How do Alpair 10.3 and 10p compare to 10.2?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jump to Latest
M

majerjack

Member
Joined 2010
#1
I have a pair of Alpair 10.2 drivers mounted in 22 liter bass reflex cabinets, and I really enjoy the sound they produce. Generous bass, adequate treble, and a comfortable midrange. I listen to many different styles of music on them, and they always produce a pleasing sound. One of the characteristics of these drivers that was immediately apparent was their ability to resolve low-level ambience, a property that is important to me for the full enjoyment of recorded music. I use them on my desk at my place of employment, listening at a close field distance of less than one meter.

I like them so much that I have been considering using a pair of the current Alpair 10 drivers for my system at home. In this case, I have thought of using them as the main driver in a FAST construction, with a helper woofer to provide the foundation and relieve the Alpairs from bass duty, allowing a greater dynamic range and protecting the delicate Alpair cones. My dilemma is that I don't know which current Alpair 10 would better meet my desires---the 10.3 or the 10p.

Since I know the sound of the Alpair 10.2, I wish to use that as my reference in selecting one of the other two drivers for my system. Can anyone who has heard the 10.2 and one or both of the other two drivers offer comparisons between their sound? I have searched this forum and other sources, but the information on the newer Alpairs seems to be limited by comparison to that of the older one.

Some supplemental information: My preference for listening at home is also to sit on-axis in the close field (at just over one meter in a smallish room), so ultra-high volume and power handling will not be necessary. The ability of a speaker to produce peaks at or close to 103dB at one meter is what I am trying to achieve. I want my speakers to be versatile in that I hope to have the dynamic range required to fully enjoy classical music as well as other styles.

Thanks to anyone who can offer listening impressions of the Alpair 10.3 or 10p in comparison to the 10.2.

Edit: The manufacturer's information has stated that some of the Markaudio paper-coned drivers are susceptible to damage from ultraviolet radiation. Is that a concern with the Alpair 10p?
 
Last edited:
#4
That thread pretty well covers things. Now that my A10M's and A10P's are well broked-in, I find the A10M is a bit edgier than the A10P. The A10P is more mellow. Sounds like a paper driver, I suppose. Anyway the A10P is more comfortable for a long listening session.

Bob
 
#6
majerjack said:
And, does anyone know the answer to the question as to whether ultraviolet light can damage the cone of the 10p?
Click to expand...

Same cone material as the A6.2p -- it has been in the field lonest, no reports of issues yet.

Bob's take is pretty spot-on, the new drivers don't have as much bass extention potential, not an issue with a FAST, but with a FAST one might well consider Alpair 7 or even 6.

dave
 
#8
I understand that chris guy has heard all of the Alpair drivers listed so far - exactly what comment would you be looking for - other than "I couldn't give a rip about the published specs, my current favorite is xxx ... , because ..."?
 
#12
Bob Brines said:
Dave,

On your A10PeN's, are you doping the cones or just painting the dots?

Bob
Click to expand...

Cones get a light coat of diluted puzzlecoat, spots, and then 2 thin coats of thinmed gloss (only 1 on the dustcap). Improvement is significant (we have one set of FHxl with stock and one set treated to allow for demonstration). Bezel gets a set of rings and 2 coats of gloss as weil.

dave
 
#15
Bob Brines said:
That thread pretty well covers things. Now that my A10M's and A10P's are well broked-in, I find the A10M is a bit edgier than the A10P. The A10P is more mellow. Sounds like a paper driver, I suppose. Anyway the A10P is more comfortable for a long listening session.

Bob
Click to expand...

any thoughts about which 10 is better/more transparent say 250hz-7khz...I am thinking of trying my own variation of the Unifield 3..Dayton woofer on the bottom and ribbon tweeter for the top. I already have the 10.2 and thru the midrange it seems to be very bit as good as my Seas w18e !
 
#19
Bob Brines said:
I don't know. I've never had that Audax driver, and I have no intention to do a 3-way, but I don't necessarily equate an exaggerated upper midrange to "detail".

Bob
Click to expand...


bingo - semantics / our own argot at play, perhaps - for example, while I know it when I hear it, it's kinda hard to describe "DDR" downwards dynamic range / inner detail (as opposed to what? , exactly 😉 )

some of the most fatiguing systems I've heard (such as front horn loaded Lowthers) would be described by that metric as highly "detailed" and hyper dynamic
 
#20
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom