My first build was the Frugelhorn Mk3. Had fun building it and enjoyed it for a while, but wanted to move on to bigger and better things. So I built the Super Pensil 12.2. Turned out to be a great project and a great sounding speaker. But as these things go, I got the itch to try another full-ranger, bought some great Omega A8 bookshelf speakers, and sold off the Pensils. Still have the Omegas, but I'm getting the itch to build another set of speakers. What's a logical progression up from the Super Pensil 12.2? I remember seeing some Pensil designs with the 12.2 and (I believe) the 12 bass driver ... how did this design turn out? Have people been happy with it? I'm running a Red Wine Audio 30.2 Signature LFP-V amp as my primary power source, so I'm working with 30W/channel. My goal would be to build something that is considered a step (or more) up from the Super Pensil 12.2, without getting ridiculously pricey or difficult to build. I consider my woodworking ability to be better than average, but I'm not ready to get into compound curves, handmade horns, etc.
Any suggestions or can you point me to some sites/plans/build threads?
Tom
Any suggestions or can you point me to some sites/plans/build threads?
Tom
Tom, if you're still liking the various Alpair drivers so far, I can highly recommend either the larger FHXL with A10s (still waffling on preference of 10.3 metals or 10P papers). or for a 2-way A12PW / A7.3 combo. In our case it was actually MTM with dual 12PWs per side with the A7 shoehorned in place - actively bi-amped for now, but with LMS data recently captured for design of a passive XO option. 30 W might be bit light for full body immersion on these, but plenty for the 10s in FHXL
I can never keep track of whether Dave has publicly released drawings for everything I've built, but the footprint is certainly smaller than the A12P SP - overall dimensions are approx 16" W x 11" D x 48" H. I'd opine that other than a tight fit of the A7s' tapered TL between the 12Ps, which could likely be juggled around a bit, these are probably no tougher a build than the SPs - no fancy curves involved, just a few holes for that familiar Planet10 bracing scheme.
Photos have been posted several times. These things dig pretty damn deep in room.
I can never keep track of whether Dave has publicly released drawings for everything I've built, but the footprint is certainly smaller than the A12P SP - overall dimensions are approx 16" W x 11" D x 48" H. I'd opine that other than a tight fit of the A7s' tapered TL between the 12Ps, which could likely be juggled around a bit, these are probably no tougher a build than the SPs - no fancy curves involved, just a few holes for that familiar Planet10 bracing scheme.
Photos have been posted several times. These things dig pretty damn deep in room.
There was a BR box plan for a simple 2-way with the (then new) A12PW woofer and the A7p for mid/tweet duty. IIRC the box was around 35 litres. Personally, I'd use the A7.3 for the mid-tweet, or even the A6p.
Geez, I thought the SP's looked quite petite compared to the big MTM's.
jeff
I said footprint, (192"^2 vs 172), but yes, the SP is actually .67 ft^3 less overall cubic volume than the MTM. My as built drawings have them as
MTM = 16W x 10.75D x 48H
SP = 10.5W x 18.375D x 37H
That doesn't change my opinion as to the low end performance of the 12PWs - well, OK, actually a pair per side. 😉
And I'd concur with Jeff's suggestions for the mid/tweet - while either model of the A6 work quite fine, we tried the A7P/A12PW, and preferred the metal. While the A7.3 is my personal favorite for wider band operation, I think the A6P could be the real sleeper for this type of application . The 5.2's lack of rear suspension spider give me some pause for concern over long term reliability, particularly if not used cautiously - time will tell on that front.
MTM = 16W x 10.75D x 48H
SP = 10.5W x 18.375D x 37H
That doesn't change my opinion as to the low end performance of the 12PWs - well, OK, actually a pair per side. 😉
And I'd concur with Jeff's suggestions for the mid/tweet - while either model of the A6 work quite fine, we tried the A7P/A12PW, and preferred the metal. While the A7.3 is my personal favorite for wider band operation, I think the A6P could be the real sleeper for this type of application . The 5.2's lack of rear suspension spider give me some pause for concern over long term reliability, particularly if not used cautiously - time will tell on that front.
Last edited:
XKi with dual PA130-8's. 96dB, great dynamics, nice room filling bass.
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/full-range/268524-xki-xs-ab-initio-karlson-6th-order-bandpass-55.html
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/full-range/268524-xki-xs-ab-initio-karlson-6th-order-bandpass-55.html
So, use a 12PW and a 6M in each cabinet? If I went with the 6M mid/tweet instead of the 7P as originally designed, would the crossover values change? I'm not a crossover designer by any means, so I'm not sure what the change in cap values would be.
This looks like a design I could handle, and it's different enough from the Super Pensil that it would be an interesting build for me. Any idea what the efficiency would be? My plan would be to drive them from my RWA 30.2.
Tom
The A12pw are really quite nice. I am listening to the Mar-Ken12pwxwTT.
I like them better than the A12p, even used FR. By requiring a bigger box (~2x) and being about 3 dB less sensitive they go significantly deeper (Hoffman's Iron Law).
The preliminary Pensil for these was deemed too large, but Scott's ML-TL we used in the MTM is superb. Use any mid-tweeter you'd like. We started with A7PeN, but like A7.3eN better, either of the A6 would also work, or FF85wk. Biamping means no worries about different sensitivities, and we have been careful in the design so that a PLLXO can be used.
Since Chris built the protos, the drivers have been spread out to make the midTL easier to fit in. The plans are part of a paif plan set (email if interested).
dave
I like them better than the A12p, even used FR. By requiring a bigger box (~2x) and being about 3 dB less sensitive they go significantly deeper (Hoffman's Iron Law).
The preliminary Pensil for these was deemed too large, but Scott's ML-TL we used in the MTM is superb. Use any mid-tweeter you'd like. We started with A7PeN, but like A7.3eN better, either of the A6 would also work, or FF85wk. Biamping means no worries about different sensitivities, and we have been careful in the design so that a PLLXO can be used.
Since Chris built the protos, the drivers have been spread out to make the midTL easier to fit in. The plans are part of a paif plan set (email if interested).
dave
Dave - gee, I might be interested in the revised plans for the MTM myself - don't remember seeing them yet 😉. As I only build these things, forgive the stooped question, but I assume that the MLTL for a single 12PW would be simply half the CSA?
Tom - IIRC, the 2-way published on Mark's plans (by Scott L, I think?) crossed over around 1K. I'd personally prefer lower than that to run as much of the vocal range through the mid/tweet as possible. If using the 6M, that would of course change all the values for an XO, whether line level or speaker level, and due to excursion concerns crossing over lower would reduce effective SPL and top end of dynamic range before engaging the arrestors. There are experienced XO designers for whom modeling a passive for a single 12PW and 6M should be a simple chore.
Tom - IIRC, the 2-way published on Mark's plans (by Scott L, I think?) crossed over around 1K. I'd personally prefer lower than that to run as much of the vocal range through the mid/tweet as possible. If using the 6M, that would of course change all the values for an XO, whether line level or speaker level, and due to excursion concerns crossing over lower would reduce effective SPL and top end of dynamic range before engaging the arrestors. There are experienced XO designers for whom modeling a passive for a single 12PW and 6M should be a simple chore.
Basically i took your suggestion and pulled the A12pw apart, 20mm IIRC
Yes. I actually started with a single and doubled the CSA
With the wide overlap, XO can be almost anywhere. We used 250 Hz driven by BSC & ¼ wavelength centre-to-centre, but XO could be as high as 5k, even 10k with a cap crossed horn. Nor being able to find the CSS RT1 i wanted to try (must have lent them to someone), i have pulled out a set of horns i found kicking about and will start with that last.
dave
What is " a step up"? You have stated that you want easy to build and not too expensive. Good. Now tell us if you want them to be smaller, bigger,
to go louder, to go lower, to have more finess, or to be more efficient.
Throw us another bone or two.
good luck. Personally, if you have a difficult room and a good amount of space I think it is time to try an open baffle.
to go louder, to go lower, to have more finess, or to be more efficient.
Throw us another bone or two.
good luck. Personally, if you have a difficult room and a good amount of space I think it is time to try an open baffle.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.