They look great! Very nice job. If they sound this good before break in, you are in for a real treat then. Those are some big speaker boxes. 🙂
Thanks for sharing. I too got a pair of Alpair 12p already in a bookshelf cabinet. The details coming from the speakers are amazing. Since I had been using a KEF uniQ, at first I thought there was something wrong with the speaker...
Pretty amazing that with all the high tech material available, the Alpair12 uses paper for the cone.
Pretty amazing that with all the high tech material available, the Alpair12 uses paper for the cone.
What high technology materials are you referring to? Papers are not all created equal; composition of the mix, thicknesses and structure are all critical.
Last edited:
It has been proven time and time again that paper is the best material for the cone. As Scottmoose hit on, the quality and implementation are key.
Actually it hasn't. Again, it's a matter of implementation and design requirements.
Many people like paper cones, and they often make many assumptions about cone materials. But 'best' is a target that varies depending on what it is you want to do. For example, W.E. etc. back in the day preferred metal. But there are some things that paper cones can do that are harder to do with metal cones, and visa versa. Same applies to many other material types. Cone profles and suspension design also play a major role in this. Take the current generation A12P under discussion here. The reason paper is used is that there aren't any other materials available that have the necessary balance of properties (stiffness, resonant characteristics, weight et al) that will achieve the desired response & efficiency with that cone profile -not any that are realistically affordable anyway. Kevlar, fiberglass, carbon etc. won't do it. Metal gets closest, but even then, weight goes up, efficiency down, & with the very flat cone profile and the way the suspension is designed, where the spider does the majority of the work, it runs into stability issues.
Many people like paper cones, and they often make many assumptions about cone materials. But 'best' is a target that varies depending on what it is you want to do. For example, W.E. etc. back in the day preferred metal. But there are some things that paper cones can do that are harder to do with metal cones, and visa versa. Same applies to many other material types. Cone profles and suspension design also play a major role in this. Take the current generation A12P under discussion here. The reason paper is used is that there aren't any other materials available that have the necessary balance of properties (stiffness, resonant characteristics, weight et al) that will achieve the desired response & efficiency with that cone profile -not any that are realistically affordable anyway. Kevlar, fiberglass, carbon etc. won't do it. Metal gets closest, but even then, weight goes up, efficiency down, & with the very flat cone profile and the way the suspension is designed, where the spider does the majority of the work, it runs into stability issues.
Last edited:
Ron - while I've no argument with assessment of the 12P, or even the more modest EL70 and A6P, or numerous Fostex etc, which all use different types of paper and profiles, the use of the term "best" in describing any audio component is always troublesome.
Granted, of the numerous drivers I've heard with "higher tech" materials (woven fibers, polystyrene, ceramic dome tweeters, metal alloys, etc) not all have lived up to the promise of "superior performance" - some have indeed send me running as quick as possible from the room.
There are literally millions of paper formulations, add cone thickness, cone shape, hoe the paperis deployed (ie formed into a cone) and you have a gazillion. It is like an alien saying, those humans, they all look the same.
dave
dave
Nothing in particular, and didn't mean to imply "just paper". I certainty appreciate the amount of R&D invested in the Alpair12p
I have been listening to these non-stop and I just love them. My only wish is they hit a little bit lower frequencies but I guess that is what I should expect.
The response is VERY flat for the most part, I am quite impressed.
The response is VERY flat for the most part, I am quite impressed.
Looks good! Someone smarter than me can answer the ? about the first impedance peak at ~28Hz, is that from the tuning of the transmission line?
The second graph with the sub looks like a big bump at about 70 Hz, but it sounds quite balanced that way. It's nice to have the treble shunt on the decware, which acts as a nice BSC in a sense and rolls off the highs quite nicely.
These are very nice sounding speakers -- good design, good drivers and good build.
The second graph with the sub looks like a big bump at about 70 Hz, but it sounds quite balanced that way. It's nice to have the treble shunt on the decware, which acts as a nice BSC in a sense and rolls off the highs quite nicely.
These are very nice sounding speakers -- good design, good drivers and good build.
Thanks Dan!
Yes I am quite happy with them, I wish they went a little bit lower in the freq response so I don't need a sub. They might open up a tad bit more.
Yes I am quite happy with them, I wish they went a little bit lower in the freq response so I don't need a sub. They might open up a tad bit more.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.