Not quite. I'm well aware of what a folded ML Voigt is -I've designed enough of the things over the years. 
The point I suspect I was making (I don't know what the post was), is that in many cases, folded ML Voigts are used when a physically simpler untapered MLTL will work just as well or better. If it's designed well (note caveat) then in those situations, there isn't any particular harm in it, but nor, as noted, is there much advantage either. That isn't to say they aren't useful in other scenarios, when the different loading characteristics of the expanding pipe may be beneficial -just that it's often an over-complicated solution.
But then -this is a hobby. We're presumably all in it for fun, so no harm in trying these things out if you enjoy it, and it's a good way to learn what form of 'euphonic distortion' you can live with. When it all stops being fun and starts getting to be hard work for whatever reason, it's time to walk away and do something else. As I mostly have. My fernery progresses well, or it did, before I got hit with covid.
The point I suspect I was making (I don't know what the post was), is that in many cases, folded ML Voigts are used when a physically simpler untapered MLTL will work just as well or better. If it's designed well (note caveat) then in those situations, there isn't any particular harm in it, but nor, as noted, is there much advantage either. That isn't to say they aren't useful in other scenarios, when the different loading characteristics of the expanding pipe may be beneficial -just that it's often an over-complicated solution.But then -this is a hobby. We're presumably all in it for fun, so no harm in trying these things out if you enjoy it, and it's a good way to learn what form of 'euphonic distortion' you can live with.
When it all stops being fun and starts getting to be hard work for whatever reason, it's time to walk away and do something else. As I mostly have. My fernery progresses well, or it did, before I got hit with covid.
Last edited:
Hello Scott.
How nice to see you here again. Missed your posts here. Almost thought you had contracted some disease... or something else horrible.
Maybe I interpreted one of your posts a little wrong.. But it was similar.
Looks like new proposals for boxes with Alpair drivers are coming out.
Then one could conclude that you are still alive. 😉🙂
How nice to see you here again. Missed your posts here. Almost thought you had contracted some disease... or something else horrible.
Maybe I interpreted one of your posts a little wrong.. But it was similar.
Looks like new proposals for boxes with Alpair drivers are coming out.
Then one could conclude that you are still alive. 😉🙂
Last edited by a moderator:
Straight ones too. There is a direct relation between these and a set of straight-forward MLTL.
dave
It's just an ML-Voigt (no 'h': P. G. A. H. Voigt), no more, no less. So was the Everest cabinet. Voigt pipe-horns (mass-loaded or otherwise) have been around since 1936. The above aren't folded because they were done purely for aesthetic reasons, and are in fact derived from a previous MLTL (so zero point in creating a folded version: the MLTL does exactly the same job for all practical purposes). If you're interested in the history of this type of enclosure, people here can tell you all about it.
Re Markaudio, they're not actually proposals: they're fully worked up designs. People won't like all (or any), but the object is simply to provide a number of easy-to-build plans that cater to a reasonable cross section of needs, and have a few interesting extras thrown in, like the quadrupoles, which are fairly uncommon. Not all the enclosures are derived from T/S filter theory, and as a general note -don't get sucked into simply following a maximally flat (under a given set of input conditions) mathematical alignment, or assuming it is 'optimal'. It isn't -not in that sense. It simply is what it is. In many cases, that is not an optimal alignment without requiring additional empirical testing and modifications once the speaker is in-room. There are other considerations like power-handling, midbass gain etc. as GM points out too, so the message is 'be careful about plugging a few numbers into software and drawing conclusions from a stock alignment it may have as a default setting'. As a start, it's better than guesswork, but in many cases, a start is all it is. That's one of the things that makes this fun of course.
Re Markaudio, they're not actually proposals: they're fully worked up designs. People won't like all (or any), but the object is simply to provide a number of easy-to-build plans that cater to a reasonable cross section of needs, and have a few interesting extras thrown in, like the quadrupoles, which are fairly uncommon. Not all the enclosures are derived from T/S filter theory, and as a general note -don't get sucked into simply following a maximally flat (under a given set of input conditions) mathematical alignment, or assuming it is 'optimal'. It isn't -not in that sense. It simply is what it is. In many cases, that is not an optimal alignment without requiring additional empirical testing and modifications once the speaker is in-room. There are other considerations like power-handling, midbass gain etc. as GM points out too, so the message is 'be careful about plugging a few numbers into software and drawing conclusions from a stock alignment it may have as a default setting'. As a start, it's better than guesswork, but in many cases, a start is all it is. That's one of the things that makes this fun of course.
Last edited:
These are the short-lived Festival Series for original Alpairs. Scott has churned out a few more, some of the graphics i did for the web site i really liked.
A ‘crude” desciption of the simpliest is take a Pensil. Make it twice as tall and then run the back from the bottom back of the Pensil, up to the new top at the baffle. It will usually need a bit of tweaking from there depending on the goals of the design.
dave
Last edited:
Yep, the more you research, the more you find that the pioneers left precious little to 'invent' and had they our modern tools, nothing to date; plus always need to keep in mind that their primary speaker design goals were acoustic efficiency, highest practical vocals clarity over both near and far field polar response limited BWs, unamplified live music reproducton.
It's only as good as the info you input.
Attachments
Last edited:
Indeed! Been ther, done that in spades.
Well, my avatar says it all.
No; in recent decades I've retreated to my childhood years of inexpensive to downright cheap/free wide/'full' range drivers with no baffle in either mono for AM/FM [talk] radio or small LCR HT, i.e. miming the huge behind screen three channel cinema systems [see avatar's single channel] that got me started down this particular 'Yellow Brick Road' of DIY and more recently when my LCR driver's foam surround turned to powder I switched to a pair of not quite NOS 'hot off the press' RadioShack Minimus 7 in need of new caps for stereo HT. Apparently they're so cheap they decayed just from being in a cardboard box in a clothes closet since originally broken in. If I ever get around to it, guess I'll try the late,lamented guru Zilch's XO, though frankly, in my app, not sure it can so much be improved over the original [except with PIO caps] as be just 'different'.
Thanx for yours answer.
I think Minimus 7 gave you and many others synergi. Nice speakers.
Well we have to go back to the Alpair CHP-90.
As I understand it, the bigger boxes will lose confidence level in the mid-bass or can this be compensated in some way?
Have I understood this correctly?
I think Minimus 7 gave you and many others synergi. Nice speakers.
Well we have to go back to the Alpair CHP-90.
As I understand it, the bigger boxes will lose confidence level in the mid-bass or can this be compensated in some way?
Have I understood this correctly?
Last edited by a moderator:
Bit stuck here on new builds for the CHP-90!
Today I've made a Golden Ratio box for the MAOP 10 and right now I have on my desk both the slotted 14L of the CHP-90 + the same of W5-2143 and on top the old RS-100 haha Temporary of course (hope so!!!).
I'm almost spending more on clamps than on drivers!!
The sound seems OK but wondering what are the problems of running multiple full ranges together this way, one close to the other in their own enclosure, but with multiple amplifiers...
Technical/physical laws problems? or not? Really newbie on physics of sound!
I did notice that the MAOP they seem to need more "power" then the others but right now of course I'm not pushing the volume at all.
The sound seems really so "clean" btw!
I think that a folded TL would be the best for me for the CHP-90 but I also think I would need some help to do it!
Any practical suggestion on how to proceed?
I've tried hornresp but really too complicate, then try following a vid on YT making some calculation wiht FS / SD (Quarterwave) and for the CHP-90 got a TL of 175cm with a cross section of 17.4 x 4.88cm but not sure if this can be correct and then it has also to be folded and got bit lost...
Today I've made a Golden Ratio box for the MAOP 10 and right now I have on my desk both the slotted 14L of the CHP-90 + the same of W5-2143 and on top the old RS-100 haha
Temporary of course (hope so!!!).I'm almost spending more on clamps than on drivers!!
The sound seems OK but wondering what are the problems of running multiple full ranges together this way, one close to the other in their own enclosure, but with multiple amplifiers...
Technical/physical laws problems? or not? Really newbie on physics of sound!
I did notice that the MAOP they seem to need more "power" then the others but right now of course I'm not pushing the volume at all.
The sound seems really so "clean" btw!
I think that a folded TL would be the best for me for the CHP-90 but I also think I would need some help to do it!
Any practical suggestion on how to proceed?
I've tried hornresp but really too complicate, then try following a vid on YT making some calculation wiht FS / SD (Quarterwave) and for the CHP-90 got a TL of 175cm with a cross section of 17.4 x 4.88cm but not sure if this can be correct and then it has also to be folded and got bit lost...
Attachments
Last edited by a moderator:
You're welcome!
If you tune it below Fs it will and if you want the max power available for [mid] bass 'slam', then the pioneer's Vb = Vas/1.44, Fb = 1.56x Fs prosound alignment dating from at least 1937 with the introduction of the Lansing Iconic recording/playback studio monitor is the way to go.