Yeah, I've jammed a few speakers in a box and called it a system. I even built a mini-karlsonator out of foam board for some functional, if somewhat low WAF speakers. Now it's time for my first real build. Not trying to be the best in the world (or even remotely close), just a reasonable step up from the speakers we have now (see below).
I don't want to learn about all the different types of cabinets and their intricacies at this point. I've looked into that before and my head starts to spin with the acronyms, even before I get to the details and benefits of each style. I want to get a decent data point first. Then, when someone says "this cabinet style compares to what you have like this..." it will make a little more sense. I'm open to almost anything, provided it fits within the WAF requirements, descriptions forthcoming.
But first, the "where" of the system. The room is 28'x16' with a vaulted ceiling (15' high in center) and a very large arch on one side wall which opens into the rest of the house. Yep, open floor plan - not exactly ideal for listening. It's a family room and the speakers will be firing across that room and into the kitchen area (at the wall with most of the kitchen cabinets, and over the island). But the wife likes to listen while reading, doing crafts or cooking, so this is where the system is. To restate the obvious, the room is very large and acoustically complex.
And the what of the system. The present system is an up-powered ACA (8W & it can go way too loud even at that power with these speakers) and an Adcom GTP-500 preamp through my wife's old JBL 2600s. Sadly, they're the best sounding speakers we have in the house, and they're soft in the middle (at the crossover - big dip in the 2-4k range). And by "best sounding" the wife means that they are the ones that go deepest in frequency (down to just below 50Hz, where as the foam cores give up in the 100-90Hz range). Missing the lower octaves is NOT an option, per the wife.
So the next step in upgrading the system is building better speakers, which is why I am here. However, as this is the most used room(s) in the house, the WAF has to be somewhat higher than the foam-core speaker boxes. Towards that end, I have acquired some requirements for the speaker system. She doesn't want massive speakers, and has settled on roughly twice the visual size of the JBLs. That gives a front-facing footprint (frontal area) for the box of roughly 306 square inches, or individual box sizes of (in inches) :
Any ratio that adds up to about 306 square inches (exterior) will be in consideration. I simply included these sizes as guidelines to help determine what box types will either scale well or already have a reasonably close dimensions to what will be considered acceptable to the wife. The depth of the box is less critical, but note that we have no more than 18" from front of the speaker to the wall (see below). This distance will include the back-spacing off the wall, should the speaker design need any.
The speakers don't have many options on where they can fit, and so they will almost certainly be on a pair of tables about 24" high, with the front edge set about 18" from the wall. One will be about 3' from the side wall, the other will be a little over 4' from the other side wall. They will also be angled slightly inward (15-30 degrees). She is also open to them being placed in/near the corners on shelves about 5' up, but we are somewhat concerned with some of the effects of corners, as well as potential for unwanted acoustic coupling to the room behind the wall. If they end up being wall/corner/shelf mounted, the WAF would have to be a little higher, as the eye will naturally be drawn to them...
From my reading of the forums, people seem to like to know listening habits, so here's that info. We usually listen to (at background levels, not for dance parties) Country, Classical, Classic Rock, Jazz, Blues, Reggae, Progressive Rock, and a little of most everything else, but not into hip-hop/rap. So the sub is for the extension of the music into the lowest two octaves, not to rattle windows. Sources include CDs, LPs and streaming services (Pandora, mostly). This implies that the speakers should be able to provide a fairly full range of sonic coverage, frequency-wise, from top to bottom.
The preferred system is a nearly-full-range speaker set with a subwoofer. The system we hope will be both highly efficient (sensitivity) and be well matched to each other (whatever that may entail). To me, this means the main speaker boxes will be single driver and cover at least 16k to 100Hz (prefer 80Hz). As the foam core mini-karlsonators do that fairly well, I presume it shouldn't be too difficult to get a regular speaker box with quality drivers to do that too. The sub will live in a corner (the triangular space behind the TV - roughly 2' on each side), and might have to be plate-amped, depending on sensitivity and power requirements of the driver. I am fairly good with wood, so building the cabinets from plans shouldn't be a problem.
What I am hoping to get are the best recommendations from the community. I am fairly certain someone has built something like what I am looking for at some point, right? And there are so many boxes, with so many features and drawbacks, I imagine there will be quite a number of options to chose from. Please leave a recommendation, with a brief "why" for it, explaining what makes that system a good match. Also, it would be nice to have no bagging on other systems or ideas (no flame wars). Just present your best case for your preferred solution to my problem.
Then, with input from the wife, a design will be selected, and I'll start the ordering of the drivers and the butchering of the wood.
Thanks in advance!
I don't want to learn about all the different types of cabinets and their intricacies at this point. I've looked into that before and my head starts to spin with the acronyms, even before I get to the details and benefits of each style. I want to get a decent data point first. Then, when someone says "this cabinet style compares to what you have like this..." it will make a little more sense. I'm open to almost anything, provided it fits within the WAF requirements, descriptions forthcoming.
But first, the "where" of the system. The room is 28'x16' with a vaulted ceiling (15' high in center) and a very large arch on one side wall which opens into the rest of the house. Yep, open floor plan - not exactly ideal for listening. It's a family room and the speakers will be firing across that room and into the kitchen area (at the wall with most of the kitchen cabinets, and over the island). But the wife likes to listen while reading, doing crafts or cooking, so this is where the system is. To restate the obvious, the room is very large and acoustically complex.
And the what of the system. The present system is an up-powered ACA (8W & it can go way too loud even at that power with these speakers) and an Adcom GTP-500 preamp through my wife's old JBL 2600s. Sadly, they're the best sounding speakers we have in the house, and they're soft in the middle (at the crossover - big dip in the 2-4k range). And by "best sounding" the wife means that they are the ones that go deepest in frequency (down to just below 50Hz, where as the foam cores give up in the 100-90Hz range). Missing the lower octaves is NOT an option, per the wife.
So the next step in upgrading the system is building better speakers, which is why I am here. However, as this is the most used room(s) in the house, the WAF has to be somewhat higher than the foam-core speaker boxes. Towards that end, I have acquired some requirements for the speaker system. She doesn't want massive speakers, and has settled on roughly twice the visual size of the JBLs. That gives a front-facing footprint (frontal area) for the box of roughly 306 square inches, or individual box sizes of (in inches) :
Code:
15 x 21.5
13.75 x 22.25
12 x 25.5
10 x 30.5
09 x 34The speakers don't have many options on where they can fit, and so they will almost certainly be on a pair of tables about 24" high, with the front edge set about 18" from the wall. One will be about 3' from the side wall, the other will be a little over 4' from the other side wall. They will also be angled slightly inward (15-30 degrees). She is also open to them being placed in/near the corners on shelves about 5' up, but we are somewhat concerned with some of the effects of corners, as well as potential for unwanted acoustic coupling to the room behind the wall. If they end up being wall/corner/shelf mounted, the WAF would have to be a little higher, as the eye will naturally be drawn to them...
From my reading of the forums, people seem to like to know listening habits, so here's that info. We usually listen to (at background levels, not for dance parties) Country, Classical, Classic Rock, Jazz, Blues, Reggae, Progressive Rock, and a little of most everything else, but not into hip-hop/rap. So the sub is for the extension of the music into the lowest two octaves, not to rattle windows. Sources include CDs, LPs and streaming services (Pandora, mostly). This implies that the speakers should be able to provide a fairly full range of sonic coverage, frequency-wise, from top to bottom.
The preferred system is a nearly-full-range speaker set with a subwoofer. The system we hope will be both highly efficient (sensitivity) and be well matched to each other (whatever that may entail). To me, this means the main speaker boxes will be single driver and cover at least 16k to 100Hz (prefer 80Hz). As the foam core mini-karlsonators do that fairly well, I presume it shouldn't be too difficult to get a regular speaker box with quality drivers to do that too. The sub will live in a corner (the triangular space behind the TV - roughly 2' on each side), and might have to be plate-amped, depending on sensitivity and power requirements of the driver. I am fairly good with wood, so building the cabinets from plans shouldn't be a problem.
What I am hoping to get are the best recommendations from the community. I am fairly certain someone has built something like what I am looking for at some point, right? And there are so many boxes, with so many features and drawbacks, I imagine there will be quite a number of options to chose from. Please leave a recommendation, with a brief "why" for it, explaining what makes that system a good match. Also, it would be nice to have no bagging on other systems or ideas (no flame wars). Just present your best case for your preferred solution to my problem.
Then, with input from the wife, a design will be selected, and I'll start the ordering of the drivers and the butchering of the wood.
Thanks in advance!
I generally prefer multi-way systems to full-range-driver-based systems (even if there's a subwoofer involved).
My current speakers are 8" 2-ways, with compression drivers covering around 1kHz upwards. They're nice and flat, and sound great with anything I care to run through them. If you're looking for proven designs, check out Zaph Audio and Troels Gravesen's site.
That said, if you really do want the simplicity of a couple of full-range drivers and a subwoofer, then I'd recommend the Mark Audio drivers. IIRC the Alpair 12P in a smallish ported box was rather good - slightly soft at the top end, but not a lot wrong with the sound. https://www.diyaudio.com/forums/ful...ex-worlds-popular-fr-speaker.html#post5173560
They won't rock 'n' roll like my speakers will (sometimes it's fun to play Bon Jovi and crank it), but they were never designed to.
Chris
PS - It might be worth opening up those JBLs and replacing the capacitors. Chances are, if they use electrolytics, that the caps have gone dry and lost their value. New caps (and they don't need to be expensive) would be a good price/performance upgrade.
PPS - If you were interested in something pre-made, check out Behringer's B2031A monitors, particularly Linkwitz's review. They're astonishingly good for the price.
My current speakers are 8" 2-ways, with compression drivers covering around 1kHz upwards. They're nice and flat, and sound great with anything I care to run through them. If you're looking for proven designs, check out Zaph Audio and Troels Gravesen's site.
That said, if you really do want the simplicity of a couple of full-range drivers and a subwoofer, then I'd recommend the Mark Audio drivers. IIRC the Alpair 12P in a smallish ported box was rather good - slightly soft at the top end, but not a lot wrong with the sound. https://www.diyaudio.com/forums/ful...ex-worlds-popular-fr-speaker.html#post5173560
They won't rock 'n' roll like my speakers will (sometimes it's fun to play Bon Jovi and crank it), but they were never designed to.
Chris
PS - It might be worth opening up those JBLs and replacing the capacitors. Chances are, if they use electrolytics, that the caps have gone dry and lost their value. New caps (and they don't need to be expensive) would be a good price/performance upgrade.
PPS - If you were interested in something pre-made, check out Behringer's B2031A monitors, particularly Linkwitz's review. They're astonishingly good for the price.
Last edited:
I did an 11,5 L (406cu inch) sealed box with the Mark Audio Alpair 10M wich workes wonderwell untill 60Hz (F3). I bet you can do the same with the Alpair 7.3 in a smaller box and still hit the 100Hz on F3. Going sealed is best in this case i think, as you have a sub for the lower register and i think that the sound is more accurate (less group delay and phase shifts) than vented.
The sound is very detailed and punchy, and meeets very well with my big 10" subs, even when tuned low like you wish to do. I crossover higher and passive (1st order serial) at 250Hz but before that i experimented with a minidsp and some amps to find the right crossoverpoint for my purpose and also tested it at 80Hz with a higher order crossover and that worked also (but put to much stress on the FR for my likings on high volume). I don't have drawn plans of it as i can't work with cad. But the form is not that important, as long as it's the right internal volume and no square box. Stuffing the box with polyfill is essential, and bracing (even on such small volume) also.
The sound is very detailed and punchy, and meeets very well with my big 10" subs, even when tuned low like you wish to do. I crossover higher and passive (1st order serial) at 250Hz but before that i experimented with a minidsp and some amps to find the right crossoverpoint for my purpose and also tested it at 80Hz with a higher order crossover and that worked also (but put to much stress on the FR for my likings on high volume). I don't have drawn plans of it as i can't work with cad. But the form is not that important, as long as it's the right internal volume and no square box. Stuffing the box with polyfill is essential, and bracing (even on such small volume) also.
Last edited by a moderator:
You lost me at ‘sub in the corner’.......where all the bass loading nodes build up, smearing any low end information.
Sounds like an ‘awesome’ acoustic space for listening enjoyment......don’t know why your bias against it. Rooms like that don’t have the ceiling reflection issues that most do.......and everyone ignores as the most problematic, largest reflective surface in the system.
You don’t have much room to the wall behind the system and you plan on a sub.......so you really don’t need the larger box creating all sorts of bass modes in and around the rear wall......no ‘coupling’ going on there........just a chaotic mess best avoided.
Speakers on tables?..........what does that look like? Are we talking a speaker who’s bass drivers first reflective surface is a table top? Some more clarification on that would be helpful. Your initial description suggests two speakers sitting on two end type tables in a typical living room.
The box design and alignment type is the least of your concerns at this point but you do have a large and lively acoustic space with huge potential. DIY has the tremendous benefit of designing to work with the room......we get the bass right, and everything else is gravy.
Sounds like an ‘awesome’ acoustic space for listening enjoyment......don’t know why your bias against it. Rooms like that don’t have the ceiling reflection issues that most do.......and everyone ignores as the most problematic, largest reflective surface in the system.
You don’t have much room to the wall behind the system and you plan on a sub.......so you really don’t need the larger box creating all sorts of bass modes in and around the rear wall......no ‘coupling’ going on there........just a chaotic mess best avoided.
Speakers on tables?..........what does that look like? Are we talking a speaker who’s bass drivers first reflective surface is a table top? Some more clarification on that would be helpful. Your initial description suggests two speakers sitting on two end type tables in a typical living room.
The box design and alignment type is the least of your concerns at this point but you do have a large and lively acoustic space with huge potential. DIY has the tremendous benefit of designing to work with the room......we get the bass right, and everything else is gravy.
Last edited:
Chris:
Thanks for the ideas. It seems a fair number of people like the Mark Audio/Alpair drivers. They're on the list. I was able to find one of the sites, but for whatever reason, nothing there clicked. Like I said, I'm a noob and don't really understand all that much, other than a little bit of theory. That's why I'm looking for something I think should be fairly simple and hard to mess up.
Waxx:
Thanks for the ideas. Another vote for Mark Audio/Alpiar drivers. I will keep bracing and stuffing in mind when it comes time to build the boxes.
Mayhem13:
Well, I said I was a noob, didn't I?
I heard that a sub in a corner was roughly 8x as powerful, as everything not going in to the octant of open space was reflected. I presume the smearing you are talking about is that it would actually sound like 8 subs, each spaced a short distance away from each other (unfolding the mirror) firing into free-space. I could see that being a bit messy...
I guess it's not that I'm biased against it, it will just be very difficult to simulate, and that seems to be what the folks here like to do in their spare time. I was also concerned that the different angles and that half of one side being a massive archway could make it hard to 'fill' the room with sound. It sounds like you don't think those aspects will be an issue, so that is reassuring.
The coupling I was concerned with was a speaker on a shelf that was bolted to a wall that separates the family room from a bedroom. Speaker box vibrations would couple to the shelf and into the wall, and turn the wall into a radiator of sound (although it would be a poor one, it could put out enough energy to be annoying on the other side).
The tables are 18" deep and about 1/2" off the wall. The speakers would be aligned at the front edge, so the first reflections would be off the floor (24" down from the bottom of the speaker), not the table top. Hopefully that made sense. Your description is about right.
---
To anyone, what type/category/style of box (for a full range speaker, down to 80Hz) would seem best for this space. There are dozens of acronyms floating in the forums, and I my head spins as I try to figure out "who's on first" with them. I'm really at a loss with where to start...
Thanks for the ideas. It seems a fair number of people like the Mark Audio/Alpair drivers. They're on the list. I was able to find one of the sites, but for whatever reason, nothing there clicked. Like I said, I'm a noob and don't really understand all that much, other than a little bit of theory. That's why I'm looking for something I think should be fairly simple and hard to mess up.
Waxx:
Thanks for the ideas. Another vote for Mark Audio/Alpiar drivers. I will keep bracing and stuffing in mind when it comes time to build the boxes.
Mayhem13:
Well, I said I was a noob, didn't I?
I heard that a sub in a corner was roughly 8x as powerful, as everything not going in to the octant of open space was reflected. I presume the smearing you are talking about is that it would actually sound like 8 subs, each spaced a short distance away from each other (unfolding the mirror) firing into free-space. I could see that being a bit messy...I guess it's not that I'm biased against it, it will just be very difficult to simulate, and that seems to be what the folks here like to do in their spare time. I was also concerned that the different angles and that half of one side being a massive archway could make it hard to 'fill' the room with sound. It sounds like you don't think those aspects will be an issue, so that is reassuring.
The coupling I was concerned with was a speaker on a shelf that was bolted to a wall that separates the family room from a bedroom. Speaker box vibrations would couple to the shelf and into the wall, and turn the wall into a radiator of sound (although it would be a poor one, it could put out enough energy to be annoying on the other side).
The tables are 18" deep and about 1/2" off the wall. The speakers would be aligned at the front edge, so the first reflections would be off the floor (24" down from the bottom of the speaker), not the table top. Hopefully that made sense. Your description is about right.
---
To anyone, what type/category/style of box (for a full range speaker, down to 80Hz) would seem best for this space. There are dozens of acronyms floating in the forums, and I my head spins as I try to figure out "who's on first" with them. I'm really at a loss with where to start...
I, too like simple. I don't know the science of it all, but I know when I like how something sounds. For simple, another vote goes for MarkAudio drivers.
If you want something that's going to have the bass you mentioned, look into a WAW/FAST system:
10F/8424 & RS225-8 FAST / WAW Ref Monitor
or
10F/8424 & RS225-8 FAST / WAW Ref Monitor
If you want to go even simpler, look into a Pensil with a MarkAudio Alpair 10
Frugal-phile | Box Library / Mark Audio
A pair of these in a classic golden ratio with your sub might sound great too
Markaudio CHR-70 Brushed Metal Cone 4" Full Range
There are a lot of simple builds available that truly do sound great. If one doesn't work, there are several others that might do the trick.
Just don't get overwhelmed with all the suggestions that come your way. If you want simple (and you can even add your sub), I'd say go with one of the MarkAudio drivers/designs. Great sound and typically a simple build that can have a very high WAF.
Mike
If you want something that's going to have the bass you mentioned, look into a WAW/FAST system:
10F/8424 & RS225-8 FAST / WAW Ref Monitor
or
10F/8424 & RS225-8 FAST / WAW Ref Monitor
If you want to go even simpler, look into a Pensil with a MarkAudio Alpair 10
Frugal-phile | Box Library / Mark Audio
A pair of these in a classic golden ratio with your sub might sound great too
Markaudio CHR-70 Brushed Metal Cone 4" Full Range
There are a lot of simple builds available that truly do sound great. If one doesn't work, there are several others that might do the trick.
Just don't get overwhelmed with all the suggestions that come your way. If you want simple (and you can even add your sub), I'd say go with one of the MarkAudio drivers/designs. Great sound and typically a simple build that can have a very high WAF.
Mike
Well, I think the speakers you choose should reflect how you listen. You say you're usually at background levels, vs dance hall, you listen to a variety of music and the sub was being considered for placement behind the "tv". Is the tv audio going to be part of your sound source? Do you want the system - at times - to perform like an actual theatre system when you're watching a movie?
Or is it going to be for just casual background listening, while you're cooking dinner or carrying on some other activity where it's pleasant to have some music playing?
This would make a difference in the design choices you'd want for speaker and amplifier.
There's still another one. When you listen to music, do you sink into the spacious placement of various instruments in the sound field, or do you listen more for quality of voice and tonality of singers and instruments?
That would also effect your speaker design choices. For example, a 2 or 3 way speaker design is about balancing drivers, each within their optimal frequency range. Such speakers generally go louder and have flatter frequency response of course preferred by the "voice and tonality" listeners. A Full Range speaker, due to its phase coherency, is often a delight to the "spacious sound field" listeners, who often sit down to listen, due to "sweet spot" restrictions.
No point in emphasizing the sound field coherence if the system typically plays in the background while you're busy with other things and is otherwise used occasionally for movies. Not that the pictured system wouldnt do just fine with that - however for considerations of what you're going to do, it's something to think about.
Or is it going to be for just casual background listening, while you're cooking dinner or carrying on some other activity where it's pleasant to have some music playing?
This would make a difference in the design choices you'd want for speaker and amplifier.
There's still another one. When you listen to music, do you sink into the spacious placement of various instruments in the sound field, or do you listen more for quality of voice and tonality of singers and instruments?
That would also effect your speaker design choices. For example, a 2 or 3 way speaker design is about balancing drivers, each within their optimal frequency range. Such speakers generally go louder and have flatter frequency response of course preferred by the "voice and tonality" listeners. A Full Range speaker, due to its phase coherency, is often a delight to the "spacious sound field" listeners, who often sit down to listen, due to "sweet spot" restrictions.
No point in emphasizing the sound field coherence if the system typically plays in the background while you're busy with other things and is otherwise used occasionally for movies. Not that the pictured system wouldnt do just fine with that - however for considerations of what you're going to do, it's something to think about.
Last edited:
Thanks for the responses, gentlemen. Sorry for the delay in response, things have been a bit busy here...
---
Mike:
Thanks for the info. I'd heard of FAST, and that was kind of the direction I was leaning. It sounds like WAW is a new name for it?
Generally, I'm a hands-on experimenter, but right now, I'm loaded with amp mods and work and planning a vacation and... I just don't have the bandwidth at the moment. Plus, having a point of reference always helps me put information in context. So, I wanted to build a simple, pre-researched design that would be a reasonable first step, without souring the wife on how much one could spend on speakers (and how big they can get, if you let them).
At some point, I'll grow tired of the speakers and want to look into upgrading them, and that's when I'll dive in. Until then, those were some interesting links. I didn't want to worry so much about all the terms XRK (he helped me build the foam-board mini-Karlsonators) and the gang were throwing around, building complex filters that incorporated the small signal response of the speakers, time and phase alignment and all that other stuff. However, that seems to be a fairly well put together system, with all the brain-sweat already built in.
Part of the concern I have is not wanting to start a box collection right off the bat, as that will lower the WAF immediately. Her dad is a machinist, and she appreciates planning and precision, which is my usual mode. I understand that there is a place for experimentation and seeing what works, but this isn't that place (yet).
Hope that helps.
---
Joe
Sorry for any confusion. There will be no co-mingling of the audio and video. There just happened to be a reasonable space behind the TV for a sub (although I've been reminded that a corner load, while boosting apparent power, comes with its own issues).
Sometimes the music would be background, but just as often it is for listening. The volumes aren't that much different, so I didn't list them as separate events. We don't (usually) listen at concert-levels of sound. 8)
As for the question regarding spacious placements or the quality of vocals... These old JBL speakers don't really do either very well, so I really don't know. It would probably depend on the type of music. For symphonic and orchestral, it is nice to have the brass where they belong and the woodwinds where they belong, not all mushed together (trombone player myself). For vocal tracks or prominent instruments within a song, the detail of the featured sound would be important. So, ...both? Or at least a little of each. 8)
While the thought of a "sweet spot" is nice, the layout of seating and functional spaces doesn't really support such a position. The 3 near-to-the-speakers spots have a strong left bias, a fairly centered and a strong right bias. These placements are presently dealt with by angling the speakers, to provide enough off-axis loss to allow for a (somewhat) reasonable left/right balance in each position. The places farther away in the room have close enough to equal path length that hearing information from each speaker isn't too big a problem (even if it is kind of blended/non-localized at that point).
I guess what I'm looking for is a good first-round set of speakers that are generalists, not specializing in any one capability at the expense of any other. I don't have the time right now to properly educate myself, so I am looking for recommendations of an already proven design to implement. Once I have a data point for comparison, I can better understand some of what you just said, and how it might sound. And eventually, I'll want to build something else... That's when I'll dive in the deep end.
Hope that helped you better understand where I'm at and what I'm trying to get to.
---
As always, thanks guys, this is such a great site!
---
Mike:
Thanks for the info. I'd heard of FAST, and that was kind of the direction I was leaning. It sounds like WAW is a new name for it?
Generally, I'm a hands-on experimenter, but right now, I'm loaded with amp mods and work and planning a vacation and... I just don't have the bandwidth at the moment. Plus, having a point of reference always helps me put information in context. So, I wanted to build a simple, pre-researched design that would be a reasonable first step, without souring the wife on how much one could spend on speakers (and how big they can get, if you let them).
At some point, I'll grow tired of the speakers and want to look into upgrading them, and that's when I'll dive in. Until then, those were some interesting links. I didn't want to worry so much about all the terms XRK (he helped me build the foam-board mini-Karlsonators) and the gang were throwing around, building complex filters that incorporated the small signal response of the speakers, time and phase alignment and all that other stuff. However, that seems to be a fairly well put together system, with all the brain-sweat already built in.
Part of the concern I have is not wanting to start a box collection right off the bat, as that will lower the WAF immediately. Her dad is a machinist, and she appreciates planning and precision, which is my usual mode. I understand that there is a place for experimentation and seeing what works, but this isn't that place (yet).
Hope that helps.
---
Joe
Sorry for any confusion. There will be no co-mingling of the audio and video. There just happened to be a reasonable space behind the TV for a sub (although I've been reminded that a corner load, while boosting apparent power, comes with its own issues).
Sometimes the music would be background, but just as often it is for listening. The volumes aren't that much different, so I didn't list them as separate events. We don't (usually) listen at concert-levels of sound. 8)
As for the question regarding spacious placements or the quality of vocals... These old JBL speakers don't really do either very well, so I really don't know. It would probably depend on the type of music. For symphonic and orchestral, it is nice to have the brass where they belong and the woodwinds where they belong, not all mushed together (trombone player myself). For vocal tracks or prominent instruments within a song, the detail of the featured sound would be important. So, ...both? Or at least a little of each. 8)
While the thought of a "sweet spot" is nice, the layout of seating and functional spaces doesn't really support such a position. The 3 near-to-the-speakers spots have a strong left bias, a fairly centered and a strong right bias. These placements are presently dealt with by angling the speakers, to provide enough off-axis loss to allow for a (somewhat) reasonable left/right balance in each position. The places farther away in the room have close enough to equal path length that hearing information from each speaker isn't too big a problem (even if it is kind of blended/non-localized at that point).
I guess what I'm looking for is a good first-round set of speakers that are generalists, not specializing in any one capability at the expense of any other. I don't have the time right now to properly educate myself, so I am looking for recommendations of an already proven design to implement. Once I have a data point for comparison, I can better understand some of what you just said, and how it might sound. And eventually, I'll want to build something else... That's when I'll dive in the deep end.
Hope that helped you better understand where I'm at and what I'm trying to get to.
---
As always, thanks guys, this is such a great site!
+1
A vaulted ceiling eliminates a significant number of room issues, and. acomplex, large space usually makes things even better.
It is only 1when you want to try and play really loud that the size becomes an issue.
I can also fall behid the suggestions of Mark Audio. I personally prefer the A10p to the A12p (goes lower, higher, and has greater ability to reproduce the small details, the metal cone driver has a more extended, top end, the paper cones have what i cal vintage top end. The extra efficiency of the Apaper cones may well be of benefir with the ACA (i have 3 of those, and used a 5w one with MA drivers about the same sensitivity as the A10.3.
The A10.3 is optimum in a 13 litre miniOnken (the alignment does tend towards smaller boxes) and the 2 paper cone drivers will fit the same size box (but with different tuning) but can also benefit from a larger box (17 litre) for more bass and more breathing room. The 13 litre Classic Golden Ratio miniOnken plans are here for an idea of size Frugal-phile | Box Library / Mark Audio (well within your criteria).
This is the 13 litre CGR with the old metal cone A12
The A12p thou doesn’t really seem to open up until in a bigger box — something like a Pensil, but like most of the bigger boxes is a floorstander and does not meet your aesthetic needs.
All will easily reach your woofer. A single woofer in the corner is likely not idea, but you have what you have.
dave
Dave:
Thanks for the info. One of the reasons I have been reluctant to go with the Mark Audio is not understanding the nomenclature. In your description above, you mention an A10P, and an A10.3. I have also seen A10.2 and A10M as well. If I understand correctly, the .2/.3 is a version, so the .3 is the 3rd generation. But what is the P/M drivers and what are each optimized for? This is part of why I have held off so long in doing speakers. There is so much to learn, it is quite daunting.
In doing more research on the topic of the nomenclature of the Aplairs, I stumbled on a comment you made here: "How do Alpair 10.3 and 10p compare to 10.2?"
- In post 6, you suggested going smaller than a 10, and I was curious about how a 7 or 6 would work in a WAW system? What size boxes (and types) work well with these speakers for integrating with a sub?
- Also, you mention in post 12 that there is a significant difference between enabled and stock speakers. Can you elaborate, for those of us who have not had the option of hearing an enabled speaker personally?
Also, what is the availability of enabled speakers in the A10, A7 & A6 range? Also, you list an A7P and an A7.3, which appear to be aluminum cone vs paper cone, correct?
Sorry for so many questions, but there is so much I do not understand.
Thanks for the info. One of the reasons I have been reluctant to go with the Mark Audio is not understanding the nomenclature. In your description above, you mention an A10P, and an A10.3. I have also seen A10.2 and A10M as well. If I understand correctly, the .2/.3 is a version, so the .3 is the 3rd generation. But what is the P/M drivers and what are each optimized for? This is part of why I have held off so long in doing speakers. There is so much to learn, it is quite daunting.
In doing more research on the topic of the nomenclature of the Aplairs, I stumbled on a comment you made here: "How do Alpair 10.3 and 10p compare to 10.2?"
- In post 6, you suggested going smaller than a 10, and I was curious about how a 7 or 6 would work in a WAW system? What size boxes (and types) work well with these speakers for integrating with a sub?
- Also, you mention in post 12 that there is a significant difference between enabled and stock speakers. Can you elaborate, for those of us who have not had the option of hearing an enabled speaker personally?
Also, what is the availability of enabled speakers in the A10, A7 & A6 range? Also, you list an A7P and an A7.3, which appear to be aluminum cone vs paper cone, correct?
Sorry for so many questions, but there is so much I do not understand.
Last edited by a moderator:
The nomenclature has been confusing.
1/ P = paper, M = metal
2/ A10 was th e1st Jordan-like 5.25” Mark Audio/. The next generation (based on the 1st A7 and A2 [metal]) was vastly improved. The 3rd generation A10 (aka A10.3 = A10m, maybe even A10A [A stands for arrestor — all current drivers have same]). It moved the midTop of the driver closer in capability to the A7.3 (=A7M), with an increase in sensitivity, at the expense of potential bass response. The A10p is the 1st generation paper 5.25” and like the A12.2p and A6.2p that preceded it, has a voicng that has a more “vintage” top end, a bit rolled-off and very non-fatiguing (small tube amp guys tend to love this driver). I describe the differences of the current A10.3/p as six of one, half dozen of the other. I could live with either. Do note that the metal cone driver needs way more break-in time to meet its potential.
So there have been 3 A10 metals, each, to my mind, improving as things go along, althou the A10.2 (ignoring A12pw) has the most bas spotential of any Mark Audio. The 1st (and only) 5.25” paper cone driver benefits form all the same developments that the 3rd gen metals have gained so could also be called a 3rd generation driver.
Unless the goal is no excuses loud, the smaller drivers make for better midTweeters. Do note that will the A6.2m has voicing very close to the A7.3/10.3, the A6.2p is voiced similar to A10p.
With the A6.2s discontinued, that leaves one with the A5.2/3 which given the monoSuspension has some assets that make it even better (but small cone size also means less volume and typically a higher XO).
Ideally you have at least 2 subs, but typical subs mean that getting a good blend with any of these FRs means that the box they are in needs to go g==fairly low (F6 on the order of 40-50 Hz would be ideal), choosing woofers with better with higher frequency capabilities makes for much easier blending, higher XOs, and more removal of bass needs in the FR.
To me subs would be used below 40-60 Hz and add a 3rd way to a WAW with nice midbass(es) as couplers between sub and FR.
I would certainly say that, but you will find many who say that the spots can’t possible do what is claimed. Almost always from those who have not heard the difference, and their ar emany without th ehearing acuity or quality of front-end to actually hear the difference.
At this point if you want to get EnABLed drivers, you will have to learn & practise to do your own, or get in the queue as i (very) slowly churn out the last ones i will be doing (limited to what i have in stock for base drivers).
The most notable thing about EnABL is that improves the driver’s DDR (Downward Dynamic Range — i get flack for that term too). This is the ability of the driver to reproduce very small details (even in the precense of larger signal), allowing for more information to add life to voices, details of instruments, and the critical information required to provide the illusion of a 3D soundspace/image.
It often takes some time to learn what to listen for when comparing before & after (took me an afternoon the 1st time, now i can pick out the EnABLed drivers in a couple switches during a blind test (with the appropriate quality of recording playing).
Also, what is the availability of enabled speakers in the A10, A7 & A6 range? Also, you list an A7P and an A7.3, which appear to be aluminum cone vs paper cone, correct?
Keep asking, it is the key to learning more. Even 45+ years on i keep asking questions and learning more.
dave
In the family so to speak:
Open Source Monkey Box
Slightly bigger than your front panel requirements and separate crossover boxes—you can see my space savvy solution to that in the thread. Your room sounds shockingly similar to mine... I entered a negotiation about the WAF and suffice it to say that life is too interesting to be range bound by a few inches here and there when the true quest is getting the hairs on our arms to stand up with incredibly reproduced tunes. One could apply some rudimentary physical attributes that might required for that...IDK.
The OSMC offers max DIYness and learning... for a noob (like me), without taking on full speaker design (yet). No idea what your budget is...
Open Source Monkey Box
Slightly bigger than your front panel requirements and separate crossover boxes—you can see my space savvy solution to that in the thread. Your room sounds shockingly similar to mine... I entered a negotiation about the WAF and suffice it to say that life is too interesting to be range bound by a few inches here and there when the true quest is getting the hairs on our arms to stand up with incredibly reproduced tunes. One could apply some rudimentary physical attributes that might required for that...IDK.
The OSMC offers max DIYness and learning... for a noob (like me), without taking on full speaker design (yet). No idea what your budget is...
Dave:
Thanks for all the info.
Regarding learning to do my own EnABLed drivers:
I seem to recall seeing (somewhere) where you described how the "enable" process worked, but can't seem to find it. Is it in one of the speaker forums, or in the Planet10 area?
PFarrell:
The Monkey Box sounds interesting, but looks a little complex for me at the moment. The crossover alone gave me a headache. It looks like a nice 3rd try speaker set (counting the foam-core mini-karlsonators as my first).
Thanks for all the info.
Regarding learning to do my own EnABLed drivers:
I seem to recall seeing (somewhere) where you described how the "enable" process worked, but can't seem to find it. Is it in one of the speaker forums, or in the Planet10 area?
PFarrell:
The Monkey Box sounds interesting, but looks a little complex for me at the moment. The crossover alone gave me a headache. It looks like a nice 3rd try speaker set (counting the foam-core mini-karlsonators as my first).
Posts 13-16, you will have to search the forum to find Bud describing the tap test (used to figure out the rings). I am of course happy to give the diameters for any driver i have dne (and can find the template).
EnABL - Listening impressions & techniques
dave
EnABL - Listening impressions & techniques
dave
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.