Hi everyone
I am about to build a set of BIB enclosures but I am torn on driver choice.
I have narrowed my choice down to either Markaudio Alpair 10.3 (new) and Jordan JX92s (used).
Which of these would you think makes a better speaker? I am personally erring towards Jordan's.
Also, I missing other options? I've looked as Fostex but they have a really wide product range it's kind of hard to see where to start - and the ones I have looked at it seems to be the case that once you start to increase the driver size you start losing top end frequencies and as you decrease it's size you start losing the bottom end - whereas the JX92s seem to have a good response across the board.
I also looked at Lowthers, but it seems as though they're a bit of an acquired taste don't suit all styles of music (and I listen to all sorts from classical to Jazz, to Rock to Electronic).
Happy to be correct on any of my base assumptions!
Thanks for any input!
I am about to build a set of BIB enclosures but I am torn on driver choice.
I have narrowed my choice down to either Markaudio Alpair 10.3 (new) and Jordan JX92s (used).
Which of these would you think makes a better speaker? I am personally erring towards Jordan's.
Also, I missing other options? I've looked as Fostex but they have a really wide product range it's kind of hard to see where to start - and the ones I have looked at it seems to be the case that once you start to increase the driver size you start losing top end frequencies and as you decrease it's size you start losing the bottom end - whereas the JX92s seem to have a good response across the board.
I also looked at Lowthers, but it seems as though they're a bit of an acquired taste don't suit all styles of music (and I listen to all sorts from classical to Jazz, to Rock to Electronic).
Happy to be correct on any of my base assumptions!
Thanks for any input!
Hey there, internet people, it’s bobes again; today we’re gonna talk about …..
A quick question first; what particularly has struck your fancy in regards to the BIB design - have you personally heard one of more of them?
Between the short list of brands cited, I think it’d be fair to say that the Jordans and Alpairs bear more in common than the others, and you’ll have no problem finding passionate - some might say bordering on polemic - proponents of each, but either would make an excellent choice for a first build.
I’ve heard and lived with a range of DIY builds of quite a few Fostex and MA models, and a lower number of Jordans- i.e. JX92 and Eikona. For various reasons- cost certainly among them - I gravitated to the Alpair and Pluvia models. My HT system for probably the past 5 years includes A10.3 in the front row in Scott Lindgren’s Pensil for L&R. Domestic considerations have long constrained my options on the size and placement for speaker enclosures, and the Pensils deliver very satisfying g performance in a compact floorstander.
OK, let the games begin
A quick question first; what particularly has struck your fancy in regards to the BIB design - have you personally heard one of more of them?
Between the short list of brands cited, I think it’d be fair to say that the Jordans and Alpairs bear more in common than the others, and you’ll have no problem finding passionate - some might say bordering on polemic - proponents of each, but either would make an excellent choice for a first build.
I’ve heard and lived with a range of DIY builds of quite a few Fostex and MA models, and a lower number of Jordans- i.e. JX92 and Eikona. For various reasons- cost certainly among them - I gravitated to the Alpair and Pluvia models. My HT system for probably the past 5 years includes A10.3 in the front row in Scott Lindgren’s Pensil for L&R. Domestic considerations have long constrained my options on the size and placement for speaker enclosures, and the Pensils deliver very satisfying g performance in a compact floorstander.
OK, let the games begin
I'm not sure I'd use either the MA or Jordan units in a BIB type pipe horn to be honest, but either will work if you go careful with the volume knob. Go with whatever you feel inclined for and is within budget.
I am not too limited in space and quite like the idea of an imposingly large speaker whilst I do have the room and no body to complain about it.
I also like that it seems relatively simply to be build compared to other designed with more complex internal layouts.
Can you elaborate on this? What makes these unsuitable and for use in BIB type design? And which way would I need to be careful with the volume?
Is it because they're not the highest sensitivity drivers?
Thanks
Yeah, basic formula: Vb = 20*Vas*Qts^1.25
So normally best overall results for smaller drivers is with highest [Fs], [Xmax], medium [Vas], higher [Qts = ~ 0.4 - 0.7]. Otherwise more prosound type horn specs except low [Fs] where best to tuned to ~0.707x max [Fs].
In short, it's a very flexible calculator, so best to think in terms of what [Fs] tuning gets it to a ~0.707x ceiling/floor height with the desired driver or should it be floor loaded and work from there and/or can it be loud enough when tuned so far below Fs.
So normally best overall results for smaller drivers is with highest [Fs], [Xmax], medium [Vas], higher [Qts = ~ 0.4 - 0.7]. Otherwise more prosound type horn specs except low [Fs] where best to tuned to ~0.707x max [Fs].
In short, it's a very flexible calculator, so best to think in terms of what [Fs] tuning gets it to a ~0.707x ceiling/floor height with the desired driver or should it be floor loaded and work from there and/or can it be loud enough when tuned so far below Fs.
Last edited:
What GM said.
As noted, you can use both (and some have, IIRC) -you should just be a bit careful. Both drivers run very thin alloy cones, and are of a long-throw suspension type with an overhung motor, relatively long coil & coil gap. The travel is there to handle LF dynamic peaks while listening at moderate levels, rather than sustained high SPLs. The BIB is a simple, acoustically efficient pipe-horn that goes low, but you can sometimes push the driver too hard as a result & risk warping the cone. That doesn't mean you have to treat them with kid gloves, but a weather eye is a good plan. An extended way of saying 'don't treat them like subwoofers, even though they go as low (or lower) than some smaller sub-types'.
As noted, you can use both (and some have, IIRC) -you should just be a bit careful. Both drivers run very thin alloy cones, and are of a long-throw suspension type with an overhung motor, relatively long coil & coil gap. The travel is there to handle LF dynamic peaks while listening at moderate levels, rather than sustained high SPLs. The BIB is a simple, acoustically efficient pipe-horn that goes low, but you can sometimes push the driver too hard as a result & risk warping the cone. That doesn't mean you have to treat them with kid gloves, but a weather eye is a good plan. An extended way of saying 'don't treat them like subwoofers, even though they go as low (or lower) than some smaller sub-types'.
Last edited:
I recommend you VTL cabinets for JX92s. I heard them once and sound was impressive. They can do 30Hz, but only for normal listening levels.
Right so this is for Box Volume.
So Qts for the Markaudio Alpair 10.3 is 0.316. Is that too low for BIB?
I noticed a lot of the example speakers (from Fostex) dailed into the BIB excel spreadsheet kicking around have a much lower Qts. A FE206E has 0.18 for example
I think you lose me here. Are you saying that having a higher Fs and lower Fs makes it more like a prosound horn and less like a hifi driver/suitable for BIB? (sorry for the dumb questions, I am learning!).
Right so if I think I understand you correctly here, you're advising I tune the horn to an. Fs > than the drivers intrinsic Fs such that the height of the speaker (ie where it ports) is 0.707x my ceiling height, is that correct?
When I fill in the calculator, using a Fs of 38hz (which is what the spec sheet says) then it gives me a cabinet height of 88in. my ceiling height is 98in. Are you suggesting I tune it for a higher Fs so that the cab height is more like 75in.
I get to 75inches using ~45hz.
Thanks so much for your input.
Right so let me see if i have this right. Getting a good Bass response from a comparatively small diameter speaker requires the cone to have to be to travel comparatively long distances. But I should avoid over driving the speak so that travel distance is being used for higher frequencies. Is that correct?
I am a bit confused because I thought the high-efficiencies of the BIB design would mean that I wouldn't have to crank up volume too high to be able to get a output from the driver; not the other way round.
I think this is the one part of the build that is concerning me, I do on occasion like to listen to music loud. My current speakers at B&W DM560 which have a power handling of 10W – 75W into 8ohms with a sensitivity of 90db. There are loud enough, but I can tell they're not to happy at the higher volumes (lower frequencies get crunchy).
Is a BIB built from say a Alpair 10.3 going to be disappointedly quiet? (driving it from a Quad 303 if it makes any difference).
The Alpairs 10.3 will do the same, but about 1.5dB less loud than what that B&W claims. But they also don't want to be cranked up too loud. I know from experience that half that power (Quad 303 is 45w/channel in 8R) is the limit to keep them happy. Above will work but will sound worse as the driver is pushed to hard. It won't damage the speakers altough and the bass will be deeper in the BIB if it's build right.
If you need that kind of volume, multiway is often better. Fullrange drivers are more suited to lower volumes (<100dB), you try to go louder than that. 90dB at 45w is about 106dB max theoretical
I run mine from a Marantz PM5004 (also 45w) in a bookshelf and in a waw config (with a woofer below 250Hz) from a 35w tube amp and both are way to loud for my space, that is fairly small. I mostly use the amps less than a quarter open on the volume dial.
If you need that kind of volume, multiway is often better. Fullrange drivers are more suited to lower volumes (<100dB), you try to go louder than that. 90dB at 45w is about 106dB max theoretical
I run mine from a Marantz PM5004 (also 45w) in a bookshelf and in a waw config (with a woofer below 250Hz) from a 35w tube amp and both are way to loud for my space, that is fairly small. I mostly use the amps less than a quarter open on the volume dial.
Thanks, I think I am safe then. Generally speaking the louder I am playing it, the less I am bothered by absolute sound quality.
Incidentally with my pre amp, Croft Super Micro, when I am playing from my turntable with the inbuilt preamp then half volume is more than ample in my space, but when playing from one of the RCA inputs I end up having to crank it right up, I am not sure why I think this but I think the turntable input is the "correct" level (because it doesn't seem to be distorting at these louder levels?)
To be honest, I am doing this more as a bit of a project and to see if DIY speakers is "for me" or not. If I really enjoy the process then I'll probably happily investigate other designs that might be better suited to higher volumes.
Incidentally with my pre amp, Croft Super Micro, when I am playing from my turntable with the inbuilt preamp then half volume is more than ample in my space, but when playing from one of the RCA inputs I end up having to crank it right up, I am not sure why I think this but I think the turntable input is the "correct" level (because it doesn't seem to be distorting at these louder levels?)
To be honest, I am doing this more as a bit of a project and to see if DIY speakers is "for me" or not. If I really enjoy the process then I'll probably happily investigate other designs that might be better suited to higher volumes.
If you're really set on the Alpair 10.3, then why not build an enclosure that was designed for that driver? Lots to choose from, Pensil, FHXL....
jeff
jeff
Well... I am not 'really set' on them. The two drivers is just where my research took me to. I am open to different options in thee same price band. I looked at Fostex but quite confused by the sheer range of offering but it seemed to me that with the Fostex drivers what ever you gain at one end of the frequency response you'd lose at the other - but I am more than happy to be schooled on this.
I like the BIB design because, 1. it's big, 2. it's relatively simply.
That said, I will look at those other cabinet designs.
Right so this is for Box Volume.
So Qts for the Markaudio Alpair 10.3 is 0.316. Is that too low for BIB?
I noticed a lot of the example speakers (from Fostex) dailed into the BIB excel spreadsheet kicking around have a much lower Qts. A FE206E has 0.18 for example
I think you lose me here. Are you saying that having a higher Fs and lower Fs makes it more like a prosound horn and less like a hifi driver/suitable for BIB? (sorry for the dumb questions, I am learning!).
Right so if I think I understand you correctly here, you're advising I tune the horn to an. Fs > than the drivers intrinsic Fs such that the height of the speaker (ie where it ports) is 0.707x my ceiling height, is that correct?
When I fill in the calculator, using a Fs of 38hz (which is what the spec sheet says) then it gives me a cabinet height of 88in. my ceiling height is 98in. Are you suggesting I tune it for a higher Fs so that the cab height is more like 75in.
I get to 75inches using ~45hz.
So Qts for the Markaudio Alpair 10.3 is 0.316. Is that too low for BIB?
I noticed a lot of the example speakers (from Fostex) dailed into the BIB excel spreadsheet kicking around have a much lower Qts. A FE206E has 0.18 for example
I think you lose me here. Are you saying that having a higher Fs and lower Fs makes it more like a prosound horn and less like a hifi driver/suitable for BIB? (sorry for the dumb questions, I am learning!).
Right so if I think I understand you correctly here, you're advising I tune the horn to an. Fs > than the drivers intrinsic Fs such that the height of the speaker (ie where it ports) is 0.707x my ceiling height, is that correct?
When I fill in the calculator, using a Fs of 38hz (which is what the spec sheet says) then it gives me a cabinet height of 88in. my ceiling height is 98in. Are you suggesting I tune it for a higher Fs so that the cab height is more like 75in.
I get to 75inches using ~45hz.
Thanks so much for your input.
Well, first define “good” bass😉, but the short answer would be that you need to move more air. There are multiple methodologies to achieve this goal. Successful implementations depend on several factors, enclosure topology and tuning to the specific drivers’ T/S parameters amongst them.
It’s a common misconception that a rear loaded horn /BVR, etc can increase the overall efficiency of a driver. What they can do is provide varying degrees of acoustic gain over a very narrow bandwidth below the driver’s mass corner, hereby extending the low frequency output as compared to the same driver in small sealed, or poorly tuned conventional bass reflex, for example. It’s always a compromise, and a well executed design - such as those that Jeff cited - is where the art and science of enclosure design can overlap. Of those two, the Pensil is a fairly simple build, that via removable back panel allows for adjustment of levels of damping fill to fine tune to both the room and amp’s output impedance.
Firstly, “power handling” is IMO one of those specs that are less meaningful in most domestic situations than most folks think, and there could be a combination of reasons for the “crunchiness” you describe, so a short list of questions:
- How large is the room, and how acoustically damped is it by upholstered furniture, heavy drapes, carpets, etc.;
- What is the primary distance for serious active listening;
- Exactly how loud before the distortion occurs.
With the A10.3’s nominal sensitivity of 88dB compared to the B&W’s 90, I think not, but I’m confident in suggesting in even one of the smaller monitor sized enclosures, the Alpair would deliver superior bass extension and articulation. In a floorstander such as the Pensil (much more compact than a BIB), or FHXL, I’d be even more confident in that assertion.
Of course, at nearly 70, I’m nowhere near the headbanger I once was, and am running my A10.3s in a HT system in a ~340sq ft room, with bass folded into LFE at @80Hz. With ICEpower A200 amps, I’ve yet to hear any distress from the system at my maximum SPL of approx 90dB. People forget just how loud that actually is.
And lastly, the QUAD 303, while certainly a classic - my first serious system in the early ‘70s was 33/303/FM3/ESL57- is a well over 50yr old design that I’d dare say has been surpassed by any number of conventional class AB, chip or any of the better class D amps; but that’s a whole ‘nother rabbit hole into which you might be prepared to spelunk.
Anyways, some some thoughts from an old fart.
The Alpair 10.3 is in the same league as the Eikona, i was not happy with any of the 3 pair of JX92 i had… but my comment is that you will not get near to the quality of amplfication needed to hear what either of these are really capable of. It is certainly more than sufficient power. I’ve owned at least a dozen.
dave
So you're saying that my Quad 303 is going to be the weak point. That wouldn't surprise me.
Would a 405 or 606 do it? I am open to non-Quad amps, but there is something I quite like about the Quads; on an aesthetic basis as much as anything else.
Would a 405 or 606 do it? I am open to non-Quad amps, but there is something I quite like about the Quads; on an aesthetic basis as much as anything else.
Well with the quality of equipment I have right now, simply going down to lower frequencies at a decent level will suffice. Before I worry how "tight" the bass is, I actually need to hear it. I do listen to some electronic and music with deep bass lines and can't help but feel I am missing a part of the picture on my current system.
Okay, so the reason I like the BIB is because it was simple and also because it is large... but having done some research into the Pensil, I can appreciate that this might be an even more simple design. So I am going to do some more research and might pivot to making that instead.
Quad is old tech, with old noisy transistors and if your's is never rebuild by an expert, it's probally long of spec already for a while. The 405 is a bit better if it's in top condition.
But all those Quad amps are just good quality A/B class transistor amps. There is a kind of hype arround them, but they are not better than Marantz or Yamaha integrated amps of today. I had a 405 in the past, that was rebuild by a specialist (Dada in Antwerp, Belgium) just before i bought it. But my Marantz PM5004 beats it with ease on sound. And that is a cheaper (300€) class AB marantz amplifier of now 10 years old. So i sold it fast again. Cheap Yamaha A-S amplifiers are as good btw. Top level (new or old) of those brands are even better.
And my Marantz is my office amp, in my living/listening room the speakers are amped by a Pass ACA (class A transistor kit from this site) in bridged mono setup and a Prima Luna Prologue 4 (class AB tubes, an older model, the actual equivalent one is the Evo100). Those are a few levels up from the Marantz and certainly from that old Quad 405 i had.
But all those Quad amps are just good quality A/B class transistor amps. There is a kind of hype arround them, but they are not better than Marantz or Yamaha integrated amps of today. I had a 405 in the past, that was rebuild by a specialist (Dada in Antwerp, Belgium) just before i bought it. But my Marantz PM5004 beats it with ease on sound. And that is a cheaper (300€) class AB marantz amplifier of now 10 years old. So i sold it fast again. Cheap Yamaha A-S amplifiers are as good btw. Top level (new or old) of those brands are even better.
And my Marantz is my office amp, in my living/listening room the speakers are amped by a Pass ACA (class A transistor kit from this site) in bridged mono setup and a Prima Luna Prologue 4 (class AB tubes, an older model, the actual equivalent one is the Evo100). Those are a few levels up from the Marantz and certainly from that old Quad 405 i had.