Pearl Acoustic Sibelius

But I still think it's pure commercial matter ;-).
Just another decal on the back specialy for Pearl Acoustics haha.
OK. Three points here.
1/ This has already been covered
2/ It doesn't actually matter what you (or anybody else, including me) think ;)
3/ Repeating myself again -the Pearl driver is built for them by Markaudio. It is not a current generation Alpair 10; it shares [most of] the cone but the motor design is different, per their requirements. I'm a consultant to Markaudio, so I actually know what's in it: I'm not saying what I 'think', this is simple fact.
 
  • Thank You
Reactions: 1 user
You mean this design?
Very nice speaker with the Pluvia 7 PHD.

1701923382837.png
 
Mistake #1 in the review: it is a nominal 5.25” driver (which has a cone 100mm across)

Mistake#2: Not a phase plug, but a dustcap, but it does act like a 1” tweeter.

Terminology: A voigt is in the TL (quarter-wave) class of loudspeakers

Good comments on what no XO brings.

Hegel had too low an output impedance… too much damping.

dave
Too much damping Dave? That's interesting, we always design for greater damping for better speaker control. Give me your thoughts, thanks.
 
frugal-phile™
Joined 2001
Paid Member
we always design for greater damping for better speaker control

As in design amplifiers?

The right damping — ie output impedance — is that Rout that matches the loudspeaker. An amplifier can have too low Rout

And always? What about all those SETs, SEPs, the ACA, F1, F2, many more.

The loudspeaker, amplifier (and the cable that connects them) has to be considered as a system.

Anyone in the higher damping is better camp has some learnign to go thru yet.

dave
 
frugal-phile™
Joined 2001
Paid Member
A10.2 gold is not produced anymore

A10.2 gold was never produced. They were A10.2 copper. Don’t know why MA still use gold and grey which disappeared with Gen 1.

In th eenclosure dominant TLs and horns extention remains simialr, in a reflex or sealed teh A10.2 definietly goes lower.

A10.2 is >>> in the top than the A10.1. A10.3 refines things further.

While the A7.3 had decidely better resolution/DDR than the A10.2, the A10.3 brings this to the point where most would not note the difference. If given the choice i would choose the A10.3.

dave
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
It can probably be simulated in Hornresp or something with stock A10.3 parameters and see is it ok, or simply use some old closet sides to make box and measure it.
I sure like my Frugals but they take some floor space, this size cabinet would be very nice in the smaller room where every floor inch matter
 
A10.2 gold was never produced. They were A10.2 copper. Don’t know why MA still use gold and grey which disappeared with Gen 1.

In th eenclosure dominant TLs and horns extention remains simialr, in a reflex or sealed teh A10.2 definietly goes lower.

A10.2 is >>> in the top than the A10.1. A10.3 refines things further.

While the A7.3 had decidely better resolution/DDR than the A10.2, the A10.3 brings this to the point where most would not note the difference. If given the choice i would choose the A10.3.

dave
Is it worth it to build simple MDF cabinets according my drawing with Gen.3?
 
I just used DATS V3 with some Markaudio NIB drivers, they are close to each other but way off published parameters from manufacturer. I like to work with wood since early age as carpenter child, but can't design box cause I skipped to much math classes...so for fun I build proven designs for drivers I have, and it seems that some of those designs are calculated with published parameters which are not always correct