Alpair 6p vs 6m vs 7.3 for a budget nearfield setup

Status
This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.
Hi all,

Here’s my pair of NanoReflex6m speakers that I built using the free plan.

04307DE4-85AD-4612-A40A-39191EC2B6D4.jpg

I’ve got them set up in my small listening room upstairs and they sound pretty good - they need a lot of help from my Monitor Audio sub though.

I think they look pretty good as well, in a diy sort of way :)

Martin
 
frugal-phile™
Joined 2001
Paid Member
Is that my nanoReflex design? How does it sound? It was a bit of a flyer. In this small a box bass will be limited, and as Chris points out the whole family of small boxes officially for near-field use, but i do love to blow people away by playing them for visitors in the big system (with carefully selected materials).

dave
 
I don’t think the Nanos where ever intended for other than a nearfield /desk-top type of application (i.e. less than 1 meter distance) , so the lack of weight/impact in the bottom when used as shown shouldn’t be a surprise, really.
Nice build.

Hi Chris,

They usually sit on my desk and are pretty good with some EQ applied. Could still do with a small sub under the desk though.

567863FD-F24F-4F2C-97E7-A8D012D3D3CF.jpg

Martin
 
Is that my nanoReflex design? How does it sound? It was a bit of a flyer.

dave

Yes, it’s your design. I really like the small size - the boxes are made from 12mm birch ply and the vent is UK inch and a quarter plumbing pipe. Easy!

I haven’t done much playing with the stuffing - just some teased out pillow wadding. Maybe Some 12mm wool?

Just listening to Leonard Cohen - Ten new songs - wonderful.

Cheers,

Martin
 
Last edited:
Sound-wise, with the right material, they sound excellent.

My main gripe is that the 6.2m has a shouty nature with certain material, which can make listening uncomfortable. The sub, when set with the XO at around 150hz makes a massive difference.

I am thinking of building a larger enclosure for these drivers either the ufonken or Lance TL, however this wont fix the forward nature of the driver, will it? I was also thinking of adding some mild BSC to put a downward slope on the treble.

Cheers,

Martin
 
Hi Dave,

Oops, looks like I’ll be lining them tomorrow...

Do you usually line all internal surfaces?

Also, I just noticed that I didnt chamfer the inside of the driver hole - will that make a difference, do you think?

They’ve only had maybe 30 hours, so have some way to go.

Listening to some more demanding music now (Gossip) and they are still doing fine.

Thanks for your help,

Martin
 
For want of another place to put it, another of the designs I dug out from an HDD I'm recycling. Twin driver Alpair 6M standmount. Drivers series wired; if you want to low-pass the lower unit, shunt it with a 56uF cap & adjust as desired from there. Not a lot else to say really, other than this should be quite a nice little speaker.

If you need to adjust the vent dimensions, the pdf Dave put together including the basic formulas (non-flared ducts) is also attached.
 

Attachments

  • Twin Alpair 6M standmount.PNG
    Twin Alpair 6M standmount.PNG
    40.9 KB · Views: 367
  • ChangingPortSize.pdf
    135.6 KB · Views: 59
Hi all,

First, many thanks for this amazing forum and all the contributions.

I'm planning to build my first DIY pair of onken-like speakers for near-field/small room (18 square meters). My goal is to enhance my remote working experience :). Those will be powered by a class D amp like TPA3116 or TPA3250.

Looking at the various threads including this one, I see the Alpair 6.x could be the right candidate (I'm not planning to have a sub-woofer so I'm happy to get all the bass that I can for this size). I see that I can only source the Alpair 6.2m in my location.

What would be the best enclosure for this driver? I'm really in love with the mMar-Ken6 (https://frugal-phile.com/boxlib/P10free/mMar-Ken6-1v0-map-231009.pdf), is there a version of the plans available for this driver? Is it a good option?

Cheers,

JP
 
frugal-phile™
Joined 2001
Paid Member
The A6.2 (both paper & metal) are discontinued to to under appreciation of how well they do). They really are excellent for this kind of application.

The A6.2p and the 6.2m have different size maximum miniOnkens. The paper can utilize up to 5 litres (the one you linked is the simple 4.7 litre milliSize variation). The A6.2m fits a max of 3.6 litres so will not work in the millSize box.

The free miniOnken for the A6.2m is the 3.6 litre Classic Golden Ratio.

http://frugal-phile.com/boxlib/P10free/CGR-cmMar-Ken6v2M-1v0-090911.pdf

More details of that plan, and more as well as for the original A6 and the paper A6.2 are in the paid planset for the Alpair 6x

The 4 ohm impedance of the A6.2s also means that one can consider using 2 or even 3 in series with the extra driver(s) rolled off at the bottom. Probably overkill for desktop use but very interesting. I have a twin A6.2p, i’d be happy to do a triple or doubles & triples for the A6.2m.

dave
 
Hi Dave/All,

I took the week-end to think about my project (and read a lot as well) and thinking about spending the extra $$ for a pair of Alpair 7MS (I prefer to ask now rather than regretting later).

If I finally choose this one. which design would be best to start with for this driver as well, probably a golden ratio as well? I guess this is part of the paid plan set? Is it more or less the same size as the olders A7.x?

Cheers,

JP
 
The 9 liter CGR cabinet designed by planet10 for the Pluvia11 will work for both the 11ms and 7ms drivers with the bottom slot widths adjusted,(tuned) for the new drivers. In other words, the 81 wide center piece for the Pluvia11 needs to be widened to 85 for the 11ms and the center piece for the 7ms should be widened even more to about 90. I don't pretend that this is perfection but it should get you real close. You should be fine with it and good luck with your project.
 
frugal-phile™
Joined 2001
Paid Member
As Mr Clay suggests. The large driver size and small box size mwans that (at least so far) i have only 3 miniOnken variations for the A11ms. The A7ms is more versatile, also fitting in the milliSize box and 2 different trapezoids (and 2 retangular ones too), as well as the driver being able to mounted 3 different ways in the CGR (full set of drawings in the subscription and likely there will be requests for 18mm (and maybe 12mm) material. I have only finished the CGR & millSize to date.

The simple CGR plan is the freely usable one.

https://frugal-phile.com/boxlib/P10free/dCGR-MK7ms-15-plan-121130.pdf

Optimum volume for A7ms is 9 litres, but it can be fitted into the 5ish litre millSize box, which in various forms are quite popular for desktop use. With the smaller volume the A6.2p is actually the best fit, sounding the most open and free from early internal box reflections, but they all sound good.

For reference the millSize box is pretty much the same size as a set of LS3/5A turned sideways.

Here a batch from the early days (15 years ago). The boxe shave remained unchanged but for having been fitted with a bazillion different drivers.

quartet-mFonken.jpg


Tha A7ms will provide greater amounts of subtle detail, as long as what is in front can feed it that information.

dave
 
Hi ssportclay and Dave,

Many thanks for your answers, those are indeed quite nice and... big boxes :). For my near-field setup then I definitely have to stick to the A6.2m due to the size. I will think about those (or maybe a twin A6.2m?) for future projects! I will keep you posted about the results of this first project in a few weeks.

JP
 
Status
This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.