What’s the room / boundary situation on the left side? It does look like you’ve got plenty of room for the FH3s to work quite nicely, although I’d be inclined to place the big table elsewhere if possible.
Both of the MS drivers have the new style thin mounting frame requiring no countersinking for flush mounting, as well as a 5 hole screw pattern, which would make for a slightly easier build - still need to chamfer the rear side of driver opening. AFAIC, the 7s would definitely be a step up from the CHRs, but if by “grand daddy” of the driver range you’re referring to the A11ms, I’d take closer look at modelling the FHXL for your room.
Due to possibility of tight floor space, a more conventional front firing monopole such as Pensil, or whatever Scott’s MLTL is officially called these days might be more flexible. I built a quickie pair of those this summer, and quite liked them very much - perhaps more than my A10.3/Pensils? Hmm, would need to transport one of them across town again for that test- maybe after I get back from Bermyin a couple of weeks.
Both of the MS drivers have the new style thin mounting frame requiring no countersinking for flush mounting, as well as a 5 hole screw pattern, which would make for a slightly easier build - still need to chamfer the rear side of driver opening. AFAIC, the 7s would definitely be a step up from the CHRs, but if by “grand daddy” of the driver range you’re referring to the A11ms, I’d take closer look at modelling the FHXL for your room.
Due to possibility of tight floor space, a more conventional front firing monopole such as Pensil, or whatever Scott’s MLTL is officially called these days might be more flexible. I built a quickie pair of those this summer, and quite liked them very much - perhaps more than my A10.3/Pensils? Hmm, would need to transport one of them across town again for that test- maybe after I get back from Bermyin a couple of weeks.
Thanks for the advice Chris.
Left side is double doors, opening to a bedroom. I leave 'm open mostly, so no irksome reflections there.
FHXL's are out, too big, and I think the design works best in the intermediate size, from a visual standpoint. It's either pencils with the 11's or FH's with 7's.
I've read multiple reports here that the horns are just a tad more refined than the pensils, so it's a wash, really. So it's either a bit more money for the 11's, or a bit more work/money in building the FH's.
ted jordans spiderless supension
I have just tuned in to this discussion .regarding ted jordans method of spiderless suspension .he used what he called a microtube which coupled to sponge that was treated with a viscous compound. I had 2 of these drivers wich I have since lost hope this is interest. cheers ampman.
I have just tuned in to this discussion .regarding ted jordans method of spiderless suspension .he used what he called a microtube which coupled to sponge that was treated with a viscous compound. I had 2 of these drivers wich I have since lost hope this is interest. cheers ampman.
Amp man; Mark’s approach to spiderless is not like that.
Lohengrimas; I’ll have to say that after building a few of both Pensil style designs and many pairs of all three sizes of Frugels - which are not all that difficult- that the horns definitely have more of that “je ne sais quoi” . I’m just not blessed with the floorspace I personally deem necessary for the rear mouth output to properly load the room.
While both the CHRs and A7MS work in the horns, I’d definitely go for the latter.
Lohengrimas; I’ll have to say that after building a few of both Pensil style designs and many pairs of all three sizes of Frugels - which are not all that difficult- that the horns definitely have more of that “je ne sais quoi” . I’m just not blessed with the floorspace I personally deem necessary for the rear mouth output to properly load the room.
While both the CHRs and A7MS work in the horns, I’d definitely go for the latter.
Speaking purely in terms of driver size, I'm of the view that if enough is sufficient, too much is just right. 
From a practical POV, that can't always be done & there are other matters to consider, so if you like the FH3 aesthetic, then I'd go with that with the 7MS or your alternative choice of suitable driver & enjoy.
From a practical POV, that can't always be done & there are other matters to consider, so if you like the FH3 aesthetic, then I'd go with that with the 7MS or your alternative choice of suitable driver & enjoy.Speaking purely in terms of driver size, I'm of the view that if enough is sufficient, too much is just right.
Hm, and now I wonder... The nostromo boxes for the 11 will work out just as expensive as a pair of Frugel Horns with the 7's - and take up less space and are within my capacity as a woodworker (you can probably tell I'm not much of a craftsman). Which one of the two would work better in the room?
Depends how you wish to define 'better'. It's something of an apples / oranges comparison between a standmount with a 6in driver & a compact floorstanding back horn with a 4in and largely depends where your priorities lie.
FWIW, as a slightly more compact floorstanding alternative to the Pensil 11MS, I've also done Water Buffalo which is a straightforward build: https://www.diyaudio.com/forums/ful...-fostex-tb-dayton-seas-etc-2.html#post5554180
FWIW, as a slightly more compact floorstanding alternative to the Pensil 11MS, I've also done Water Buffalo which is a straightforward build: https://www.diyaudio.com/forums/ful...-fostex-tb-dayton-seas-etc-2.html#post5554180
Last edited:
https://frugal-phile.com/boxlib/pensils/PensilA11-P11.pdf
The same Pensil works for the Alpair 11 and the Pluvia 11.
dave
I am going to take a stab at getting a question answered about the Alpair 10P. I have a pair of them in my shop and will be using them in a smallish folded horn design (at least I think that it is). The plan is sold by Decware Audio here in the US, and this driver is the one specified for the build. No problem there. My question concerns the break in time and even process of that break in. 500 hours is one figure that I heard, with a db level of no more than 70 for the first 100 hours. Is this correct, or are there better ways to accomplish this?
Most say about 100hrs is necessary for the suspension to 'open up'. My approach is to leave some music playing on the radio, and leave them on for a few days on low volume, they definitely improve with time, you can just listen to them, just be sure not to turn it up to 11.
Keeping the thread on topic, it looks like the new front suspension doesn't need this long break in, with Mark suggesting 10hrs, good news for all.
My new drivers should be arriving from Stefan soon, looking forward to hearing the 7MS. Ive had 7's and 10's as my main speakers now for 8yrs, and hoping the new ones are just as musical.
@Scott, is it possible for me to play with the dimensions of the new 7MS Pensil, to achieve a narrower box? Currently with my silly 24mm cabinet sides, the new pensil is nearly 50mm wider than the old, and with black cabinets, the 4" driver looks so lost.
Keeping the thread on topic, it looks like the new front suspension doesn't need this long break in, with Mark suggesting 10hrs, good news for all.
My new drivers should be arriving from Stefan soon, looking forward to hearing the 7MS. Ive had 7's and 10's as my main speakers now for 8yrs, and hoping the new ones are just as musical.
@Scott, is it possible for me to play with the dimensions of the new 7MS Pensil, to achieve a narrower box? Currently with my silly 24mm cabinet sides, the new pensil is nearly 50mm wider than the old, and with black cabinets, the 4" driver looks so lost.
Priorities lie with detail, great imaging and low-level performance. Also, I did some more measuring and reshuffling and the Horns are probably out anyway. Pensils or the other MLTL make little sense as they need to be tilted back to get the drivers at ear height, which is much easier to do with the stands I currently have.
Also, I just like the proportions of the Nostromo box. I take it that I'll need to build the low impedance version? I'll be running them with a NAD D 3020 V2, which has a damping factor given als >300.
Last edited:
TimbreAudio - I built a pair of little DNA “horns” a while back, and it works quite well with the A10P. Note than Steve had originally designed it for a now discontinued Tangband unit, and also that his most ardent fans would likely being using them with one of his multitude of tube amp designs - all of which doubtless sound as good as the little ZenC I heard about 15yrs ago - but likely to have much lower damping factor than your NAD. Whatever recommendations he might give for damping of the driver chamber, be prepared to experiment with that a bit.
I'm afraid I don't really know what any of those mean as they are subjective terms with no fixed definition & vary with the individual. I know how I would describe them if somebody put a gun to my head & forced me to, but that doesn't mean anybody else would -what I hear is unlikely to be what others hear. Suffice it to say if you want low-levels, I'd be inclined to the 11MS.
Really? I tend to find a pair of adjustable spikes under the front of a box makes it very easy to adjust the tilt on floorstanders, but YMMV as always.
Yes, unless you put some series R in place.
Edit : I clearly conflated two of the prior posts, Timbre did not specify which amp he’d be using, but the observation about damping might still be valid.
I’ll add that I’ve built a few pairs of Scott’s designs, and did juggle the W/D dimensions a bit on a recent MLTL for the A11MS. I’m not near the boxes or as built sketch right now, but I went for something a bit wider and shallower, while retaining the CSA of enclosure and terminus vent, as well as driver location. They were supposed to have been mirror imaged with slightly offset driver location but the CNC operator misinterpreted my notes, and I ran out of time & material for a mulligan. They sounded just fine to me, and compared to my several years’ old Pensils with A10.3, fresh from the box did not suffer any embarrassment.
I understand from Scott that that were tuned to slightly different goals, and that the taller MLTL may deliver “better” performance in some aspects, but I still prefer the aesthetic of the Pensils. As my name is not LeBron, and I do most of my “serious” listening sitting, I’ve never felt the driver height in any of the FH or Pensils to be problematic - but to expand on Scott’s observation- there’s more than a few ways to compensate for that without redesigning the box.
I’ll add that I’ve built a few pairs of Scott’s designs, and did juggle the W/D dimensions a bit on a recent MLTL for the A11MS. I’m not near the boxes or as built sketch right now, but I went for something a bit wider and shallower, while retaining the CSA of enclosure and terminus vent, as well as driver location. They were supposed to have been mirror imaged with slightly offset driver location but the CNC operator misinterpreted my notes, and I ran out of time & material for a mulligan. They sounded just fine to me, and compared to my several years’ old Pensils with A10.3, fresh from the box did not suffer any embarrassment.
I understand from Scott that that were tuned to slightly different goals, and that the taller MLTL may deliver “better” performance in some aspects, but I still prefer the aesthetic of the Pensils. As my name is not LeBron, and I do most of my “serious” listening sitting, I’ve never felt the driver height in any of the FH or Pensils to be problematic - but to expand on Scott’s observation- there’s more than a few ways to compensate for that without redesigning the box.
ChrisB and TimbreAudio, Thank you so much for the info. As it turns out, I am presently using the new drivers to listen to radio just as you had mentioned. The Decware DNA cabinet plans are being figured out for the internal horn angles, etc. Will be constructing soon I hope. Sorry to bring the thread OT.