The Alpair 12p has a slight boost engineered into it for the lower 250hz, It may just fit the bill.
However.....I have not read much about it's use in an open baffle.
However.....I have not read much about it's use in an open baffle.
A12P is a wonderful sounding driver, but probably not the best candidate for OB from the current MA line
more than just good looks on paper, but availability and price may vary - at $490 USD a piece before taxes and freight, etc not a budget driver
Every speaker with a baffle (not just FR) needs to deal with baffle step. But baffle step is not dips and peaks, actually. It's a step function (a fairly smooth transition zone from forward radiating to omni-radiating, at a frequency closer to midrange than bass).
The dips and speaks (which all speakers have, not just wideband) have to be handled with something other than BSC, e.g., strategic speaker positioning, and/or listening off-axis, and/or simply avoiding certain albums.
what about sweaping baffle? that there is as little wood around the front of the driver as possible? like teardrop shape, or any other ? if you know what i mean
Why are you obsessed with wanting a PURE speaker when you will give up so much of everything else. It's not just bass. It's tonal balance. Dynamics. Intermodulation. Worse treble due to larger driver. Many problems.
All a person has to do is listen to a good speaker built with logical compromises and then to an OB full range with no compensation to hear the difference. The difference is not subtle, it's huge. If someone prefers the OB purist full range, I have to question their definition of realistic sound, or their bias towards "purity".
Sure, cross overs screw up sound. That's coming from a guy who uses cross overs. Not because theirs a capacitor between the amp and the tweeter, but because it's no longer point source, phase wrap, uneven polar response, etc. You can either try and mitigate the consequences of using cross overs, or you can go full range and try and mitigate the consequences of using full rangers. Usually the application will guide that decision (try powering a rock concert with a full range driver). But either way, why would you add insult to injury?
Sorry about the rant. I love full rangers for a lot of reasons. But I just do not understand this kind of application. Maybe someone can clue me in.
All a person has to do is listen to a good speaker built with logical compromises and then to an OB full range with no compensation to hear the difference. The difference is not subtle, it's huge. If someone prefers the OB purist full range, I have to question their definition of realistic sound, or their bias towards "purity".
Sure, cross overs screw up sound. That's coming from a guy who uses cross overs. Not because theirs a capacitor between the amp and the tweeter, but because it's no longer point source, phase wrap, uneven polar response, etc. You can either try and mitigate the consequences of using cross overs, or you can go full range and try and mitigate the consequences of using full rangers. Usually the application will guide that decision (try powering a rock concert with a full range driver). But either way, why would you add insult to injury?
Sorry about the rant. I love full rangers for a lot of reasons. But I just do not understand this kind of application. Maybe someone can clue me in.
or just living with it? 😉 you can EQ so tightly to achieve "flat" respsonse that you choke the dynamics out of the music
then of course, once the room gets involved with standing wave modes, reflection & selective absorption / diffraction, well just how close to "perfect" can you afford to pay for? 🙄
well, in theory, the less/ smaller the baffle, the higher the frequency at which step loss will occur - would still need to be dealt with
by tear drop shape you mean something like the B&W Nautilus head unit, or those interesting little gourd shaped units by Fujitsu Ten - Eclipse? those can certainly reduce enclosure resonances and aid in edge diffraction, but unless fairly large, will still have "step loss" requiring frequency response contouring EQ
disclaimer - I've been listening to small FR drivers for over 10 years without BSC and don't feel like I've missed all that much - so feel free to discount everything I say😀
But still missing the important distinction of direct sound versus room sound. Just because the microphone at the listening position says there's a bunch of dips and peaks doesn't mean we hear it that way. It's well understood that the direct sound dominates our brains from about 500hz and up. Baffle step usually occurs right around there.
I personally find eq'ing baffle step improves the sound quality. Some people don't mind full range shout. Others are turned off of full rangers cause of it.
well, doesn't the frequency at which baffle step loss occurs depend on the dimensions of the baffle - e.g. higher with a 6" wide cabinet than 24" wide with the same driver?
I'd certainly concur that not all of us can detect or are as equally bothered by things that measuring equipment "reveals", and I'd conversely posit that not everything we "hear / sense" can easily be objectively quantified.
yup, here we go again 😉
I don't think all "full range" driver shout, or at least to the same degree. e.g. Lowther vis a vis Alpair12P
Here's a straight forward OB recipe
Make a U/frame baffle (imagine a large tray) from 22mm (or so) plywood. Make the tray as tall & wide - big as the space, WAF will allow. At least >35cm wide x 1200mm tall, but the wider the better, then put some shallow sides and a top on it (say 10 - 15cm or so deep). Put some braces/plinth etc. to support it. Angle it back a bit if you wish - for looks. Say 5 degrees. If your wood working skills allow.
Then mount an MA Alpair 12P , or a Dayton Audio PS220-8 8" Point Source Full-Range Neo Driver or a Tang Band W8-1808 8" Neodymium Full Range Driver at ear height. Connect to amp.....Enjoy.
Choice of driver: There is no categorical 'best'.
But consider: providing you have sturdy amp, you'll have a 6db rolloff, starting around 250 - 200Hz depending on how wide you make the baffle. The baffle needs to be at least 30 - 40cm wide (plus the sides/top). It's a very clean, lean, open sound. Narrower baffle = leaner sound. But there is bass right down to about 50 - 70 Hz (-12db) or so. Depending on width of baffle. So I would suggest a driver with nice smooth, not too forward top end. As a too forward top end will only emphasise the 'leanness' (lack of bass). Or you have to start listening off axis.
On axis, an MA A12 is a wise choice IMO. But the Dayton may offer a bit more efficiency. I've not heard a Dayton or Tang Band. Probably can't go to wrong with any of them. IMO.
I can say from experience that A12P offers a very agreeable/very pleasing sound - straight out of the box in this application. No need to insert any filtering to incur any losses between amp - speaker. I understand where your coming from on that.
Want more bass?... move it closer to the rear wall & put some absorbers on the wall behind speakers, to attenuate the rear reflections/focus the soundstage.
Doesn't need to be any more complicated than this. Build it and post some pics.
Make a U/frame baffle (imagine a large tray) from 22mm (or so) plywood. Make the tray as tall & wide - big as the space, WAF will allow. At least >35cm wide x 1200mm tall, but the wider the better, then put some shallow sides and a top on it (say 10 - 15cm or so deep). Put some braces/plinth etc. to support it. Angle it back a bit if you wish - for looks. Say 5 degrees. If your wood working skills allow.
Then mount an MA Alpair 12P , or a Dayton Audio PS220-8 8" Point Source Full-Range Neo Driver or a Tang Band W8-1808 8" Neodymium Full Range Driver at ear height. Connect to amp.....Enjoy.
Choice of driver: There is no categorical 'best'.
But consider: providing you have sturdy amp, you'll have a 6db rolloff, starting around 250 - 200Hz depending on how wide you make the baffle. The baffle needs to be at least 30 - 40cm wide (plus the sides/top). It's a very clean, lean, open sound. Narrower baffle = leaner sound. But there is bass right down to about 50 - 70 Hz (-12db) or so. Depending on width of baffle. So I would suggest a driver with nice smooth, not too forward top end. As a too forward top end will only emphasise the 'leanness' (lack of bass). Or you have to start listening off axis.
On axis, an MA A12 is a wise choice IMO. But the Dayton may offer a bit more efficiency. I've not heard a Dayton or Tang Band. Probably can't go to wrong with any of them. IMO.
I can say from experience that A12P offers a very agreeable/very pleasing sound - straight out of the box in this application. No need to insert any filtering to incur any losses between amp - speaker. I understand where your coming from on that.
Want more bass?... move it closer to the rear wall & put some absorbers on the wall behind speakers, to attenuate the rear reflections/focus the soundstage.
Doesn't need to be any more complicated than this. Build it and post some pics.
Last edited:
I've been following this thread with interest. And I'm in agreement with miragem3i. From the earliest days of these discussions such as The Basslist, a self-explanatory single purpose audio style has been seen as canon. Anything else is seen as heretical.
Recently I've had a discussion with a radio producer about this. I advised that
the producer stand in front of somebody speaking and listen to how it sounds. What you will hear is natural speech, not The Top Forty Guy on the radio. Instrumentation follows from that. And please don't mention Pink Floyd anywhere in reponse.
The point I'm making and the one which the origianl author who talks about his expereice in radio mentioned is that what you hear on a car stereo or worse-- what you hear from the speakers in the trunk of the car-- is as far from the ideal as you can get.
Perhaps it's nostalgia, but some of the earliest and simplest speakers I built from these discussions in past years seemed best. And I believe that that appreciation of full range developed precisely because it doesn't sound like Joe DJ playing electronically enhanced rock music.
The perfect satire on this was done by Stan Freberg in his "Heartbreak Hotel" routine. The singer in the recording studio continues to ask for more echo on his voice until there is nothing heard but feedback din.
Recently I've had a discussion with a radio producer about this. I advised that
the producer stand in front of somebody speaking and listen to how it sounds. What you will hear is natural speech, not The Top Forty Guy on the radio. Instrumentation follows from that. And please don't mention Pink Floyd anywhere in reponse.
The point I'm making and the one which the origianl author who talks about his expereice in radio mentioned is that what you hear on a car stereo or worse-- what you hear from the speakers in the trunk of the car-- is as far from the ideal as you can get.
Perhaps it's nostalgia, but some of the earliest and simplest speakers I built from these discussions in past years seemed best. And I believe that that appreciation of full range developed precisely because it doesn't sound like Joe DJ playing electronically enhanced rock music.
The perfect satire on this was done by Stan Freberg in his "Heartbreak Hotel" routine. The singer in the recording studio continues to ask for more echo on his voice until there is nothing heard but feedback din.
Last edited:
Well if you think anything other than a pure full range driver is equivalent to a car stereo, you need to listen to a few real speakers. If you have the top 40 dj problem, consider that it may be a room mode instead of the speaker and you may need to eq that out (gasp! He said eq!)
Look at my stats and you will see that I'm not a troll even though what I say is meant to provoke a new kind of discussion: one that addresses the poster's concerns rather than all the canon and graph gazing that goes on. I cannot even aver that open baffle is an answer since the early builds I referenced were small "monkey coffin" MLTLs on stands based on 4 inch Radio Shack drivers (followed by some small Fostex FE127e's.)
Car audio is simply used as what passes for the way in which one expects to hear-- anything. That which is not sound enhanced is thought to be flat when flat is what it actually is. It's not lifeless, just life. It's why I have not been building much myself. I haven't really seen anything to engage my interest until this topic came along.
Car audio is simply used as what passes for the way in which one expects to hear-- anything. That which is not sound enhanced is thought to be flat when flat is what it actually is. It's not lifeless, just life. It's why I have not been building much myself. I haven't really seen anything to engage my interest until this topic came along.
LOVE the rant !!
No need to be sorry, it's about time the "No, I don't like OB crowd" had it's say! Okay, to be fair, my belonging to the "Horn Club" gets plenty of criticism as well. I have friends, good friends, who are open baffle cult members. They are still my friends even thought they can't hear. Just kidding 🙂
My only conclusion is that we all hear different, and have different expectations on what sounds "right". We can debate until the cows come home, but no one will EVER change their mind.
No need to be sorry, it's about time the "No, I don't like OB crowd" had it's say! Okay, to be fair, my belonging to the "Horn Club" gets plenty of criticism as well. I have friends, good friends, who are open baffle cult members. They are still my friends even thought they can't hear. Just kidding 🙂
My only conclusion is that we all hear different, and have different expectations on what sounds "right". We can debate until the cows come home, but no one will EVER change their mind.
Scott: add my name to the unapologetic "sorry, but OB hasn't worked for me yet" crowd (and I've heard more than a few )
15yrs ago I might have made categorical absolute statements, such as "this design is a perfect as it needs to be", or "this driver is it " , and perhaps it's self-flattery, but I hope to have grown beyond that hubris
as to the OP considering a proof of concept of a "purist" design with cheaper drivers, well that's not so likely to prove anything except why the cheap drivers are worth what you pay for?
Lon's point about car audio might just be that in reality many of us subconsciously calibrate our "aural matrix" to the systems in which we are most immersed - and that a lot us spend up to several hours every day commuting or joy-riding - including, you know, those NPR driveway moments. 🙄
now that's what you call shix-disturbing 😱
Didn't we just have this discussion elsewhere? Due to a whole bunch of reasons -- experience (and you can tell from my picture I have a lot of experience), music choice, available listening environment, degree of tinnitus/hearing loss -- a set-up that works spectacularly well for one person can be a spectacular failure for someone else. Declaring one particular set-up is God's gift to humanity is a bit self-serving.
Bob
Bob
no doubt, but not everyone monitors all the various fora threads.
preaching to the choir, brother Bob 😉
- Status
- Not open for further replies.