Does anyone know which MA speaker is used in the Sparkler AUdio Diva speaker (S301B 'diva')
Initial impressions of Alpair 11MS are really good.
I was concerned benefits of going to the pricier, larger cones from an a7p would come with roughly equal compromise in other areas but that is not the case.
Improved low end of course, this extends into the mids, not really about quantity (at least on paper) there is more more to it than that.
Notable improvement to dynamics and ability to handle complexity.
Very smooth and detailed throughout the mids.
Slightly softer/fuzzier treble, less 'snap', presumably from larger cone, not unpleasant and not really any loss of information, important information anyway.
To me A11ms is a much better example of a FR driver, but my experience is limited to A7p so this isn't saying much... maybe most larger cone MAs come with similar advantages alongside the low end.
The peaks in upper treble do stand out a lot, very sharp on axis, their location is perfect for acting as NOS droop compensation and NOS/OB low pass compensation but this could be an issue for some.
That is assuming they wont change that much from break-in... MA's 'break-in' period could only be a guideline for when it's safe to use them at higher levels.
I have only tested on an OB (exact same baffle and position as a7p).
I'm more interested in using them sealed now (possibly with A7p as OB/naked mid-tweeter, which it is more suited as) as the OB will be limiting them in their best area.
Also noticed on the box, 'Gen 2'... silent/recent revision?
I was concerned benefits of going to the pricier, larger cones from an a7p would come with roughly equal compromise in other areas but that is not the case.
Improved low end of course, this extends into the mids, not really about quantity (at least on paper) there is more more to it than that.
Notable improvement to dynamics and ability to handle complexity.
Very smooth and detailed throughout the mids.
Slightly softer/fuzzier treble, less 'snap', presumably from larger cone, not unpleasant and not really any loss of information, important information anyway.
To me A11ms is a much better example of a FR driver, but my experience is limited to A7p so this isn't saying much... maybe most larger cone MAs come with similar advantages alongside the low end.
The peaks in upper treble do stand out a lot, very sharp on axis, their location is perfect for acting as NOS droop compensation and NOS/OB low pass compensation but this could be an issue for some.
That is assuming they wont change that much from break-in... MA's 'break-in' period could only be a guideline for when it's safe to use them at higher levels.
I have only tested on an OB (exact same baffle and position as a7p).
I'm more interested in using them sealed now (possibly with A7p as OB/naked mid-tweeter, which it is more suited as) as the OB will be limiting them in their best area.
Also noticed on the box, 'Gen 2'... silent/recent revision?
Last edited:
Here is the OB 11MS on a 80x35cm baffle intended for FR use, the first was just manzanita style baffle minus the woofer.
I also built a simple 14L box that could be used sealed or EBS BR to have a frame of reference (because it would be a challenge to make the 11ms sound truly bad anywhere).
It sounds really nice to me, but it is very peculiar just how well the 11ms is able preserve a sense of low-end on the OB, to the point that I prefer it with no EQ at all.
The driver response and baffle response should compensate for each other well, but there has to be more to it.
I used parametric EQ to see if cutting the lowest frequencies could improve quality like it did with 7p... even around 30Hz there is audible changes in the low end, the sound becomes leaner and less enjoyable but there is also no noticeable quality gain (if anything there is quality loss from the use digital EQ), this is at moderate to low volume.
I don't think it's possible 30Hz would be audible in this scenario... could it be 11ms has high THD in sub-bass and high order harmonics are letting you 'hear' some impression of sub-bass higher up?
Regardless, having also compared to sealed enclosure, if this 'effect' exists it is a lot more apparent on the OB. The bass deficiency of the sealed enclosure is more noticeable and distracting to me than the OB, on top of having more room interaction, it's probably because the box emphasises or contributes to peaks in the upper end more.
Im experimenting with P830668 right now on very large baffle.
In my limited experience you can not get a real increase in bass from OB without a bigger baffle. With a small baffle no amount of EQ could provide a good sense of bass impact or definition, while you would still get room interaction.
Excessively big OBs (wide ones specifically) sound awful outside of the bass for whatever reason. With huge baffle i think it should be possible to build an amazing OB sub, even with reasonably small woofers, but then the question is how will you ever integrate it well with a HF driver that wants the smallest baffle possible to sound good.
Also is this appropiate for this thread, general MS driver discussion? I dont think it deserves a new thread and didn't want to post in gallery as it about experimentation rather than 'showing-off', .
I also built a simple 14L box that could be used sealed or EBS BR to have a frame of reference (because it would be a challenge to make the 11ms sound truly bad anywhere).
It sounds really nice to me, but it is very peculiar just how well the 11ms is able preserve a sense of low-end on the OB, to the point that I prefer it with no EQ at all.
The driver response and baffle response should compensate for each other well, but there has to be more to it.
I used parametric EQ to see if cutting the lowest frequencies could improve quality like it did with 7p... even around 30Hz there is audible changes in the low end, the sound becomes leaner and less enjoyable but there is also no noticeable quality gain (if anything there is quality loss from the use digital EQ), this is at moderate to low volume.
I don't think it's possible 30Hz would be audible in this scenario... could it be 11ms has high THD in sub-bass and high order harmonics are letting you 'hear' some impression of sub-bass higher up?
Regardless, having also compared to sealed enclosure, if this 'effect' exists it is a lot more apparent on the OB. The bass deficiency of the sealed enclosure is more noticeable and distracting to me than the OB, on top of having more room interaction, it's probably because the box emphasises or contributes to peaks in the upper end more.
Im experimenting with P830668 right now on very large baffle.
In my limited experience you can not get a real increase in bass from OB without a bigger baffle. With a small baffle no amount of EQ could provide a good sense of bass impact or definition, while you would still get room interaction.
Excessively big OBs (wide ones specifically) sound awful outside of the bass for whatever reason. With huge baffle i think it should be possible to build an amazing OB sub, even with reasonably small woofers, but then the question is how will you ever integrate it well with a HF driver that wants the smallest baffle possible to sound good.
Also is this appropiate for this thread, general MS driver discussion? I dont think it deserves a new thread and didn't want to post in gallery as it about experimentation rather than 'showing-off', .
Attachments
Last edited:
Want to add that adding width to outer sides of the baffles only and maintaining the relatively short distance from front to rear of driver on inner sides was something I did not test previously.
Testing now imaging is better preserved with increasing width, similar to L frame but with a lot better effectiveness preserving the low end in practice, I guess there must be some baffle step with L-frame.
L-frame just did not sound right to me but with this extended width baffle you create more edge diffraction effects instead, evidently it does not sound as smooth.
There is the approach of lining the baffles with felt to deal with edge diffraction which would also work with an OB, will see if that can improve this too.
Unfortunately you cant escape the basic practical issue of having huge open baffles that cant be placed near walls...
Testing now imaging is better preserved with increasing width, similar to L frame but with a lot better effectiveness preserving the low end in practice, I guess there must be some baffle step with L-frame.
L-frame just did not sound right to me but with this extended width baffle you create more edge diffraction effects instead, evidently it does not sound as smooth.
There is the approach of lining the baffles with felt to deal with edge diffraction which would also work with an OB, will see if that can improve this too.
Unfortunately you cant escape the basic practical issue of having huge open baffles that cant be placed near walls...
Last edited:
BTW I should have posted these OB related posts in the OB FR thread,
if a moderator sees this you can move them, if you don't mind.
if a moderator sees this you can move them, if you don't mind.
Hi All, I’ve been using A11MS for a good while now & love them, I’ve been thinking about trying out the A7ms to hear how they compare.
What size (sealed) cabinets would they need? I’m only using them from 200hz up as mid/tweets, could I get away with making a reducing ring & dropping them into my 5 litre 11ms cabinets?
What size (sealed) cabinets would they need? I’m only using them from 200hz up as mid/tweets, could I get away with making a reducing ring & dropping them into my 5 litre 11ms cabinets?
I sincerely hope not, since that's Dave's commercial property, and should not be freely accessible on-line.