simplesteve,
Glad to be of some help, and my understanding is that this covers at least this part of the aspect ratio thing
:
You'll rock it mate! Good luck with the build, and keep us posted.
Glad to be of some help, and my understanding is that this covers at least this part of the aspect ratio thing
: You'll rock it mate! Good luck with the build, and keep us posted.
Seriously looking at this build (12pw+7p) and had a few questions I'm hoping someone can help address:
1. In Other threads I have seen suggestions that 7.3 may be a better combination than 7P-- any thoughts? If so, are box dimensions and XO same as for 7P?
2. I have also come across a thought that 12PW+5.3 may be an interesting combination-- has anyone tried this? If so, what was your experience? Finally, if you did what enclosure dimensions and XO did you use?
Thanks in advance
1. In Other threads I have seen suggestions that 7.3 may be a better combination than 7P-- any thoughts? If so, are box dimensions and XO same as for 7P?
2. I have also come across a thought that 12PW+5.3 may be an interesting combination-- has anyone tried this? If so, what was your experience? Finally, if you did what enclosure dimensions and XO did you use?
Thanks in advance
Yes, IMO, to both of your inquiries.
A7p is not bad, it does take some serious break0in before the top end settles down, and you are likely to be able to find some cheap since they have not been overly popular. )(i have some for Canadians).
The A12pw + A5.2/3 (little difference between the 2), is a bit more finessed, a bit better top end, better dispersion, XO could be a bit higher, taking more advantage of the A12pw extention (if you need it to play as loud), all consequences of the smaller cone. And remeber A5/A5.2/A5.3 are the original Mark Audio mono suspension drivers.
The high XO in Scott’s original A12pw/A7p work, works, but a lower XO can provide significant improvements in quality & finesse, keeping more of the sound coming from the FR.
So far XOs for A12pw and midTweeter (excepting the one in post #1) are 250-350 Hz.
dave
A7p is not bad, it does take some serious break0in before the top end settles down, and you are likely to be able to find some cheap since they have not been overly popular. )(i have some for Canadians).
The A12pw + A5.2/3 (little difference between the 2), is a bit more finessed, a bit better top end, better dispersion, XO could be a bit higher, taking more advantage of the A12pw extention (if you need it to play as loud), all consequences of the smaller cone. And remeber A5/A5.2/A5.3 are the original Mark Audio mono suspension drivers.
The high XO in Scott’s original A12pw/A7p work, works, but a lower XO can provide significant improvements in quality & finesse, keeping more of the sound coming from the FR.
So far XOs for A12pw and midTweeter (excepting the one in post #1) are 250-350 Hz.
dave
Crossover design
I am keen to combine my Alpair 5.3 and Alpair 11MS in a two way system. I have no experience with tweaking crossovers. Where should I seek advice?
I am keen to combine my Alpair 5.3 and Alpair 11MS in a two way system. I have no experience with tweaking crossovers. Where should I seek advice?
Ok. So you are suggesting I should look for a woofer? Do you have any suggestions?
Ideally yes.
In Oz, what woofers can you easily source. There ate literally tons of decent midbasses that get very good when you don’t use only the bottom of their range.
Once we know what driver candidates you have, then box, box size will take a role.
Passive XOs for a WAW are not all that easy to design, the easy way out is to bi-amp, much more versatile, and sometimes even cheaper, especially if you already have a spare amp kicking around.
If you do a separtate bass enclosure you could paly with the A11 and the A5 up top, choosing the one you like best, otr the one that best suits your mood :^)
dave
In Oz, what woofers can you easily source. There ate literally tons of decent midbasses that get very good when you don’t use only the bottom of their range.
Once we know what driver candidates you have, then box, box size will take a role.
Passive XOs for a WAW are not all that easy to design, the easy way out is to bi-amp, much more versatile, and sometimes even cheaper, especially if you already have a spare amp kicking around.
If you do a separtate bass enclosure you could paly with the A11 and the A5 up top, choosing the one you like best, otr the one that best suits your mood :^)
dave
Indeed, if either the Ellipsas or 12&7 MTMs were to be built this decade, we’d very likely experiment with any of the 5cm drivers in the prototyping stages. In other designs using Fostex drivers, I found the FF85WK proved to blossom when used as a mid-tweet from anywhere between 250 - 320(?) or so on up. Relieving drivers this size class of the heavy lifting in the bottom 3 or so octaves is a pretty good recipe for making performance gains - the culinary artistry come in selecting drivers that play nice together with the minimal XO practical.
I do have three different amps. Is it possible to bi amp with two different amps?
Yes. You just need to have a gain control (somewhere) to adjust one of the amplifiers. IME it is usually the bass amp.
A PLLXO (if the speaker is suited) is dirt cheap and very effective within its limitations. New XO offerings from the diyAudio.com store open things up, and one can always cobbe together an op-amp based XO.
dave
A PLLXO (if the speaker is suited) is dirt cheap and very effective within its limitations. New XO offerings from the diyAudio.com store open things up, and one can always cobbe together an op-amp based XO.
dave
Soon I plan to try pairing a sealed a11ms with the 7p, probably on a small OB attached to the 11ms box, with the intention of crossing at 'midpoint' so as to balance the workload evenly between 2 drivers, also making a good quality passive XO cheaper and easier.
not sure what 'midpoint' will be exactly, somewhere between 1-3khz.
For driver performance, maybe around the mid point of the transition from pistonic to resonant behaviour, whatever that is. Will probably just test and try to see where it sounds best.
7p and 11ms are very much full range drivers, but if you are to more strictly categorise them I think 7p is better described as wide-band midranger, 11ms as a wide-band midwoofer.
As well as being spider-less, the a5.3 is presumably more of a wide-band mid-tweeter in strict terms, so seems like a better choice here.. but maybe things aren't so clear cut?
Mark was an advocate for higher XO point, at the time the a5 was around yet the a7p was still the recommended choice.
What do you think the reason was?
Keeping paper with paper was one small reason I suppose...
Just hoping there will be some reason to stop me thinking 'this would be even better with an a5.3' if it does turns out to work well, like maybe the 7p will still have some strengths down at the XO point.
not sure what 'midpoint' will be exactly, somewhere between 1-3khz.
For driver performance, maybe around the mid point of the transition from pistonic to resonant behaviour, whatever that is. Will probably just test and try to see where it sounds best.
7p and 11ms are very much full range drivers, but if you are to more strictly categorise them I think 7p is better described as wide-band midranger, 11ms as a wide-band midwoofer.
As well as being spider-less, the a5.3 is presumably more of a wide-band mid-tweeter in strict terms, so seems like a better choice here.. but maybe things aren't so clear cut?
Mark was an advocate for higher XO point, at the time the a5 was around yet the a7p was still the recommended choice.
What do you think the reason was?
Keeping paper with paper was one small reason I suppose...
Just hoping there will be some reason to stop me thinking 'this would be even better with an a5.3' if it does turns out to work well, like maybe the 7p will still have some strengths down at the XO point.