OK, Murf, you are convinced. There are a couple of issues here. The Alpair series, at least the A7 and up, are intended for single driver speakers, or possibly crossed quite low to a true woofer. Your Audax is worthless in this context. It can only be used in a 3-way. I have no doubt that you can flatten the mid driver's response with an appropriate XO, or in you case two of them. It's a total apples/oranges situation.
Bob
Bob
let's make it easier ...the Unifield 3 uses a Fostex Fx-120...has anyone compared any of the Alpairs to this driver?
Jeff would be best for that compare, he has 3 different Alpairs and the FX120.
In my recollection i'd give the alpairs the advantage in overall dyanamics and DDR.
dave
In my recollection i'd give the alpairs the advantage in overall dyanamics and DDR.
dave
Comparing my speakers, it's actually much closer than you'd think, with the older Alpair 7's (7.2's?) ahead by a whisker. I'd expect the newer 7.3's to extend that margin slightly, although I don't have much listening time with them. One thing the older Alpair 7's do is accentuate the "SSSSS" on female vocals that the FX120's don't do, so this may well come down to personal preference. Both sets of drivers were treated and Enabled by Dave.
And neither diver needs a tweeter IMHO, but some may like the 7.3's as a mid-tweet better than the FX120. I'd suspect that the use of a tweeter in the Von Schweikert Unifield 3's is more for marketing than outright performance, but I could be wrong. The potential loss of customers because the speaker isn't flat out to 20kHz could be a real issue.
jeff
Hi Guys,
Sadly I've had to delete member Murphy's posts. While its natural to have opinions about competitor products, the Markaudio section sits in the commercial side of Diyaudio. Any attempt by a member to steer other members to buy competitor drivers is un-acceptable, especially when comparative explanation used to support assertions are technically mis-leading.
The question of using a larger Alpairs as a mid-range driver was asked by member Wallacefl:
"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!"
Dealing with this issue is relatively simple at first glance. Taking as an example member Murphy's first love, the 6.5" Audax PR17, its output places this unit firmly in the "mid-band" driver class, as described by its maker. Its usable frequency range will likely be from 1-kHz to 6-kHz (allowing for some roll-off for the cross over). Its frequency response looks quite nice in this spectrum but like all drivers, its not flat from 3-kHz up, the data (see makers graph) appears to be smoothed. This variance in its upper frequency response maybe an issue for some, but I think its designer's intention is to trade some stability for increased sensitivity by reducing operating mass, something I've done with the later model Alpair drivers.
Looking at the Woofer No.6 (EL-166), also a 6.5" driver that falls inside the "mid-bass" category, but one that comes very close in usability in the mid range, shows its upper usable range to around 5-kHz, relatively flat, also on smoothed data (see CSS data pic). The advantage of Woof No.6 is its ability to go lower, thus making easier to match with much bigger bass drivers (if needed).
Looking at the data from the new Alpair 10M, Alpair 10P and Alpair 12P, they also have usable responses in the lower to mid-band regions. These drivers have ultra wide dispersion cones and very low mass power-trains making them resonance sensitive in the vocal and telephonic band. However, end users should bear in mind that these drivers weren't designed for multi-way applications, their rising responses in the upper bands may require more sophisticated filtering.
In terms of comparing mid-band and and bass-mid drivers to Full-Ranger's when used only for mid output in multi-way applications, make sure you treat the Full-Ranger fairly by applying adequate filtering to properly match it with the woof and tweeter either side of the selected mid-band. Those Full-Rangers with rising upper band responses may require allot more filtering effort to create a good match to a tweeter.
As regards which driver type makes the best mid-ranger, this is purely a matter of personal taste having applied the skills needed to do descent filtering and get the box properly sorted.
On a related note, I've made my concerns clear to those few members who are wedded to the notion that the only good response is a flat response, who proceed to ignore the design and operating criteria of Full-Range drivers like mine, criticising Full-Rangers without properly understanding their function. Thankfully it is a small minority, but where Full-Range drivers are concerned, its worth reading my post on this thread:
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/mark...nfo-flattening-markaudio-driver-response.html
For those members and end users who wish to in-corporate Full-Ranger's into FAST or multiway systems, its good to experiment provided you take into consideration the nature and function of these units. Experimentation is the "key" word - have fun!
Thanks
Mark.
Sadly I've had to delete member Murphy's posts. While its natural to have opinions about competitor products, the Markaudio section sits in the commercial side of Diyaudio. Any attempt by a member to steer other members to buy competitor drivers is un-acceptable, especially when comparative explanation used to support assertions are technically mis-leading.
The question of using a larger Alpairs as a mid-range driver was asked by member Wallacefl:
"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!"
Dealing with this issue is relatively simple at first glance. Taking as an example member Murphy's first love, the 6.5" Audax PR17, its output places this unit firmly in the "mid-band" driver class, as described by its maker. Its usable frequency range will likely be from 1-kHz to 6-kHz (allowing for some roll-off for the cross over). Its frequency response looks quite nice in this spectrum but like all drivers, its not flat from 3-kHz up, the data (see makers graph) appears to be smoothed. This variance in its upper frequency response maybe an issue for some, but I think its designer's intention is to trade some stability for increased sensitivity by reducing operating mass, something I've done with the later model Alpair drivers.
Looking at the Woofer No.6 (EL-166), also a 6.5" driver that falls inside the "mid-bass" category, but one that comes very close in usability in the mid range, shows its upper usable range to around 5-kHz, relatively flat, also on smoothed data (see CSS data pic). The advantage of Woof No.6 is its ability to go lower, thus making easier to match with much bigger bass drivers (if needed).
Looking at the data from the new Alpair 10M, Alpair 10P and Alpair 12P, they also have usable responses in the lower to mid-band regions. These drivers have ultra wide dispersion cones and very low mass power-trains making them resonance sensitive in the vocal and telephonic band. However, end users should bear in mind that these drivers weren't designed for multi-way applications, their rising responses in the upper bands may require more sophisticated filtering.
In terms of comparing mid-band and and bass-mid drivers to Full-Ranger's when used only for mid output in multi-way applications, make sure you treat the Full-Ranger fairly by applying adequate filtering to properly match it with the woof and tweeter either side of the selected mid-band. Those Full-Rangers with rising upper band responses may require allot more filtering effort to create a good match to a tweeter.
As regards which driver type makes the best mid-ranger, this is purely a matter of personal taste having applied the skills needed to do descent filtering and get the box properly sorted.
On a related note, I've made my concerns clear to those few members who are wedded to the notion that the only good response is a flat response, who proceed to ignore the design and operating criteria of Full-Range drivers like mine, criticising Full-Rangers without properly understanding their function. Thankfully it is a small minority, but where Full-Range drivers are concerned, its worth reading my post on this thread:
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/mark...nfo-flattening-markaudio-driver-response.html
For those members and end users who wish to in-corporate Full-Ranger's into FAST or multiway systems, its good to experiment provided you take into consideration the nature and function of these units. Experimentation is the "key" word - have fun!
Thanks
Mark.
Attachments
Last edited:
I obtained a pair of Alpair 10P and played them in at a moderate level for 100 hours. I measured them with the DATS system both before and after the break-in procedure, and the measurements I obtained from each test were very similar to each other. I was quite impressed by the fact that not only were my measurements very close to the published factory specifications, the differences between the two drivers were so small as to make the drivers essentially identical. That speaks very well for the quality control of Markaudio.
I mounted one of the 10P drivers and one of my Alpair 10.2 drivers (with hundreds of hours of playing time on it) in identical 7 liter sealed boxes to compare them directly by listening to each one reproduce the same music. I chose as the music selection a mono recording of the Beatles' "Sergeant Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band", a recording to which I have listened for years and which I know intimately. I connected the A10P to the left channel of my receiver and the A10.2 to the right channel, and I used the balance control on the receiver to first mute one speaker and then the other, alternately, as the music played. The recording is mono so each speaker received the same signal. Because it was immediately apparent that the A10P produces more loudness in the midrange than the A10.2, I did my best to simultaneously adjust the volume and balance controls on my receiver to compensate for those differences in level and minimize any impression that the A10P is "better" because it is louder. Based on the factory specifications, the box modeling software predicted an f3 of 90 Hz for the A10P and 71 Hz for the A10.2.
In this application the bass on the A10.2 was definitely more pronounced. Every note that Paul McCartney played on his bass guitar was reproduced clearly and with good musical effect. The A10P by comparison was a bit bass-shy, but the notes were still audible and provided a good foundation for the rest of the music.
I have previously said that the A10.2 always produced pleasing sound, whatever the style of music I played on it. That statement is still true, but I have to say that by comparison to the A10P, the A10.2 sounds limited in clarity of reproduction of the midrange and high frequencies. For example, the A10P reproduces the guitar solo on "Fixing a Hole" with clarity and just the right amount of "bite", with no upper-midrange squeaking or squawking. The A10.2 sounds muted by comparison. The sibilants that Paul McCartney sings on "She's Leaving Home" are clearly heard on the A10P but somewhat muffled on the A10.2. I heard noticeable differences on every track, and in each case the A10P had more detail, clarity, and "air" to the sound. I also listened to the A10P off axis by an amount I believe to be about 20 degrees, and I could tell no difference in the high frequency reproduction from the on-axis sound.
I believe the A10P to be an excellent and versatile driver, and I will definitely use it as the main speaker in a FAST construction. I'm sold.
I mounted one of the 10P drivers and one of my Alpair 10.2 drivers (with hundreds of hours of playing time on it) in identical 7 liter sealed boxes to compare them directly by listening to each one reproduce the same music. I chose as the music selection a mono recording of the Beatles' "Sergeant Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band", a recording to which I have listened for years and which I know intimately. I connected the A10P to the left channel of my receiver and the A10.2 to the right channel, and I used the balance control on the receiver to first mute one speaker and then the other, alternately, as the music played. The recording is mono so each speaker received the same signal. Because it was immediately apparent that the A10P produces more loudness in the midrange than the A10.2, I did my best to simultaneously adjust the volume and balance controls on my receiver to compensate for those differences in level and minimize any impression that the A10P is "better" because it is louder. Based on the factory specifications, the box modeling software predicted an f3 of 90 Hz for the A10P and 71 Hz for the A10.2.
In this application the bass on the A10.2 was definitely more pronounced. Every note that Paul McCartney played on his bass guitar was reproduced clearly and with good musical effect. The A10P by comparison was a bit bass-shy, but the notes were still audible and provided a good foundation for the rest of the music.
I have previously said that the A10.2 always produced pleasing sound, whatever the style of music I played on it. That statement is still true, but I have to say that by comparison to the A10P, the A10.2 sounds limited in clarity of reproduction of the midrange and high frequencies. For example, the A10P reproduces the guitar solo on "Fixing a Hole" with clarity and just the right amount of "bite", with no upper-midrange squeaking or squawking. The A10.2 sounds muted by comparison. The sibilants that Paul McCartney sings on "She's Leaving Home" are clearly heard on the A10P but somewhat muffled on the A10.2. I heard noticeable differences on every track, and in each case the A10P had more detail, clarity, and "air" to the sound. I also listened to the A10P off axis by an amount I believe to be about 20 degrees, and I could tell no difference in the high frequency reproduction from the on-axis sound.
I believe the A10P to be an excellent and versatile driver, and I will definitely use it as the main speaker in a FAST construction. I'm sold.
Member
Joined 2009
Paid Member
Hi majerjack, Guys,
A very interesting comparison, thanks for posting your thoughts.
A few things to note. 7 litres is really small for these drivers. There's an increased risk of back-wave cancellation effect on the rear of the cones. I'd recommend using box volumes of +10 litres in nearly all projects, unless you're doing something very specific.
The Alp 10 Gen 2 had a "trick" Matsubara San rectangle wire coil, giving a particular resonant character. Its mass was some +1.2g more than the new super-low mass coil on the current Gen.3 version. For those guys interested in a drivers "personality" the Gen.3 is acoustically closer in listening terms to the current Alpair 7.
The Matsubara San coil and and a similar unit remain deployed on the all-Japan MAOP 7 and MAOP 10 matched units.
Thanks
Mark.
Attachments
- Status
- Not open for further replies.