On Bob Brines website, he writes that:
"The Alpair 10 driver has built in baffle step correction"
However, I don't see anything about this anywhere else. Is this a special thing on the drivers built for Bob? Do both the 10M and the 10P have built in baffle step correction?
Does the "built-in BSC" show up in the TS parameters somehow?
I'm looking to build my second MLTL, and the Alpair 10M Gen 3 drivers are on my short list, so I'd like to understand this and how it might affect my results.
What other drivers should I be considering? I'm planning to use drivers in the 5 to 6.5 inch range, under $125/driver.
Some others that I'm looking at include:
Alpair 10P
Pluvia 11
TB W5-2143
TB W6-2144
TB W5-1611saf
I'd be interested to here what people think about these drivers for and MLTL alignment.
Thanks,
Eric
"The Alpair 10 driver has built in baffle step correction"
However, I don't see anything about this anywhere else. Is this a special thing on the drivers built for Bob? Do both the 10M and the 10P have built in baffle step correction?
Does the "built-in BSC" show up in the TS parameters somehow?
I'm looking to build my second MLTL, and the Alpair 10M Gen 3 drivers are on my short list, so I'd like to understand this and how it might affect my results.
What other drivers should I be considering? I'm planning to use drivers in the 5 to 6.5 inch range, under $125/driver.
Some others that I'm looking at include:
Alpair 10P
Pluvia 11
TB W5-2143
TB W6-2144
TB W5-1611saf
I'd be interested to here what people think about these drivers for and MLTL alignment.
Thanks,
Eric
Last edited:
The baffle step isn't built in as a filter, what people mean by that is that there is a bass lift generally with Marks drivers. Look at the curves, this would then be flattened by the baffle losses.
Stefan
Stefan
I love my w5 1611's. The way they do the midrange and voices is just wonderful and the tops not too shabby, though you won't need that. I have them running full range in a spiral horn and I'm very happy with them.
I prefer them a bit to the 2143's which sound similar but just didn't have quite the same lush factor for me. I ended up returning the 2143's
I prefer them a bit to the 2143's which sound similar but just didn't have quite the same lush factor for me. I ended up returning the 2143's
Eric, as Stefan notes Bob is referring to that section of the frequency response curve below around 500Hz that can be seen on published curves for most of Mark Audio drivers as having a gentle hump of as much of 5?dB before trailing off. The precise amount of this "BSC" varies among drivers in the MA line.
No, while he might like to see a custom logo molded into or added as a badge to the frames, Bob does not have a custom version built for him. yet? 😉
Of the 3 models of TB you listed, I've only heard the 1611, and personally prefer the A10.3 or P. I've heard both of the latter in several floorstander designs, and the metals certainly work well in either Bob's MLTL, Scott Lindgren's Pensil, the FHXL and the cute little Decware DNA horn. That last one is actually the most complicated build of the bunch.
If the Alpair is on your short list, Madisound's current inventory adjustment pricing on the 10.3 is a bargain you should jump on. The Pluvia is nice enough, but for $14 less a pair, I think the Alpair is a no-brainer.
Is that what you call "damned with faint praise?"
.
No, while he might like to see a custom logo molded into or added as a badge to the frames, Bob does not have a custom version built for him. yet? 😉
Of the 3 models of TB you listed, I've only heard the 1611, and personally prefer the A10.3 or P. I've heard both of the latter in several floorstander designs, and the metals certainly work well in either Bob's MLTL, Scott Lindgren's Pensil, the FHXL and the cute little Decware DNA horn. That last one is actually the most complicated build of the bunch.
If the Alpair is on your short list, Madisound's current inventory adjustment pricing on the 10.3 is a bargain you should jump on. The Pluvia is nice enough, but for $14 less a pair, I think the Alpair is a no-brainer.
Is that what you call "damned with faint praise?"
Thanks Chris and Dave. I've narrowed my list down to the Tang Band W5-1611saf and the Mark Audio Alpair 10M Gen 3. Does anyone else have an opinion regarding the which of these is the better driver?
My plan is to make an MLTL that is somewhere between Bob Brines' M10-A10 and Bjorn's TABAQ Large. Interestingly, although the TS parameters of the two drivers are quite dissimilar, my sims (LATL model) show the performance (in my design) to be virtually identical. Therefore, the modeling results don't help me choose between the two drivers.
So my decision has to be based on factors not revealed by the modeling results. The higher "list price" of the Alpair driver suggests (maybe???) it is a step up from the Tang Band, and Madisound's current discount makes it seem (as Chris pointed out) to be a no-brainer. But I hate to assume that cost=quality.
Any other opinions on Alpair A10MGen2 vs Tang Band W5-1611saf?
Thanks, Eric
My plan is to make an MLTL that is somewhere between Bob Brines' M10-A10 and Bjorn's TABAQ Large. Interestingly, although the TS parameters of the two drivers are quite dissimilar, my sims (LATL model) show the performance (in my design) to be virtually identical. Therefore, the modeling results don't help me choose between the two drivers.
So my decision has to be based on factors not revealed by the modeling results. The higher "list price" of the Alpair driver suggests (maybe???) it is a step up from the Tang Band, and Madisound's current discount makes it seem (as Chris pointed out) to be a no-brainer. But I hate to assume that cost=quality.
Any other opinions on Alpair A10MGen2 vs Tang Band W5-1611saf?
Thanks, Eric
Eric - can I repeat my assessment from the previous post? - I'd take the A10.3 over the 1611 -the TBs have great bass, but I found them too "dark" in the top several octaves but of course opinions will vary.
I also found the A10.3 far more detailed and extended up top than the previous A10.2
Either Bob's M10A10 or Scott's Pensil would be my enclosure suggestions. While they use very similar design tools, they target slightly different performance, and I personally prefer the Pensils. And to repeat myself yet again, if you have the requisite floorspace, the FrugalHorn XL is a wonderful enclosure.
I also found the A10.3 far more detailed and extended up top than the previous A10.2
Either Bob's M10A10 or Scott's Pensil would be my enclosure suggestions. While they use very similar design tools, they target slightly different performance, and I personally prefer the Pensils. And to repeat myself yet again, if you have the requisite floorspace, the FrugalHorn XL is a wonderful enclosure.
giantstairs,
Thanks for that link. I may have seen that thread earlier, but I did not recall it. I was glad to see that Jim's design is pretty much exactly what I had in mind. I may tune it just a little higher, and my preference is to mount the driver lower, but otherwise I was planning on something very much like Jim's design.
The pics you posted of yours looked great. The black really sets off the gold driver cone. How did you do the black finish?
As I recall, as of your last posted pics, they still need feet. Got any final pics? And, of course, how did they sound? Did you add a BSC?
Thanks,
Eric
Thanks for that link. I may have seen that thread earlier, but I did not recall it. I was glad to see that Jim's design is pretty much exactly what I had in mind. I may tune it just a little higher, and my preference is to mount the driver lower, but otherwise I was planning on something very much like Jim's design.
The pics you posted of yours looked great. The black really sets off the gold driver cone. How did you do the black finish?
As I recall, as of your last posted pics, they still need feet. Got any final pics? And, of course, how did they sound? Did you add a BSC?
Thanks,
Eric
Chris,
I don't mind at all. I really appreciate it, in fact. I did look at the Pensils and I'm sure they are great. But the impression that I got from modeling (LATL) is that they are larger than they "need" to be. And since I'm trying to optimize WAF with this project, I plan to go as small as possible, without compromising the bass performance too much. Presently, I'm thinking Jim's design (or similar) will hit the sweet spot.
I'm sure the Frugalhorn XL would likely be great too, though also probably too big for the WAF I need. But that reminds that I should think about folded design variations too.
Thanks,
Eric
Hi Eric,
The speakers are finished and singing at my friend's apartment. My friend chose red casters as "feet". They are not to my taste and certainly add nothing positive to the sound, but you can only lead a horse to water... I added some BSC but only because my friend insists on pulling them out quite a ways from the back wall. I will try to take pictures and post them the next time I visit.
The build is with black mdf which I quite like the look of although it is terrible to work with leaving fine black dust everywhere. I just brushed on 2 coats of mineral oil but I'm sure varnish or even wax would work as well.
As far as changes to Jim's design go, I would leave the tuning, port, and driver position right where Jim intended unless he says otherwise. I believe the "art" of these designs is in the details. Experiment if you wish but you may not get the performance you are after.
As far as Scott's Pensils and Bob Brines MLTLs, I am sure they are just as large as they need to be and no larger.
Perhaps your spouse just needs a change of perspective -- borrow a pair of BIBs for a while and then any of these designs will seem positively tiny!
The speakers are finished and singing at my friend's apartment. My friend chose red casters as "feet". They are not to my taste and certainly add nothing positive to the sound, but you can only lead a horse to water... I added some BSC but only because my friend insists on pulling them out quite a ways from the back wall. I will try to take pictures and post them the next time I visit.
The build is with black mdf which I quite like the look of although it is terrible to work with leaving fine black dust everywhere. I just brushed on 2 coats of mineral oil but I'm sure varnish or even wax would work as well.
As far as changes to Jim's design go, I would leave the tuning, port, and driver position right where Jim intended unless he says otherwise. I believe the "art" of these designs is in the details. Experiment if you wish but you may not get the performance you are after.
As far as Scott's Pensils and Bob Brines MLTLs, I am sure they are just as large as they need to be and no larger.
Perhaps your spouse just needs a change of perspective -- borrow a pair of BIBs for a while and then any of these designs will seem positively tiny!
BTW, what amp are you using and what size room? The Fostex FF165wk is another driver that I have experience with and could fit the bill.
Eric - as I alluded to above, Scott and Bob use similar toolkit for their designs, and I may have incorrectly categorized the Pensils as MLTLs - Scott in fact states
As for the recommendation for revising "spousal perspective" - is that the voice of a bachelor? 😉
FWIW, I found the FF165WK to not deliver quite the same "extension and weight" in the bottom octave as the A10.3 in the FHXL.
Sorry, but that's a bit geek to me, and I'd imagine explains in part why they have a larger CSA than Bob's MLTL?
As for the recommendation for revising "spousal perspective" - is that the voice of a bachelor? 😉
FWIW, I found the FF165WK to not deliver quite the same "extension and weight" in the bottom octave as the A10.3 in the FHXL.
Ah. That's essentially me (& Greg) getting a bit picky. Short version: most boxes that are described as MLTLs aren't actually MLTLs, insofar as they aren't physically long enough for QW action to significantly affect the primary box tuning.
Be that as it may, the pensils are a variation on the QW / MLTL & traditional BR (as opposed to the later T/S vented box) theme. The alignment itself is my own -there aren't any 'new' physics involved -far from it. They're simply a very specific implementation. Re 'larger than they need to be', I politely beg to differ: they are precisely the size they need to be in order to achieve their design goals. It is not physically possible to achieve those particular goals with a smaller enclosure. The pensils are designed to provide a high efficiency box loading which when damped to ~transmission line levels results in a quasi pro-audio broadband alignment with a near-unreactive impedance load and driver behavior. In addition, they are intended to be easily tuned simply by trimming damping levels (hence the removable back). While you can often force a driver lower with a smaller box volume, the load is less efficient, the impedance more reactive and the enclosure often harder to tune to specific room & system requirements. That's the difference. You pick whichever approach best meets your needs.
Be that as it may, the pensils are a variation on the QW / MLTL & traditional BR (as opposed to the later T/S vented box) theme. The alignment itself is my own -there aren't any 'new' physics involved -far from it. They're simply a very specific implementation. Re 'larger than they need to be', I politely beg to differ: they are precisely the size they need to be in order to achieve their design goals. It is not physically possible to achieve those particular goals with a smaller enclosure. The pensils are designed to provide a high efficiency box loading which when damped to ~transmission line levels results in a quasi pro-audio broadband alignment with a near-unreactive impedance load and driver behavior. In addition, they are intended to be easily tuned simply by trimming damping levels (hence the removable back). While you can often force a driver lower with a smaller box volume, the load is less efficient, the impedance more reactive and the enclosure often harder to tune to specific room & system requirements. That's the difference. You pick whichever approach best meets your needs.
Wow, I didn't know there was such a thing as black MDF. But it sure looked great in the pics you posted in the other thread. I'll have to look for that.
I don't think of it as changing Jim's design. I think of it as building my own design, which just happens to be a lot like Jim's (and Bob's, and Bjorn's). The way I look at it, their designs are modifications of my design rather than the other way around. And the fact that their designs came first is just an inconvenient detail!
Eric
Eric -it doesn't matter that I only understood half of it - having built/heard several floorstander designs for the A10.3, what Scott said.
Scott,
Sorry, I certainly did not mean to imply anything negative. What I should have written was that I think that the Pensil 10 is larger than they need to be to meet my design goals, high among which is keeping them as small as possible.
I'm sure they are indeed precisely the size required to meet your design goals. And like Chris, I only understood half of it, but frankly would like to understand better.
Can you explain what "quasi pro-audio broadband alignment" means? And what about "near-unreactive impedance load"? What makes impedance unreactive vs. reactive? Is it something you can tell from the impedance plots from modeling software liek LATL or MJK?
Thanks,
Eric
No, LOL. Happily married going on 10 years. After negotiating the BIBs into the living room most MLTLs are considered "cute" and my oversized Tabaqs "tiny" in comparison.
😀
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
I might agree although with my F2 (and likely some tube amps) they do pump out some bass. In the end not enough to warrant their size so I will swap them out for the Alpair 10.3 which looks to be a drop-in replacement according to the BIB calculator. They would be installed already if not for the flush mounting and my inability to find a local carpenter to router a piece of wood.
Eric, instead of compromising, err modifying, one of these proven designs, why not look into a 4" driver of which many are highly praised? Alpair 7.3 or Pluvial 7, Fostex FE103EN, FE108es, FF105WK or any number of Tangbands. I enjoy my Tabaq with CHR70s and the bass is quite good for the size and simplicity of the enclosure. I did find the need for a little BSC with my chipamp.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.