place them close to wall or not. If not, whats the preferred distance from back wall and side wall? Pensils also preferrable except that depth is more to my taste. For the same reason, keeping frugal plans out of the list.
There isn't really a preferred distance other than what works best for your particular room. There's more to it than just the dimensions unfortunately; beyond the rest of the system & listening distance, the room construction & furnishings play a major role in what you're likely to get. Broadly speaking, they should be fine from anything more than about 4in out from the front wall though.
Had the same musical target than yours. Intimate music, ECM jazz and vocals. Provided music taste is a subjective experience, in my case maop 11.2 surpassed by a large margin all the other 3 Mark audio drivers I tried. Watch it, all excellent with different character but, for my taste, maop has a smoothness clarity that it's difficult to forget. One remark, if you go for maop don't forget to let them play at very low radio volume as advised for approx 100 hrs.
It sounds as a bad joke at first and i demanded myself many times if it was that important: they have now about 800 hours of play and I don't think they would reached this sound quality if I had not done that break in so attentive.
Just my opinion
It sounds as a bad joke at first and i demanded myself many times if it was that important: they have now about 800 hours of play and I don't think they would reached this sound quality if I had not done that break in so attentive.
Just my opinion
Sure. Pensil 11 and as amp stereomour ii 2a3 tubes with 3.5 watts per channel. Dac is the old and good exogal comet
https://www.markaudio.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/MAOP11.2-Keele-flatvented.png
I think very recently one more box plan added!
I think very recently one more box plan added!
on a quick googling, came across Keele vented box formuale,
For box volume Vb = 15 Vas (Qts ^ 2.87)
For tuning frequency Fb = 0.42 Fs (Qts ^ -0.9)
For cutoff frequency (F3) = 0.26 Fs (Qts ^ -1.4)
For few additional inches in box dimensions, this achieves 52Hz which is impressive
For box volume Vb = 15 Vas (Qts ^ 2.87)
For tuning frequency Fb = 0.42 Fs (Qts ^ -0.9)
For cutoff frequency (F3) = 0.26 Fs (Qts ^ -1.4)
For few additional inches in box dimensions, this achieves 52Hz which is impressive
It's about the best you'll get in extension terms from this unit in a Helmholtz-based vented box, unless you accept something like an EBS or externally assisted alignment, which tend to have their own specific requirements / characteristics. As I said to Thomas & Evan this morning, I normally dislike flat alignments for 'generic' speaker projects, but in the case of this unit it's a reasonable tradeoff given that MAOP 11.2 is approaching the low Q region & is more or less on Small's identification of 'maximum extension from smallest volume' once a little series R from speaker wire & connections is factored in: it doesn't naturally get as low as some slightly higher Q units. To do more without that shift to an overdamped EBS or external assistance, you need a quarter-wave.
Hello Scott, to be honest I did not understand the tech terms in above explanation. But thats fine I guess as long as I stick to dimensions recommended.
I love this question: “Are they like 90% of MAOP or 80% of MAOP or 50% of MAOP!?”
I have the same question every time a new cone material comes out. So far I’ve dispensed with most new high tech wonder materials. Paper is still a safe bet. The MAOP intrigues me though.
I have the same question every time a new cone material comes out. So far I’ve dispensed with most new high tech wonder materials. Paper is still a safe bet. The MAOP intrigues me though.
The problem we've got when faced with questions like that is that they're basically meaningless. I don't say that to be facetious: it's just a genuine point. Because I honestly don't know what '90% of xyz' means, and realistically speaking, neither does anybody else. 90% of what, and how are we defining it? Without that -it's just a case of opinion, probably using different basis or values, & we all know how much that counts for. 😉 Especially mine, which is worth about as much as a used crip packet.
Can’t speak to the 11’s but my pair of 5’s arrived……just evaluating and breaking them in with a .25 cuft sealed box for now. Sounds really smooth and mellow. The small response bump/resonance at 8k is nice at a distance….makes em sound larger than they are if that makes sense…..psychoacoustics and all. Likely over the winter I’ll but them in a narrow tall box with side firing 180mm opposed woofers.