They did. Numerous times.
After, since that is the designed state. Note that like any other permanent magnet driver (without exception) then the actual damping et al will be affected by the output impedance of the amplifier.
There are many measurements available demonstrating changes in various drivers following a short period of running vis-à-vis out of the box. Here's one that I just grabbed. Untitled Document I am utterly bemused why anybody should be in the least bit surprised that moving components may need a short period of running to loosen them up, why effects might vary depending on driver type, or why this is supposed to be such a big deal. It really isn't.
Last edited:
In the case of the Mark Audio, the average of 30 units (IIRC) after break-in.
T/S parameters will usually not capture the most important parts of breakin.
dave
Hello everybody. First time poster.
I know this is an old thread, but I am in the stage of choosing which FR driver to use with the cabinet I have in mind and I narrowed it down to either Jordan or Mark Audio, as many others seem to do.
I wanted to steer the post back to the original subject leaving the break-in debacle alone for a moment, if I may.
Any of you have some insight on the direct comparison between these drivers? Also, Mark Audio now makes the Pluvia Eleven too.
Comparing the frequency response it looks like the Eikona might have a better low frequency response at least down to 50 Hz, it doesn't show lower), at the expense of some sensitivity.
Of course that region's response will ultimately be determined by the speaker's cabinet design and there is no indication that the frequency measurements were taken with comparable techniques.
Being aware of that I thought I might ask some of you people if you have any indications that might help me in choosing which driver to use.
I would say that low frequency response is high on my priority list.
Thank you in advance and for the education I already gained just by reading on this forum over the years.
I know this is an old thread, but I am in the stage of choosing which FR driver to use with the cabinet I have in mind and I narrowed it down to either Jordan or Mark Audio, as many others seem to do.
I wanted to steer the post back to the original subject leaving the break-in debacle alone for a moment, if I may.
Any of you have some insight on the direct comparison between these drivers? Also, Mark Audio now makes the Pluvia Eleven too.
Comparing the frequency response it looks like the Eikona might have a better low frequency response at least down to 50 Hz, it doesn't show lower), at the expense of some sensitivity.
Of course that region's response will ultimately be determined by the speaker's cabinet design and there is no indication that the frequency measurements were taken with comparable techniques.
Being aware of that I thought I might ask some of you people if you have any indications that might help me in choosing which driver to use.
I would say that low frequency response is high on my priority list.
Thank you in advance and for the education I already gained just by reading on this forum over the years.
I own Eikona 2s and also Alpair 10.3Ms. I've tried the Eikonas in the VTL, as well as in Jim Griffin's 35" MLTL. I tried the Alpairs in Jim Griffin's 10.3 MLTL. Here are my impressions:
Bass
The Eikonas can go deeper than the Alpairs, and handle it better. This is the area where the Jordans very clearly distinguish themselves from most other full range drivers. They produce deep, musical bass. They do it with little apparent effort.
The Alpairs are nothing to sneeze at. Their bass is also musical and tight; but they don't take kindly to volume, and they don't go as low.
I'm not saying you'll think you have a pair of 15" subs in your room when you fire up your Jordans, but there are few full range drivers that do bass this well.
Highs
The Alpairs go higher (a half octave or so) than the Eikonas. However, according to my ears, they gained that extension by sacrificing quality.
Neither speaker is perfect above 8kHz, but the Alpair's response in the very high treble is audibly more jagged and elevated than the Jordans', and certainly not as smooth as their measurements suggest. I know that's a touchy subject, but it is what it is. You may or may not notice depending on your age and sensitivity, but it's obvious to me.
That's not to say the Alpairs sound bad. Remember, we're comparing fine wines here. They sound amazing. But there are differences. In one sentence:
The Jordans can't match the Alpairs in extension, but what they do, they do better.
Mids
This is the difficult part. Both speakers sound gorgeous in the mid range. Some days I like the Alpairs better. Sometimes I like the Jordans better. It depends on my mood, the music, what I ate for dinner, the weather, etc. Haha! You get what I mean. I don't think you will be disappointed with either.
Other Impressions/Observations
Both Mark Fenlon and EJ Jordan obviously spent a considerable amount of time and effort producing drivers that are extremely well behaved. You'd be hard pressed to find much "ringing" anywhere -- with the exception of maybe a touch at the high end of both drivers, slightly more with the Alpairs (as I mentioned in the "Highs" section above).
As far as imaging is concerned: with these drivers, I think the ball is in your court as a designer. They are capable of producing hallucination-like sound stages. What you get is up to you, your room, and your enclosures.
If you're wondering about distortion: Both are world-class. I think the Alpairs have a slight edge, at least from the mids up. But I have not measured. You won't find much to object to with either.
I once equalized both drivers (it is extremely easy to get a flat response from them) to eliminate the influence of their different responses on my impressions. I think the Jordans are more "detailed" or "sharp" in the mids and treble. In the upper bass, I think the Alpairs have a slight edge.
Finally, as far as build quality is concerned: both drivers are top notch. Use them in their limits (see "Bass" above), and you have nothing to worry about.
Bass
The Eikonas can go deeper than the Alpairs, and handle it better. This is the area where the Jordans very clearly distinguish themselves from most other full range drivers. They produce deep, musical bass. They do it with little apparent effort.
The Alpairs are nothing to sneeze at. Their bass is also musical and tight; but they don't take kindly to volume, and they don't go as low.
I'm not saying you'll think you have a pair of 15" subs in your room when you fire up your Jordans, but there are few full range drivers that do bass this well.
Highs
The Alpairs go higher (a half octave or so) than the Eikonas. However, according to my ears, they gained that extension by sacrificing quality.
Neither speaker is perfect above 8kHz, but the Alpair's response in the very high treble is audibly more jagged and elevated than the Jordans', and certainly not as smooth as their measurements suggest. I know that's a touchy subject, but it is what it is. You may or may not notice depending on your age and sensitivity, but it's obvious to me.
That's not to say the Alpairs sound bad. Remember, we're comparing fine wines here. They sound amazing. But there are differences. In one sentence:
The Jordans can't match the Alpairs in extension, but what they do, they do better.
Mids
This is the difficult part. Both speakers sound gorgeous in the mid range. Some days I like the Alpairs better. Sometimes I like the Jordans better. It depends on my mood, the music, what I ate for dinner, the weather, etc. Haha! You get what I mean. I don't think you will be disappointed with either.
Other Impressions/Observations
Both Mark Fenlon and EJ Jordan obviously spent a considerable amount of time and effort producing drivers that are extremely well behaved. You'd be hard pressed to find much "ringing" anywhere -- with the exception of maybe a touch at the high end of both drivers, slightly more with the Alpairs (as I mentioned in the "Highs" section above).
As far as imaging is concerned: with these drivers, I think the ball is in your court as a designer. They are capable of producing hallucination-like sound stages. What you get is up to you, your room, and your enclosures.
If you're wondering about distortion: Both are world-class. I think the Alpairs have a slight edge, at least from the mids up. But I have not measured. You won't find much to object to with either.
I once equalized both drivers (it is extremely easy to get a flat response from them) to eliminate the influence of their different responses on my impressions. I think the Jordans are more "detailed" or "sharp" in the mids and treble. In the upper bass, I think the Alpairs have a slight edge.
Finally, as far as build quality is concerned: both drivers are top notch. Use them in their limits (see "Bass" above), and you have nothing to worry about.
Last edited:
Knarfor,
Thank you for the time you took to write down such a detailed description.
Maybe it's the confirmation bias, but I'm glad you seem to give the edge to the Jordans.
I was hoping they would be at least just as good and better in the bass region, because they are smaller and that will help me keep the cabinet design measurements contained to a degree.
Thank you for the time you took to write down such a detailed description.
Maybe it's the confirmation bias, but I'm glad you seem to give the edge to the Jordans.
I was hoping they would be at least just as good and better in the bass region, because they are smaller and that will help me keep the cabinet design measurements contained to a degree.
MarkAudio speakers are, no doubt, a great bargain.
When you get to the "high end" of any market and keep moving up, every improvement is more subtle and more costly. Excluding the difference in bass, which is certainly not subtle, that's the case with the Eikonas' benefits over the Alpairs: you will pay for them.
I use my Eikonas as full range speakers, since they are nearly true full-range (24hz- 17kHz).
I plan to use my Alpairs as FAST units, because it suits them better.
In the not too distant future, I'm eager to get my hands on pair of MOAP Alpairs. I think that would be a more fair comparison to the Eikonas.
When you get to the "high end" of any market and keep moving up, every improvement is more subtle and more costly. Excluding the difference in bass, which is certainly not subtle, that's the case with the Eikonas' benefits over the Alpairs: you will pay for them.
I use my Eikonas as full range speakers, since they are nearly true full-range (24hz- 17kHz).
I plan to use my Alpairs as FAST units, because it suits them better.
In the not too distant future, I'm eager to get my hands on pair of MOAP Alpairs. I think that would be a more fair comparison to the Eikonas.
Last edited:
Hello Sax, That was a very good, detailed, comparison based on experience, by Knarfor.
However, hold on! I haven't listened to either the Eikona or the Alpair 10.3M but because I am considering purchasing an Alpair 10 I have been reading/studying the experiences of those that have listened to both the Alpair 10.3M and also the Alpair 10P. Based on many comments, I gather that the 10P is generally preferred over the 10.3M because the P version does bass better (it has a slightly higher Qts). Also, the P is generally said to sound smoother up top.
Again, I haven't listened to either...I am hoping someone who has first hand knowledge with 10p and 10M can chime in. 'tis a good question you are asking.
However, hold on! I haven't listened to either the Eikona or the Alpair 10.3M but because I am considering purchasing an Alpair 10 I have been reading/studying the experiences of those that have listened to both the Alpair 10.3M and also the Alpair 10P. Based on many comments, I gather that the 10P is generally preferred over the 10.3M because the P version does bass better (it has a slightly higher Qts). Also, the P is generally said to sound smoother up top.
Again, I haven't listened to either...I am hoping someone who has first hand knowledge with 10p and 10M can chime in. 'tis a good question you are asking.
I was interested in the P version, but I found multiple sources showing a huge bump in distortion at 550Hz.
Some people might find that sound appealing. But If you're going the Alpair route and you want faithful reproduction of your recordings, I'd go with the metal. It's excellent and very honest.
Some people might find that sound appealing. But If you're going the Alpair route and you want faithful reproduction of your recordings, I'd go with the metal. It's excellent and very honest.
This is all great food for thoughts. Not least the price consideration, that all down to earth people are unfortunately forced to take into account.
A thought about the 10p vs 10.3.
It seems to me like the paper cone goes against the whole concept of having the trebles produced by vibrations spreading throughout the cone surface, which is at the base of both MA and Jordan, because of it's higher damping characteristics and lesser stiffness (I know they treat the paper in some way, though).
As far as the more pleasing sound compared to the metal, I have to say that in general more pleasing is not necessarily the same as more accurate (not saying this is the case either).
A thought about the 10p vs 10.3.
It seems to me like the paper cone goes against the whole concept of having the trebles produced by vibrations spreading throughout the cone surface, which is at the base of both MA and Jordan, because of it's higher damping characteristics and lesser stiffness (I know they treat the paper in some way, though).
As far as the more pleasing sound compared to the metal, I have to say that in general more pleasing is not necessarily the same as more accurate (not saying this is the case either).
Right. There is so much going on in a typical listening environment/enclosure, that the small differences between the Eikona and Alpair (as far as energy storage/decay) are probably not going to have much of a practical effect.
I think the only exception would be in he very high treble, where I think the difference is great enough that it's audible.
As is no secret, I've not heard any of the current Jordans, which I'm sure are excellent. The last pair of JX92 I'd heard - well over a decade ago - were reputedly damaged from misuse and/or from that unfortunate group buy from an early production run during several transitions of manufacturing / QC - so I've discounted them as representative of the older design. Haven't had the opportunity to audition the latest products.
I have on the other hand owned / built for and heard almost every model designed by Mark and crew since the EL70 and EL166 - two very high value for the money performers that just so happen to be paper cone. There was also the ERT6 tweeter - a fairly low tech soft fabric dome unit way too cheaply priced in my estimation to earn it much attention.
Among the various models, there have been models in both materials that missed the mark for me - but there's more than enough "moving parts" in drivers of this type to attribute that to only the use of paper or metal in the cone.
As with "metal" (alloys), there are so many possible formulations and construction method possible with "paper" that a simple categorization is very misleading. Both materials have been used for decades.
All that said, between the A10P and 10.3, while I still waver between the two for my own use, I'd have to agree that for most folks, the metal would make more sense - certainly for a first foray into the field of wide-band drivers.
I still need to listen to the Pluvias.
Indeed! I agree. I'm just saying that -- among Alpairs -- metal is the way to go. Sorry if that was unclear.
Even with the Alpairs, I doubt the only difference between the 10P and 10.3M is the cone material. But whatever the differences, they resulted in (someone correct me if I'm wrong) a lower mid-range distortion bump shared by all the P models.
I think the 10P was worst in that regard.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.