Hallo liebe DIY-Leute,
Wer von euch hat verlässliche, verlässliche Erkenntnisse, wie sich die beiden Reflexgehäuse für den MA 10.3 klanglich unterscheiden? Aber bitte nur gesicherte fundierte Kenntnisse!! Anhand der Zeichnungen lassen sich die baulichen Details einschließlich der Volumina eindeutig ermitteln. Die Ausrichtung von Scotts „Simple Reflex“ für das 10.3 ist Fb = 40 Hz, F3 = 44 Hz mit einem Volumen von rund 17 Litern und Daves „Classic Golden Ratio Mar-Ken“ für das Alpair 10.3 mit einem Volumen von rund 14. 7 Liter. Aber der Klang/Eigenschaften. . . . . . . . ??
Allerdings dürfte in der heutigen teilweise übertechnischen „Audiowelt“ viele „Audio-Jünger“ von der Bezeichnung „Simple Reflex“ abgeschreckt sein, da die Gleichsetzung mit „gut“ oft kompliziert ist – frei nach dem Motto „viel hilft viel“ was dann zu einer Raketentechnik wie Wilson Audio WAMM Master Chronosonic führt, nur weil man meilenweit vom klanglichen Optimum der Punktschallquelle entfernt ist und dann wieder kompensieren muss. Vielen Dank an Scott für diese Einfachheit!
Diese Frage richtet sich natürlich auch an die „üblichen Verdächtigen“!
Vielen Dank für eure Antworten und ein schönes erholsames Wochenende.
Grüße Stefan
Wer von euch hat verlässliche, verlässliche Erkenntnisse, wie sich die beiden Reflexgehäuse für den MA 10.3 klanglich unterscheiden? Aber bitte nur gesicherte fundierte Kenntnisse!! Anhand der Zeichnungen lassen sich die baulichen Details einschließlich der Volumina eindeutig ermitteln. Die Ausrichtung von Scotts „Simple Reflex“ für das 10.3 ist Fb = 40 Hz, F3 = 44 Hz mit einem Volumen von rund 17 Litern und Daves „Classic Golden Ratio Mar-Ken“ für das Alpair 10.3 mit einem Volumen von rund 14. 7 Liter. Aber der Klang/Eigenschaften. . . . . . . . ??
Allerdings dürfte in der heutigen teilweise übertechnischen „Audiowelt“ viele „Audio-Jünger“ von der Bezeichnung „Simple Reflex“ abgeschreckt sein, da die Gleichsetzung mit „gut“ oft kompliziert ist – frei nach dem Motto „viel hilft viel“ was dann zu einer Raketentechnik wie Wilson Audio WAMM Master Chronosonic führt, nur weil man meilenweit vom klanglichen Optimum der Punktschallquelle entfernt ist und dann wieder kompensieren muss. Vielen Dank an Scott für diese Einfachheit!
Diese Frage richtet sich natürlich auch an die „üblichen Verdächtigen“!
Vielen Dank für eure Antworten und ein schönes erholsames Wochenende.
Grüße Stefan
Last edited:
Well, baffle step would be different.
But down by 100hz, they both probably would need to be equally boosted to hit the same db...
Maybe the front wall to back wall maybe makes a big difference.
idk.
To me, a "pencil" would have a standing vertical resonances because it is quite pipe like, similar to a mltl.
Again, my opinion.
I think I read larryldspkr mentioned this, but for bob brines mltl 10" x 10" x 44"
https://www.diyaudio.com/community/threads/tang-band-w8-1772-impressions.150267/page-20
post #398
https://www.diyaudio.com/forums/full-range/208626-single-driver-bliss.html
"There is a pipe harmonic at 150hz which I was able to damp out with hollowfill stuffing but after careful listening all the stuffing was removed!"
But down by 100hz, they both probably would need to be equally boosted to hit the same db...
Maybe the front wall to back wall maybe makes a big difference.
idk.
To me, a "pencil" would have a standing vertical resonances because it is quite pipe like, similar to a mltl.
Again, my opinion.
I think I read larryldspkr mentioned this, but for bob brines mltl 10" x 10" x 44"
https://www.diyaudio.com/community/threads/tang-band-w8-1772-impressions.150267/page-20
post #398
https://www.diyaudio.com/forums/full-range/208626-single-driver-bliss.html
"There is a pipe harmonic at 150hz which I was able to damp out with hollowfill stuffing but after careful listening all the stuffing was removed!"
Last edited:
Actually, now that I think about it, there will be standing waves. You have parallel walls, no way getting around this.
Ideally you stagger them so as not to have harmonics add to other standing waves.
Untested, I always try for the 1 : 1.618 ratios.
Makes it difficult to get a full range up at ear height though........
short of putting it on a stand................
Ideally you stagger them so as not to have harmonics add to other standing waves.
Untested, I always try for the 1 : 1.618 ratios.
Makes it difficult to get a full range up at ear height though........
short of putting it on a stand................
That's because like all the pensils it is an MLTL. Me knew what me was designing -although I occasionally have to pause for a think while swinging through the girders on my way to the therapist.
Re the OP-mentioned boxes, more or less six of one, half-a-dozen of the other. The simple vented box was done purely as a straightforward, near maximally-flat vented [very slightly damped relative to] assuming the usual 1/2ohm series R for typical wire-loop, connection losses & accounting for the Vb taken by driver & duct. Dave's excellent box has the smaller Vb and is one of his partially resistively vented alignments so has more self-damping under the same conditions, & may be a little less reactive under dynamic load conditions, & is likely happier near a front wall or other boundaries. Name your poison, really.
Last edited:
Hello dear DIY people,
first of all thank you for your quick answers! Yes, “Norman Bates” the Golden Ratio is a good start.
Thank you, Dave, for the constructive approach, when you calculate the bracing and the rear volume of the driver, the 13 liters may fit in. But that was not my question!
Pensil is out of the question – Jim Griffin’s MLTL or Nandappe San’s TQWT should be more targeted for my second pair.
Regards Stefan
first of all thank you for your quick answers! Yes, “Norman Bates” the Golden Ratio is a good start.
Thank you, Dave, for the constructive approach, when you calculate the bracing and the rear volume of the driver, the 13 liters may fit in. But that was not my question!
Pensil is out of the question – Jim Griffin’s MLTL or Nandappe San’s TQWT should be more targeted for my second pair.
Regards Stefan
6 of one, half-dozen of another.
A10p is more “romantic” and has a “vintage” top-end.
A10.3 would be considered more accurate, whatever that means, with a more extended high but with chances of ringing up there as well.
dave
Hello dear DIY people,
heck- anything with the translation function has gone wrong - I wrote:
Who among you has reliable, reliable insights into how the two reflector housings for the MA 10. 3 differ in sound? But please only secured sound knowledge!! On the basis of the drawings, the structural details, including the volumes, can be clearly determined. The alignment of Scott’s “Simple Reflex” for the 10. 3 is Fb = 40 Hz, F3 = 44 Hz with a volume of around 17 litres and Dave’s “Classic Golden Ratio Mar-Ken” for the Alpair 10. 3 with a volume of around 14. 7 litres. But the sound/characteristics. . . . . . . . ??
However, in today’s partly over-technical “audio world” many “audio disciples” may have been deterred by the term “simple reflex”, since the equation with “good” is often complicated – freely according to the motto “a lot helps a lot” which then leads to a rocket technique like Wilson Audio WAMM Master Chronosonic, only because you are miles away from the tonal optimum of the point sound source and then have to compensate again. Many thanks to Scott for this simplicity!
Of course, this question is also addressed to the “usual suspects”!
Thank you very much for your answers and a nice relaxing weekend.
Greetings Stefan
heck- anything with the translation function has gone wrong - I wrote:
Who among you has reliable, reliable insights into how the two reflector housings for the MA 10. 3 differ in sound? But please only secured sound knowledge!! On the basis of the drawings, the structural details, including the volumes, can be clearly determined. The alignment of Scott’s “Simple Reflex” for the 10. 3 is Fb = 40 Hz, F3 = 44 Hz with a volume of around 17 litres and Dave’s “Classic Golden Ratio Mar-Ken” for the Alpair 10. 3 with a volume of around 14. 7 litres. But the sound/characteristics. . . . . . . . ??
However, in today’s partly over-technical “audio world” many “audio disciples” may have been deterred by the term “simple reflex”, since the equation with “good” is often complicated – freely according to the motto “a lot helps a lot” which then leads to a rocket technique like Wilson Audio WAMM Master Chronosonic, only because you are miles away from the tonal optimum of the point sound source and then have to compensate again. Many thanks to Scott for this simplicity!
Of course, this question is also addressed to the “usual suspects”!
Thank you very much for your answers and a nice relaxing weekend.
Greetings Stefan
Hello dear DIY people,
sorry, I guess something is going in the wrong direction, it is not about the difference of two fullrange drivers.
It is only about the MA 10.3 and the difference of two cabinets - the "Simple Reflex” for the Alpair 10.3 designed by Scott and the “Classic Golden Ratio Mar-Ken” for the Alpair 10. 3 designed by Dave.
Regards Stefan
sorry, I guess something is going in the wrong direction, it is not about the difference of two fullrange drivers.
It is only about the MA 10.3 and the difference of two cabinets - the "Simple Reflex” for the Alpair 10.3 designed by Scott and the “Classic Golden Ratio Mar-Ken” for the Alpair 10. 3 designed by Dave.
Regards Stefan
Hello, Scott.That's because like all the pensils it is an MLTL. Me knew what me was designing -although I occasionally have to pause for a think while swinging through the girders on my way to the therapist.
Re the OP-mentioned boxes, more or less six of one, half-a-dozen of the other. The simple vented box was done purely as a straightforward, near maximally-flat vented [very slightly damped relative to] assuming the usual 1/2ohm series R for typical wire-loop, connection losses & accounting for the Vb taken by driver & duct. Dave's excellent box has the smaller Vb and is one of his partially resistively vented alignments so has more self-damping under the same conditions, & may be a little less reactive under dynamic load conditions, & is likely happier near a front wall or other boundaries. Name your poison, really.
If I understand you correctly, the “Simple Reflex” for the Alpair 10. 3 is a bit more “lively” in terms of impulse behavior than the “Classic Golden Ratio Mar-Ken” for the Alpair 10. 3 and is equipped with a bit more LF performance due to the larger volume.
And I like minimalistic full-range enclosures – Altec has done it with 618 cabinets, for example.
Thank you!!!!
Regards Stefan
Last edited by a moderator:
Sort of. Despite the desperate marketing attempts in some quarters to elevate it to some separate profundity, impulse response is directly linked to FR (and CSD for that matter -you can generate both from an impulse response). The regular vented box I did has a flatter anechoic FR, that's all; it needs the extra Vb to provide that, & will be better sited away from room boundaries as a result. Just different alignments for different requirements, that's all.