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.
Hello,

I am looking to build a floor standing full range speakers to used with tv (for movies) and songs from mobile (mostly mp3 songs). And currently not planning for a sub-woofer, and looking for a driver and cabinet combination to take care of the bass.

Looking at the forums and reviews, thinking to look for mark audio alpair 7.3 in pensils or frugal horn mk3 cabinet, but was bit worried with its lower sensitivity (84-85db).

Then there is alpair 7p (1st generation), and on specs has better sensitivity then the Alpair 7.3, but did not find much info about this paper cone on the forum.

How is alpair 7p compaired with alpair 7.3 ? What are pros and cons of each other compared?

Also how are they both compared with similarly priced fostex fe166en/ff165wk?

thanks and regards
S Sarath
 
frugal-phile™
Joined 2001
Paid Member
How is alpair 7p compaired with alpair 7.3 ? What are pros and cons of each other compared?

I haven't yet seen any comments by anyone on the A7p. My units are awaiting for a bug to get workedout of my measuring sw. Then we will put a pair in FH3.

Also how are they both compared with similarly priced fostex fe166en/ff165wk?

FE166 is good, but certainly not as refined as A7.3. To go as low you'd have to put it into one of the big Woden horns. I have a pair of FF165wk in the Compact Fonken165 floorstander arriving on Thursday.

dave
 
I haven't yet seen any comments by anyone on the A7p. My units are awaiting for a bug to get workedout of my measuring sw. Then we will put a pair in FH3.



FE166 is good, but certainly not as refined as A7.3. To go as low you'd have to put it into one of the big Woden horns. I have a pair of FF165wk in the Compact Fonken165 floorstander arriving on Thursday.

dave

Hi Dave,

The big woden horns for FE166en or A7.3?

FE166en being a larger (6.5 inch) drive then 4 inch A7.3, shouldn't it go lower and have better bass ?

thanks and regards
S Sarath
 
frugal-phile™
Joined 2001
Paid Member
The big woden horns for FE166en or A7.3?

FE166

FE166en being a larger (6.5 inch) drive then 4 inch A7.3, shouldn't it go lower and have better bass ?

The price for the high efficiency is a BIG box to get bass out of it. Better is a whole nother matter.

The Victors i heard went plenty low, but Bernie sold them preferring his EL70eN, including their bass. The price paid, about 12 dB less efficiency.

dave
 
FE166



The price for the high efficiency is a BIG box to get bass out of it. Better is a whole nother matter.

The Victors i heard went plenty low, but Bernie sold them preferring his EL70eN, including their bass. The price paid, about 12 dB less efficiency.

dave

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.

I was thinking about lower sensitivity of A7.3 when compared with sensitivity of the other full ranges which were mostly near to or over 90db...
So was looking at Alpair 7p which in specs, is little more sensitive and little smoother looking frequency response curve ..

thanks and regards
S Sarath
 
sarathssca, compared to "normal" drivers that are used in multi-way speakers full range drivers aren't smooth at all. You'll see large response variations. 10dB (which is half the perceived loudness) is common. There are some exceptions though.

In my opinion they all need to be equalized to get them into the ballpark. Equalization is cheap and easy to do these days.

Here's an example of a full range speaker under development. The manufacturer claims that is was measured in an anechoic chamber:

attachment.php
 

Attachments

  • CHR80-proto-2a-2b.jpg
    CHR80-proto-2a-2b.jpg
    135.1 KB · Views: 4,808
Last edited:
Its un-smoothed data. It would only be fair to compare it to other drivers measurements that are un-smoothed as well.

Here's a near field measurement of a driver. I've used the near field technique described by Keele. Frequency resolution 0,334Hz, no smoothing.

attachment.php


Maybe the Markaudio data wasn't measured in an anechoic chamber or the measurement methodology produces artifacts? I've asked the manufacturer about his anechoic chamber and measurement methodology but he didn't answer. He even deleted the whole thread.
 

Attachments

  • nf.png
    nf.png
    15.3 KB · Views: 4,689
Mark has quite alot on his plate right now, to say the least.

I've got two pairs of 10P's and pretty happy with them, good all round - haven't heard the 7p's I'm guessing they are 'brighter' sounding up top with slightly more obvious detail, if that makes sense. The published graph looks excellent, a dip in the sibilance region and a small rise at the top where you want it. They may need to be listened to slightly off axis but on paper at least, a real winner.
 
Last edited:
I have spot checked my A7P's during break-in. They seem to take a lot longer to settle in than the A7M's. I am going to let them play music by themselves for the rest of the week and do some critical listening Saturday. My current opinion is that they are going to be brighter and more detailed than the A7M's, but my opinion remains fluid at this point.

Bob
 
Hello Sarathssca, (guys)

To confirm: All the regular members know Markaudio drivers are measured in a fully anechoic chamber on industry standard baffles at standard measured distance of 1 metre. I've posted and commented numerous times on the equipment our company uses. A simple search should reveal the many posts I've made on this subject. Indeed, I made several posts advising members how to make environments more anechoic. This includes room damping advise and baffle sizing information.

Spekr recently revealed that he didn't know what RAW was/is. So why he's making these comments is surprising as without necessary knowledge, its impossible to correctly understand the differences in data presentation.

The bulk of the driver industry provides smoothed data. Should they provide RAW data, most drivers will have a response similar to, or in many cases, worse than Markaudio units, regardless of then being full-range or limited bandwidth.

I responded some time ago to members requests to publish raw data. Sadly the danger is situations like that being generated by Spekr as makers presenting smoothed data have a presentation advantage.

Spekr's errors are further compounded by his liberal application of equalisation, with no understanding of the on-off axis function of most full-range and wide-band drivers and their dispersion characteristics; particularly noticeable with his error on "beaming", an partly variable audible phenomenon the preserve of larger units > 8" depending on application.

Spekr remains highly dismissive of experienced members who have good verifiable "track records" of the design and application of full-range, wide band and FAST systems. Ironic as spekr is, in effect, undermining the spirit of Diyaudio. Yet he could learn much if he were to become genuinely willing to inhale the experiences of others with actual knowledge. He seems to be keen to take a topic wrecking ball to a number of threads.

Far as I can see, Spekr hasn't published any comprehensive project work, so we have no knowledge of his methods for box design(s), box build quality, driver installation, measurement, testing and room set-up. How open and honest he is will be is a matter of judgment in the context of the lack of knowledge.

I'm all for fair minded comment and at the end of the day, not everyone will like Markaudio drivers. But its is increasingly depressing to see comment being dressed up as "expert fact" when the author has little actual knowledge.

For those who are fair minded, I welcome comment on these drivers. Its your opportunity to let me know what you'd like to see being advanced in the design stage of these units.

http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/markaudio/230686-alpair-8-a.html
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/markaudio/263266-chs50-alpair-5-gen-2-a.html

Currently their responses are near flat, so issues to do with on-off-axis placement come into play. Much depends on what members favour in relation to in-room positioning of their projects. Both drivers are in their early phase.

Apologies Sarathssca as your thread is some respect is being pushed off-topic. The Markaudio section is open to those who may wish to have the subject of their thread being more regularly maintained.

Thanks
Mark.
 
Last edited:
Mark, please comment on content, not on the contributor.

Hello Sarathssca, (guys)

To confirm: All the regular members know Markaudio drivers are measured in a fully anechoic chamber on industry standard baffles at standard measured distance of 1 metre. I've posted and commented numerous times on the equipment our company uses. A simple search should reveal the many posts I've made on this subject. Indeed, I made several posts advising members how to make environments more anechoic. This includes room damping advise and baffle sizing information.

Could you provide more information about your "fully anechoic chamber"? You show data down to 20Hz and I've never heard of an anechoic chamber that is anechoic down that low.

Spekr recently revealed that he didn't know what RAW was/is. So why he's making these comments is surprising as without necessary knowledge, its impossible to correctly understand the differences in data presentation.

The bulk of the driver industry provides smoothed data. Should they provide RAW data, most drivers will have a response similar to, or in many cases, worse than Markaudio units, regardless of then being full-range or limited bandwidth.

Well, I know the term RAW from photography :) Never heard it is some kind of standard within the industry. It also doesn't matter. Why? Because it deflects from the important stuff: How good is the frequency resolution of the data and is any smoothing applied. A frequency response like the one you've shown can't be true unless the driver is really that bad. The response looks more like the snapshot of a steady-state measurement with noise as the test signal.

Spekr's errors are further compounded by his liberal application of equalisation, with no understanding of the on-off axis function of most full-range and wide-band drivers and their dispersion characteristics; particularly noticeable with his error on "beaming", an partly variable audible phenomenon the preserve of larger units > 8" depending on application.

Measure any driver on- and off-axis and it will reveal lobing, beaming, resonances, etc. This can easily be done by anyone (at least for higher frequencies) even without an anechoic chamber at hand. Measuring equipment like CALIBRATED microphones are cheap and readily available. Measuring software is available for free (e.g. REW).

By the way, Earl Geddes has published a nice tool that allows examination of speaker off-axis responses:
http://gedlee.azurewebsites.net/Application Files/RunPolarMap.aspx
 
Last edited:
MA drivers are measured under anechoic conditions on appropriate IEC compliant baffles, 1m distance, normalised to 1w (rather like most reputable manufacturers), sans software smoothing, using Earthworks measurement microphones in a full LMS setup using slow sweeps which tend to be more revealing of mechanical behaviour than, say, logarithmic chirps etc. (useful though the latter can be of course).

The data shows variations as large as 10dB, would a measurement with the swept sine technique show anything different?
 
A slow (as in 'slow') sweep is typically less forgiving than, for example, a log-chirp since there is greater potential for mechanical resonances to build up. Since most musical signals change rather more swiftly, it tends to provide conservative rather than flattering results. This is useful in suspension etc. design & development.

I hope spekr will allow us to return back on topic now, for the benefit of the OP. Because this is getting ridiculous.
 
Last edited:
You are taking the OP's thread off topic again. I will answer this, but please stop afterward. It is not fair on him.

A slow (as in 'slow') sweep is typically less forgiving than, for example, a log-chirp since there is greater potential for mechanical resonances to build up. Since most musical signals change rather more swiftly, it tends to provide conservative rather than flattering results. This is useful in suspension etc. design & development.

This doesn't answer my question, "The data shows variations as large as 10dB, would a measurement with the swept sine technique show anything different?"

I'll open a new thread.
 
Last edited:
This doesn't answer my question, "The data shows variations as large as 10dB, would a measurement with the swept sine technique show anything different?"

You don't understand the data. If you did, you wouldn't be asking this question.

What you need to do is go-away and research. Then seek advice from member's who've done allot more than you (PM's is one way); Instead of you constantly re-railing threads! Or use the "lounge" section of Diyaudio. There's several long running threads that get into the sort of stuff that might entertain you.

I genuinely tried helping you on the Markaudio section, a disaster, you just won't meet others at least half way, especially those who a experienced regular members.
 
Last edited:
Instead of constantly attacking me you guys could provide useful explanations. Instead you pile up off-topic posts that are farther away from the topic than anything I've ever said.

You've gotta eventually wake up. You're de-railing threads when there are places on Diyaudio where you can go to have the audio-philosphical discourse. Here's the thread you need:

http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/lounge/200865-sound-quality-vs-measurements.html

How far you'll get is questionable because you're so busy "telling" everyone how drivers work and your biblical take on testing and data analysis.

For goodness sake....let threads operate to their original purpose.
 
Last edited:
Status
This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.