I have received my Mark Audio 10.3

Jump to Latest
W

wfr329

Member
Joined 2012
planet10 said:
It is an option if you do not rebate the driver (inset the driver so the front of the bezel/basket is flush with the baffle). Both are fairly easy to cut the appropriate hole into.

But if you are getting a router you should extend your experience to learning how to execute a rebate. A circle is easy, in the day i had a nice little rockwell router i got pretty good at freehanding with (KEF drivers with NOT round frames).

Basically you use a scrap to make the router the pencil in your drawing compass. Then the rebate followed by the thru hole.

Make the cutouts a tiny bit larger than needed particularily as when you finish it it will shrink a bit (a just had a real issue pulling out a CHP-70.2eN in one of Chris’ early enclosures.

dave
Click to expand...
Ok thanks I understand now.

Better late than never.

Walter
 
C

chrisb

Member
Joined 2002
For those not fortunate enough to have access to CNC machine, I’d recommend investing in something like the Jasper precision circle jig. Its only downside is that it’s calibrated for 1/4” straight shank bit, so the rebates for wide flanges such as the Alpairs will take more than one pass. I had a shop made compass jig that allowed me to use a Porter Cable 690 router outfitted with 1/2” shank 3/4” diameter mortise bit, which was more than enough for any of the MA drivers.

actually, this one looks interesting https://www.google.ca/aclk?sa=L&ai=...JKG9pT5AhVSIH0KHeRCCYEQ9aACKAB6BAgBEE8&adurl=
 
grahamgraham

grahamgraham

Member
Joined 2016
Yeah, I was indeed talking about MA drivers specifically.

My thoughts re the prescribed fussy break in regime are that the drivers are prone to deform if they get the same wubwubwub treatment you would give a subwoofer or other stout driver.

General driver break-in discussions are too contentious to touch. There is data in all directions out there and we should all make our own minds up.
 
planet10

planet10

frugal-phile™
Joined 2001
planet10-hifi.com
Paid Member
It is data, it is just not objective data (unlike EnABL no double blind tests)

I do not show most measures i make, i have “trust your ears” as a mantra, measures are open to interpretation and are such a small part of the final response it gets too heavily leaned on. Most of the really important stuff that is revealed as a good FR driver breaks in are very small in terms of amplitude and do not show up on a gross FR measurement. One would need to measure what is happening 20-40 dB down and that has proven to be a measurement problem that has not been solved yet.

One of the small things that appears are those tiny bits of information that allow for the creation of a realistic soundstage/image. How do you measure that?

As Toole says:
Two ears and a brain are massively more analytical and adaptable than an omnidirectional microphone and an analyzer.
Click to expand...

dave
 
W

wfr329

Member
Joined 2012
Some years ago, I recorded some songs in order to go to Montreal to shop for new speakers.

I went to 3 shops. Only in one of them, the last one, I said to myself: This song that I know so well has strange sounds in it ! It does not sound right. So that day I concluded that this shop was problematic.

Many days later, I realised that the songs I recorded were MP3s at 128 kbps sampling. :oops:

Is this what we call a double blind tests ? Later I was told that their demo room was an ancient recording room. :love: I was listening at top quality gear also.

It is tough to make good conclusions. (How about the two other shops ...)

Walter
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom