Go Back   Home > Forums > Loudspeakers > Full Range

Please consider donating to help us continue to serve you.

Ads on/off / Custom Title / More PMs / More album space / Advanced printing & mass image saving
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 4th April 2010, 07:45 AM   #31
diyAudio Member
 
torrence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Oregon
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdikovics View Post
Wavne and Torrence,
Also, the cost of doubling up is going to open up driver choices that are twice the price. But generally speaking if you are interested in a full range design, using two is not as good as finding a single driver to do the job.
This was actually going to be my next question. Is there a more expensive 8-ohm ~90 dB full-range driver which is well suited to a small (8-10 liter) sealed or ported enclosure?
  Reply With Quote
Old 4th April 2010, 08:04 AM   #32
diyAudio Member
 
Scottmoose's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: UK
The Fostex FX120 is about on the money at 89dB 1m/1w & 7.3ohm (8ohm nominal) impedance. That's a lovely unit; not large, it's a 4 1/2in driver, with about 10in^2 pistonic CSA but 8 - 10 litres isn't much Vb to be working with, & in terms of physical size, pretty much rules out anything much larger. Fostex also have their F120a as well; similar sensitivity & impedance, & an AlNiCo motor. It's about double the price of the FX120 though, so as such, I always felt the FX was the canny choice, esp. as it's very close in performance terms & has a little more Xmax too.
__________________
Community site www.frugal-horn.com Commercial site www.wodendesign.com

Last edited by Scottmoose; 4th April 2010 at 08:11 AM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 5th April 2010, 12:22 AM   #33
chrisb is offline chrisb  Canada
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: victoria BC
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scottmoose View Post
The Fostex FX120 is about on the money at 89dB 1m/1w & 7.3ohm (8ohm nominal) impedance. That's a lovely unit; not large, it's a 4 1/2in driver, with about 10in^2 pistonic CSA but 8 - 10 litres isn't much Vb to be working with, & in terms of physical size, pretty much rules out anything much larger. Fostex also have their F120a as well; similar sensitivity & impedance, & an AlNiCo motor. It's about double the price of the FX120 though, so as such, I always felt the FX was the canny choice, esp. as it's very close in performance terms & has a little more Xmax too.
I've had opportunity to hear both the A & X in Fonkenesque enclosures - but not unfortunately able to directly compare them. I could easily live with either, but certainly agree that the lesser priced unit offers great value - maybe 90-95% of the performance for far less coin.

come to think of it, I could easily live with both, and for that matter multiples of several of Mark Fenlon's continually evolving line of metal and paper coned drivers
__________________
you don't really believe everything you think, do you?
community sites t-linespeakers.org, frugal-horn.com commercial site planet10-HiFi

Last edited by chrisb; 5th April 2010 at 12:36 AM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 5th April 2010, 02:29 AM   #34
frugal-phile(tm)
diyAudio Moderator
 
planet10's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Victoria, BC, NA, Sol III
Blog Entries: 5
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scottmoose View Post
The Fostex FX120 is about on the money at 89dB 1m/1w & 7.3ohm (8ohm nominal) impedance. That's a lovely unit; not large, it's a 4 1/2in driver, with about 10in^2 pistonic CSA but 8 - 10 litres isn't much Vb to be working with, & in terms of physical size, pretty much rules out anything much larger.
I treat FX120 & F120A the same when it comes to boxes. Vented i wouldn't go less than 10 litre. Fonken-steen (20 l?) showed room for enven more Vb. I have an unbuilt design of 30 litres, the intention of which was to explore the limits.

89 dB is optimistic for these...

dave
__________________
community sites t-linespeakers.org, frugal-horn.com, frugal-phile.com ........ commercial site planet10-HiFi
p10-hifi forum here at diyA
  Reply With Quote
Old 6th April 2010, 01:41 AM   #35
diyAudio Member
 
markaudio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Talking of twinning Markaudio drivers:

Here's the anechoic chamber test results from work I did for an Australian company early last year. The frequency response is well balanced for 2 X CHR-70 (from memory) in a 9 litre BR with twin ports. There's no filtering of anykind on this set-up.

What's interesting to note is the relative near flat response that doesn't show any significant variations in output compared to a previous single driver anechoic tests.

This measurement was taken at 1 metre distance from the cabinet. No differential and combing issues were evident on this and other tests we ran at the time.

Cheers

Mark.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg 002_CHR70.jpg (24.4 KB, 269 views)
File Type: jpg Fr_2XCHR70_BR.jpg (106.3 KB, 280 views)

Last edited by markaudio; 6th April 2010 at 01:48 AM. Reason: additional info.
  Reply With Quote

Reply


Hide this!Advertise here!
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
chr-70 designs. castlesteve Full Range 17 1st June 2011 09:27 AM
New CHR-70 markaudio Markaudio 68 3rd February 2011 01:44 PM
CHR-70, CHP-70, Alpair 7 Desktops - Japan markaudio Full Range 4 1st February 2010 01:42 AM
F.A.S.T. Project: Tangband W3-315 vs. MARK AUDIO CHR-70, CSS EL-70 or Alpair jockel77 Full Range 13 11th January 2010 11:20 PM


New To Site? Need Help?

All times are GMT. The time now is 10:07 PM.


vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright 1999-2014 diyAudio

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2