The graph you have posted is for the alpair 7.3, not the 7ms. The 7ms is the latest 7cm alpair driver. The frequency response isn't ruler flat, however they sound good to me and definitely ideal for someone who doesn't enjoy bright trebles. I wouldn't have a problem recommending them for someone if they have enough power for their listening habits.
The 7MS version isn't any better...the response peaks at appx 165 hertz with 93 decibels, then falls consistently, bottoming at 500 hertz with only eighty three decibels...a whisper...then it charges back up to 600 hertz & then behaves up until 7000 hertz, then it goes crazy again.
From the top response at 165 hertz at 93 decibels worth, below that it falls like a rock & by 60 hertz, what we consider to be a bit shy of the meat of Bass response...it is a true whisper by then at only 78 decibels.
This is what they call "linear response"... and they say this with a straight face? I detect squamate excretions.
------------------------------------------------------------------------Rick.......
Last edited:
Have you heard them?
Unfortunatly MA has rarely published off-axis measures. They are designed to be listened to at least a little off-axis and the on-axis is not representative.
15° off-axis looks pretty good.
And i know that they sound VERY good. And many agree with me.
Certainly a step (or 2) up from the RS boxes you recently posted about.
dave
Attachments
Last edited:
Measured from slightly less than halfway up the 7MS foam surround gets us 2.99 inches in diameter...a Three-inch driver. Now many save some money here & there by calling their drivers a "Twelve-inch-woofer", and while measuring the actual product, they will embellish the driver with a pointlessly wide frame to retain the cone...some will even cook up some nonsense techno-crap...trying to sound technical & smart...when all their doing is saving money, giving you a ten-inch (Or less) woofer size cone.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------Rick.......
--------------------------------------------------------------------------Rick.......
I guess it is showing us just how factually poorly our abilities to perceive sound really is...
Lacking testing equipment, I cannot nail down just why or how my RS version sounds the way it does, & no doubt it has response that is all over the map. By no way possible should it sound like this according to the numbers & the math...perhaps that is the "magic" of FR drivers? An auditory illusion?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------Rick......
Lacking testing equipment, I cannot nail down just why or how my RS version sounds the way it does, & no doubt it has response that is all over the map. By no way possible should it sound like this according to the numbers & the math...perhaps that is the "magic" of FR drivers? An auditory illusion?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------Rick......
well, i can explain how that bump down low works well, it is in a cabinet a kind of bsc so you don't need to make one with electronic means. That bump, with the 7.3 and the 10.3 that i used in projects measures reasonable flat in the cabinets i build for them, because of that bump. And the high end is a bit hotter as they are ment to be listened off axis. And in all cases that i encountered with mark Audio drivers (and also with Tang Band) the hi frequency bump is very soft and not disturbing , and very easy to tame when wanted (i do it sometimes) with an lrc filter.
And no, fullrange drivers are not ment to be monitor-flat, they are slightly coloured in their response, but they sound good with a coherent phase and time as they are point source. If you want a monitor flat response, go multi way, probally with dsp to eq the response flat. But that is mostly not what we like down here...
And no, fullrange drivers are not ment to be monitor-flat, they are slightly coloured in their response, but they sound good with a coherent phase and time as they are point source. If you want a monitor flat response, go multi way, probally with dsp to eq the response flat. But that is mostly not what we like down here...
Hello, apologies for my absence. I am looking for any full range speakers that I could throw into the mix, and learning a lot in the interim. The new item is the Goodwin g-tower, it contradicts my single driver purist pursuit, but they look very unique.
Current short list,
Frugal horn xl - not sure if it is the 10.3 or 7.3 driver - large room would lease mo to the 10.3.
Pensil - uses alpair 12 metal driver. I don’t believe this still exists, the option presented is the 12p, which looks good as a driver. The 11ms appears to be a good substitute, depending upon the cabinet/driver design.
What are your thoughts on the above speakers, and which driver is best for each.
Height knocked out a good portion of the available cabinets.
Thank you again for your support.
Current short list,
Frugal horn xl - not sure if it is the 10.3 or 7.3 driver - large room would lease mo to the 10.3.
Pensil - uses alpair 12 metal driver. I don’t believe this still exists, the option presented is the 12p, which looks good as a driver. The 11ms appears to be a good substitute, depending upon the cabinet/driver design.
What are your thoughts on the above speakers, and which driver is best for each.
Height knocked out a good portion of the available cabinets.
Thank you again for your support.
A short end-loaded mass-loaded tapered TL. The same format was shown in the early 2ks with RD 40-1354, a properly vetted design could be made into the same format, but it would not be endloaded, and the terminus would be closer to the end.
A10.3 goes into FHXL, A7.3 goes into FH3.
The 1st Pensils had a version for A12, there is a current version (and superPensil) for the A12p (better IMO), but i prefer the A12pw or A10p for that kind of voicing. There is a specific Pensil for most Mark Audio drivers.
The original A12 was not a favorite.
dave
>A short end-loaded mass-loaded tapered TL.
Would you get a "G-tower" by inverting an existing Met design, putting the driver up top (versus, say, a Zd of 1/2 the line-length) and moving the mass-load port from the S1 end to the front-firing position shown?
BKE's wife may hate them, but I think they have an interesting aesthetic. I also like the driver up high like that, being good for certain furnishing situations.
If it's truly more complicated than just flippin' and movin', please let me know ;')
Would you get a "G-tower" by inverting an existing Met design, putting the driver up top (versus, say, a Zd of 1/2 the line-length) and moving the mass-load port from the S1 end to the front-firing position shown?
BKE's wife may hate them, but I think they have an interesting aesthetic. I also like the driver up high like that, being good for certain furnishing situations.
If it's truly more complicated than just flippin' and movin', please let me know ;')
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.