Mark audio alpair 7p vs alpair 7.3

Status
This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.
Administrator
Joined 2007
Paid Member
:cop:

Non of you are obliged to reply to posts or to reply to questions asked. I suggest that you consider using the "ignore" feature where appropriate. Posts that contravene the rules are going to be deleted... that includes personal attacks and comments on moderation.

spekr... these guys have amassed considerable knowledge on this subject, perhaps you would be advised to do some more research and study.
 
:cop:

Non of you are obliged to reply to posts or to reply to questions asked. I suggest that you consider using the "ignore" feature where appropriate. Posts that contravene the rules are going to be deleted... that includes personal attacks and comments on moderation.

spekr... these guys have amassed considerable knowledge on this subject, perhaps you would be advised to do some more research and study.
+1.
There are a number of regular contributors to this forum whose designs and advice have been of benefit to the rest of us, and the DIY community in general.
Spekr's "input" has been uniformly negative & of no practical use.
A different sandbox perhaps ?
 
The 7P is brand-new, so you won't find much in the way of user feedback just yet for obvious reasons. If you are concerned over driver sensitivity however, then of the two A7s it would be the preferred option, especially if you have a low-power amp, since every little helps, and it's in practice got a good 3-4dB edge over its metal cone stablemate.

Comparing to the Fostex 165/166 is a bit of an apples / oranges (well, to be honest, a complete apples / oranges) situation, as they are in completely different size brackets: the MA drivers are in the nominal 4in class, the Fostex in the nominal 6 1/2in, i.e. in practice about 2.6 x larger. I'd concur with Dave's view re the 166 -higher sensitivity than either 7, but not as refined and poorer dispersion characteristics (i.e. the 7s are better off-axis). The 165 doesn't have as much top end as the 166, but has a bit more at the bottom end. Comparing either in this regard to the 7s isn't really going to tell you anything given the size difference. They shift more air of course.

The 10MA & 10P fall in between -again, given the difference in driver sizes, direct comparisons don't tell you much profound. As far as the drivers go, the 10s will go lower than the 7s, have higher sensitivity than equivalent cone types in the smaller drivers, and move more air. They are very good on the top, but not quite as good as the smaller 7.

As with the driver sizes, different enclosures have different response characteristics, so apples / oranges again. The pensils are a very easy built & easy to adjust. FH3 is very easy to build for a back-horn (not quite as easy as a pensil), and operates over a wider BW, so you get more contribution from the enclosure up to ~300Hz, which also couples to more air. The power-response is different, basically. I hate trying to use subjective terms since what I mean by a word isn't necessarily what others do. The horn sounds 'bigger', and this increases with larger horns etc. Some like that, some don't -YMMV, as always. Plenty of other options for all the drivers, obviously, so you'll have a decent choice whatever you go for, & we (as in the forum participants / members) can always help you with box designs if needed.

Basically, what you go for depends on what you like / value, and the rest of your room and system, since this tends to be particularly significant with wideband drivers. Fostex drivers, for example, are generally designed to be used with SET amps, or at least, those with a reasonably high output impedance -a couple of ohms or so. Certainly the En and ESigma series units anyway. The higher Q 5wk series units are a little more forgiving in that regard, likewise the F120a and FX120. All of the drivers are good examples of what they are.
 
Last edited:
frugal-phile™
Joined 2001
Paid Member
Hi Dave,

How are A7.3 compare with A10.3 or A10p... especially A7.3 in FH mk3 compared with A10.3/10p in pensils or other cabinet of around that size?
Also A10.3/10p are larger and more costly.

The new A10s are a further improvemnt by Mark with this size driver. It brings them into a 6 of 1, half-a-dozen of the other situation.

The 10s offer more sensitivity, more bass potential (both in extention and quality). The A7,3 has an edge in top end extention, dispersion, and in DDR (downward dynamic range). The 10s need larger cabinets which might get in the way of WAF. Initial cost of the 10s is greater and the boxes cost more due to greater material.

Which yu choose comes down to a balance of the compromises. I really valve DDR so i give the A7,3 an edge for most applications (i am fortunately in a situation where i can always swapspeakers if it suits me). Chris recently swapped the A7s out of his HT for A10p -- here the inexpensive HT receiver did not have sufficient DDR for the A7s to have that edge -- pointng out that to get the most outof A7s one needs a 1st class front end, giving the A10s a edge to those with more commonly available electronics and source.

These are all 1st class drivers and you will not be unhappy with any of them.

Note that FR measurements only tell a very small part of the story (the response of a driver to an artifical signal, but only at the top surface (imagine the total repsponse of a driver as an irregular volume)), many people put far too much emphasis on them. They are probably best for showing BIG issues, even then look at the measured response of a Lowther, and then consider how many people love them.

dave
 
Note that FR measurements only tell a very small part of the story (the response of a driver to an artifical signal, but only at the top surface (imagine the total repsponse of a driver as an irregular volume)), many people put far too much emphasis on them.

I beg to differ. Floyd Toole considers frequency response THE number one quality criteria. If the frequency response (on and off axis) is bad then no other driver characteristics will save the speaker. Please see: Floyd Toole "Sound Reproduction"
 
Yes, I believe Dave and Scott are familiar with Floyd's work

If one of the issues with which you are grappling is the series of dips / peaks in Mark's unfiltered anechoic measures, I think this would be as good a place as any to post FR measures of various Lowther drivers made by a well enough respected DIYer ( Bob Brines - posted with permission) ,




LT-2000_MkII_FR_Tb.gif


and engineer, Martin King


Dx234_1c.jpg


Note that Martin's graph starts at 200Hz- above which point, for the most part the enclosure and room would be expected to have lesser effect at the measurement distance of 1 meter than the drivers' raw performance.


Exactly what were the measurement conditions? - feel free to test the power of their ignore buttons, and how relevant are these to what the respective systems will sound like in any give room? - please feel free to educate us on that
 
frugal-phile™
Joined 2001
Paid Member
Please see: Floyd Toole "Sound Reproduction"

I have read the book at least twice. I know what Floyd said. He also says that the FR needs to be measured in an anechoic chamber, that the off-axis response ismore important than the on-axis response (ie on-axis is next to useless without a complete set of off-axis)

But he is also of the opinion that amps make little difference. So that colours his results.

dave
 
I beg to differ. Floyd Toole considers frequency response THE number one quality criteria. If the frequency response (on and off axis) is bad then no other driver characteristics will save the speaker. Please see: Floyd Toole "Sound Reproduction"


ITs like totally pointless to talk about measurment and sound quality, because believe it or not, some drivers that measures bad will sound much better then the measures shows you.
Full range drivers are limited in the off axis up high, but it doesnt mean it will sound bad. sometime limited off axis dispersion is a good thing.
 
Yes, I believe Dave and Scott are familiar with Floyd's work

If one of the issues with which you are grappling is the series of dips / peaks in Mark's unfiltered anechoic measures, I think this would be as good a place as any to post FR measures of various Lowther drivers made by a well enough respected DIYer ( Bob Brines - posted with permission) ,




[...]

and engineer, Martin King


[...]

Note that Martin's graph starts at 200Hz- above which point, for the most part the enclosure and room would be expected to have lesser effect at the measurement distance of 1 meter than the drivers' raw performance.


Exactly what were the measurement conditions? - feel free to test the power of their ignore buttons, and how relevant are these to what the respective systems will sound like in any give room? - please feel free to educate us on that

Are you talking to me? If yes, why do you ask me what someone else's measurement conditions were? Harman has done a lot of work in order to relate measurements to perception. A lot is still unkown. Nevertheless a driver that has large magnitude response variations is not desirable. No other performance characteristic will make up for poor on- and off-axis response. Tons of valuable information can be found at Audio Musings by Sean Olive
 
Are you talking to me? If yes, why do you ask me what someone else's measurement conditions were? Harman has done a lot of work in order to relate measurements to perception. A lot is still unkown. Nevertheless a driver that has large magnitude response variations is not desirable. No other performance characteristic will make up for poor on- and off-axis response. Tons of valuable information can be found at Audio Musings by Sean Olive
you do realize that you are totally OFF THREAD.

Go open another thread about that. This is about alpair 7p vs 7.3.
 
I have read the book at least twice. I know what Floyd said. He also says that the FR needs to be measured in an anechoic chamber, that the off-axis response ismore important than the on-axis response (ie on-axis is next to useless without a complete set of off-axis)

No this is not exactly what he's saying. Do you want me to post quotes?

But he is also of the opinion that amps make little difference. So that colours his results.

dave

Amps do make little difference if they aren't broken or interact with the speakers. There have been no blind test I now of that would support the notion amps would make a difference. You might want to discuss that with Arny Krueger over at avsforum.com though.
 
ITs like totally pointless to talk about measurment and sound quality, because believe it or not, some drivers that measures bad will sound much better then the measures shows you.
Full range drivers are limited in the off axis up high, but it doesnt mean it will sound bad. sometime limited off axis dispersion is a good thing.

Well written.
I very much doubt Floyd has made any reference stating Lowther drivers are "bad" because their frequency responses don't "look good".

Most full-rangers were/are designed to operate with some degree of off-axis placement.

Same tired old problem, Spekr doesn't have adequate knowledge to comprehend Floyd (or anyone else's published work). Any reference he makes is effectively twisted out of technical context. A mod has given him advice, he refuses to intake the message.
 
you do realize that you are totally OFF THREAD.

Go open another thread about that. This is about alpair 7p vs 7.3.

Not me that said this:

Note that FR measurements only tell a very small part of the story (the response of a driver to an artifical signal, but only at the top surface (imagine the total repsponse of a driver as an irregular volume)), many people put far too much emphasis on them.
 
No this is not exactly what he's saying. Do you want me to post quotes?



Amps do make little difference if they aren't broken or interact with the speakers. There have been no blind test I now of that would support the notion amps would make a difference. You might want to discuss that with Arny Krueger over at avsforum.com though.
LOL.
you shouldnt believe everything you read on internet. experience is much more valuable, especially if you want to really help someone.
 
ITs like totally pointless to talk about measurment and sound quality, because believe it or not, some drivers that measures bad will sound much better then the measures shows you.
Full range drivers are limited in the off axis up high, but it doesnt mean it will sound bad. sometime limited off axis dispersion is a good thing.

Depends what measurements you're looking at.
Audio Musings by Sean Olive: Part 1- Do Untrained Listeners Prefer the Same Loudspeakers as Trained Listeners?
Audio Musings by Sean Olive: Part 2 - Differences in Performances of Trained Versus Untrained Listeners
Audio Musings by Sean Olive: Part 3 - Relationship between Loudspeaker Measurements and Listener Preferences
 


seriously, give up. I couldnt care less about measruments. when I listen to a speaker, I know wheter I like it or not. thats all that matters.

Please, point to me where you see, in the measurments:
soundstage
tone quality
weight in the midrange
musicality
coherancy

Id like to know which part of the measurments I should look at that will inform me on those points.

The answer is, your ears.
 
Last edited:
So you don't believe that double blind testing (yourself) is of any value?
yes, blind testing is the only way to evaluate if I like a speaker, a new dac, or a new amp.

so far, each amp had a different sound quality, just like each dac and each speaker ive ever tested. I couldn care less if someone who did testing found out a incredible claim like there no difference between amps.
 
Status
This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.