Scottmoose
You are right. You can use tuning to transform a larger box to function as a smaller one. But in general, a bigger box goes deeper. With ideal coordination. Nice that you can tinker a little here and there.
You are right. You can use tuning to transform a larger box to function as a smaller one. But in general, a bigger box goes deeper. With ideal coordination. Nice that you can tinker a little here and there.
As I see it, the secret sauce is the driver, the box can be tuned accordingly. That’s why in one of the videos Harley was implying putting a standard stock driver in a Sibelius clone box or other types will not necessarily create anything similar. I can see why Harley has gone to the extent to get MA to create a special variant of the drivers.
Pearl has the driver details and performance data for the Sibelius but unfortunately will not share proprietary information.
Pearl has the driver details and performance data for the Sibelius but unfortunately will not share proprietary information.
If you try to create a Sibelius copy with a similar driver (Alpair 10.3), you have to adjust the dimensions in the box. Of course it is possible to put the A10.3 in a Sibelius box. But you can't count on it to sound exactly like the original. Maybe you'll like the sound anyway.
Here you can compare the parameters of gen.2 and gen.3
Fo is a little lower for gen.2.
SPLo= 87.988 dB little higher for gen.3.
Fo is a little lower for gen.2.
SPLo= 87.988 dB little higher for gen.3.
Last edited:
Predominantly Qt. The three dominant factors in LF loading are Fs, Vas and Qt. Assuming two are held static / near static & one changes, Qt has a disproportionately large influence relative to the others.
And then there is the 10P and the Maop10.
How do they compare to 10.2 and 10.3?
Alpair10p se pdf.
Maop 10.2 : Can't find a pdf file
Revc 7.2 Ohm
Fo 39.8664 Hz
Sd 0.009 m ²
Vas 26.1871 Ltr
Cms 2.6737mm /N
Mmd 4.9224 g
Mms 5.4051 g
BL 5.6521 Txm
Qms 2.0048
Qes 0.4497
Qts 0.3673
L1kHz 0.0681 mH
h0 0.38%
SPL o 88.9472 dB
Maop 10.2 : Can't find a pdf file
Revc 7.2 Ohm
Fo 39.8664 Hz
Sd 0.009 m ²
Vas 26.1871 Ltr
Cms 2.6737mm /N
Mmd 4.9224 g
Mms 5.4051 g
BL 5.6521 Txm
Qms 2.0048
Qes 0.4497
Qts 0.3673
L1kHz 0.0681 mH
h0 0.38%
SPL o 88.9472 dB
Attachments
Last edited:
Many thanks! and where can we get similar information for the newer CH series? How do they compare with the previous generation drivers?
All of the driver data is on the Markaudio website. Just go to the relevant unit and download the data sheets -see the 'specs & box plans' tab on their individual pages. The only partial exception are the MAOP units, which are hand built & pair-matched, so come packaged with their own individual printouts. Free (for personal use) enclosure designs for each driver can also be found under the respective 'cabinet plans & resources' link on each page.
Last edited:
Not exactly. For a given enclosure type, a larger enclosure simply has higher acoustic efficiency for the same Fb.
It's a good idea to be wary about assuming the object of a large enclosure is greater extension though. That can be the case, but it's far from invariable. The pensils are a good example: they're larger than some of the standmounts I've done for the same drive units, but are not necessarily tuned much lower -in some cases they're actually tuned higher. That isn't because they are intended to function like a small enclosure (they don't), but because they have very different priorities in terms of the acoustic design -in their case to provide greater efficiency through the midbass & a relatively unreactive impedance load similar to a traditional TL. That's just one example -there are lots of others, e.g. the tall Mountain / Himalaya series I did for MA, which again aren't necessarily tuned low: they're the way they are because I'm using the longitudinal mode to provide more of the damping around Fb than is the case with some of the more highly forced designs. There's no 'better' or 'worse' in this BTW -it's just different approaches & will suit different tastes.
"There's no 'better' or 'worse' in this BTW -it's just different approaches"
What do you mean by different approaches?
Can you explain that?
What do you mean by different approaches?
Can you explain that?
Another way of saying 'different strokes for different folks'. Not everybody shares the same requirements, so they either want or need different things from a speaker. Some may want as high an acoustic efficiency as practical, some may want a less reactive load, some might want something more compact at the price of reduced acoustic efficiency or higher reactance & so on. YMMV as always.
Thanks!
I have a feeling that many people have a vague idea of what they want. At least beginners. When you have built a few variants, it starts to become clear which one you prefer.
Maybe someone was helped by your post.
I have a feeling that many people have a vague idea of what they want. At least beginners. When you have built a few variants, it starts to become clear which one you prefer.
Maybe someone was helped by your post.
When I listened open baffle,there was no real bass but sound was good and comfortable.
So I thought air pressure affects a lot for sound. Especially higher Qts driver or lighter cone,softer spider.
Then I decided to build larger TL l,low air pressure with lighter cone,softer spider driver.
I am satisfied with Makalu-chp90mica build.
Mark audio driver doesn't have air pass between spider and magnet so I think driver have more softer spider and added air pressure dumping.
Sorry if I am wrong,it's only my imagination.
So I thought air pressure affects a lot for sound. Especially higher Qts driver or lighter cone,softer spider.
Then I decided to build larger TL l,low air pressure with lighter cone,softer spider driver.
I am satisfied with Makalu-chp90mica build.
Mark audio driver doesn't have air pass between spider and magnet so I think driver have more softer spider and added air pressure dumping.
Sorry if I am wrong,it's only my imagination.
I typically classify bass extention potential by looking at their extension in a sealed box.
1. 2. 3. Look at F6 and F10, ignore F3.
And for reference A10p.
Horns, and TLs that maximize the recovery of the useful bits of th eback of the driver output have many more degrees of freedom, and tyhe box tends to dominate. You do pay the price of having the lowest bass delayed in time given that the back wave has to travel down the line before it is helpful with extension.
dave