• Disclaimer: This Vendor's Forum is a paid-for commercial area. Unlike the rest of diyAudio, the Vendor has complete control of what may or may not be posted in this forum. If you wish to discuss technical matters outside the bounds of what is permitted by the Vendor, please use the non-commercial areas of diyAudio to do so.

Super-Tysen

Status
This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.
frugal-phile™
Joined 2001
Paid Member
...that the A10 is better suited for low XO. Do you agree with this?

Yes,

Would double A7's accomplish similar results?

We'll see

Will it be better to have forward facing woofer to help eliminate room interaction. Firing into 4pi space XO low, is this as important. It seems I remember that room interaction/gain is important down low.

Whatever suits. With a low XO on the back (at the bottom) is an option as well.

dave
 
If I can pipe in with a few observations/comments:

1) I've been playing for a couple of weeks now with combinations of A12 & A7 in a continually evolving HT rig . So far it's only 3.1 ( surrounds will be tricky due to room layout), with dual SDX7 on LFE channel. As even relatively inexpensive current entry level surround receivers ( Denon AVR1610 in this case) have a great deal of flexibility of XO points in the speaker configuration, it's easier than ever to tailor to your particular needs. After manually fine tuning the EQ/XO settings calculated by the Audyssey system, I vastly preferred the seamless integration of 3 of the smaller Alpair7 for the front row.

2) Since SuperTysen is still in the conceptual stage, and considering our experience with the microtower design, I'd extrapolate that with appropriate woofer(s) of whatever flavor, a pair of A7 in bipole configuration would be more than adequate. I can't wait to see Dave's final :p design.

3) With little kiddies and the attendant activities, you might want to consider something sturdier than simple fabric grille cloths for protection - the metal cones of Alpairs are certainly more delicate than paper.
 
between the 10.2 and 7, which will give the best off axis performance on the high end. Why would a smaller driver do better in this respect.

In theory the 7 gives less HF beaming. Beaming, in general, is proportional to driver size (cone shape, & controlled flex, ensure that not all drivers of the same size are not equal thou)

dave


I had to confirm whether I'd actually heard the 10.2 - as it turns out we did back in August, but for me it was overshadowed by a pair of Alpair 7s fully tweaked out by Dr EnABL (BudP) himself. Even in stock form, the 7 is simply something special, and with appropriate woofers would certainly be on my short list.
Actually it already is - as mentioned elsewhere, I'm currently fine tuning a smallish room HT surround system based on this driver for the front row 3, with dual powered SDX7 on the LFE channel.
 
Thank you both for the responses. I would like to be a guinea pig for this particular setup, but do not have the money to buy all the necessary drivers. With the dual A7's would you run dual woofers. Based on this I would be looking at about $700-$800 just for drivers, not including eNabling. Would you do a push-push woofer setup. Woofers would need to be in the 87-90dB range, correct.
 
1. Edited due to stupidity of question.

2. Would mounting A7's slightly off angle horizontally help with dispersion?

3. Wiring in parallel seems to yield better results than wiring in series. How much power for parallel A7's.

4. Silver flute is cheap option for woofers. Would these yield good results? How about Dayton RS225?
 
Last edited:
I am trying to make the decision of one pair of Alpair 10.2 vs two pairs of A7's and i am having trouble. Based on what you have said, the two 7's sound appealing, but i am worried about being able to drive them. I am building an Aleph J with higher bias current which should drive 30W into 4ohms. Will this be enough?
 
frugal-phile™
Joined 2001
Paid Member
Dispersion on the gen 2 Alpairs is quite good, EnABLed (They seem) even better. I doubt you would gain more than you would loose by splaying drivers.

Wiring A7 in parallel requires a 2 ohm capable amplifier. Series wiring gives the option of making a 1.5 way with a shunt cap. A separate amp for each A7 would be an ideal situation.

Silver Flute make nice woofers. We are playing with the 5 1/2" and will likely do a variation with A6.2 and 2 5 1/4

A pair of A7 will give about the same efficiency as a single A10.2. But costs a fair amount more. The single driver means a simplier box, but either more restricted XO point options or possibly some EQ. Reason i went with 2 A7 was that it gives me more experimental flexibility. And we are still very much at an experimental stage.

dave
 
Dave,
I have my 10.2's and will be building some pensil's this weekend. The question i have for you or anybody else with experience concerns the wood. I knoe the recommendation is marine plywood, but i would really like to use hardwoods. I know the difficulty of working with hardwoods because i have built many pieces in my own home. Is there some sort of hybrid mixture that can be considered to defeat the shortcomings of hardwood and take advantage of strengths of plywood. I am not big into veneering. You end up paying as much for a sliver as you do for a board and they dont stain the same. What about 1/2" plywood backing hardwood? Any thoughts would be appreciated. This will be by listening setup while beginning experiments with Tysen setup.
 
Dave,
I have my 10.2's and will be building some pensil's this weekend. The question i have for you or anybody else with experience concerns the wood. I knoe the recommendation is marine plywood, but i would really like to use hardwoods. I know the difficulty of working with hardwoods because i have built many pieces in my own home. Is there some sort of hybrid mixture that can be considered to defeat the shortcomings of hardwood and take advantage of strengths of plywood. I am not big into veneering. You end up paying as much for a sliver as you do for a board and they dont stain the same. What about 1/2" plywood backing hardwood? Any thoughts would be appreciated. This will be by listening setup while beginning experiments with Tysen setup.

If you're confident in your ability to fabricate a rigid enclosure with solid hardwoods that won't suffer from shrinkage/movement, etc - by all means.

of course now the question is to "tone" or not? - I'd dare say any musical instrument maker would regale you with stories of the different sounds of individual and combination of species :rolleyes:


as for veneers, I cheat and use the paper backed stuff and iron-on yellow glue method - on the few occasions where I include solid wood trim details and finish with other than a natural clear lacquer/oil, either a pre-conditioner will even out the colour difference between the two materials, or I use alternate species to highlight as a feature
 
I had panned on using Curly Maple or Cherry to build the speakers. I would use Quartersawn White Oak, for its stability, but I made my TV stand and bookshelves from this and want to introduce something new. Although you may tone the music with a particular species, the same can be said for plywood or MDF. From what little i have read on the forum, MDF is said to have a dead and somewhat bloomy sound, where plywood/wood has a brighter sound. I don't know, this being my first speaker. Any recommendations with impressions are greatly appreciated. Another point on tone from wood. Many of the instruments that are affected by toning from the wood tend to use wood that is much thinner. I would assume that the thicker the wood, the less of this problem there would be. Once again, this is an uninformed thought. I have seen ideas for fastening to allow for wood movement, that i think i can get to work. I will try to post a drawing showing the method being considered. I would appreciate a comment when posted, if possible. THanks!
 
Here is a skimpy mockup of idea. It includes upper half of Pensil 10.2 as seen from the side. I was going to route a 3/8" deep channel 1/4" wide and 1/4" from top of the side panel. Within this route, i would do three more small routes with a chamfer bit that go all the way through the wood which would hold the head of the screw inserting into the top. This would give a tight fit, but still allow for movement. I would use some sort of thin gasket for good air seal. Same thing would be done down the sides and back. After tuning, the larger route would be filled with different species of wood ,which would cover the screws and fill gap as well as add a decorative touch. Just a thought. Seen it done in Fine Woodworking, I believe.
 

Attachments

  • Test.jpg
    Test.jpg
    17.6 KB · Views: 300
Status
This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.