Obviously they are different apart from size..but how do they compare sonically, HF, LF and SPL?
Also does the CHR 70 sound more forgiving?
Also does the CHR 70 sound more forgiving?
As far as I know Alp 7 is sonically superior to CHR 7 when it comes to detail and HF. The soundstage it throws up is also probably best of all the Alpairs. Alp 7 is very revealing and will not flatter the source; a poor source will play poorly, a good one will sound good.
CHR-70 is more forgiving to the source... it is an impressive driver that can be used for multiple applications and in many cabinets. It will not bring out as much details as the Alp 7, neither does it have teh sound stage.
I have not used either. Recently ordered CHR70.2eN
CHR-70 is more forgiving to the source... it is an impressive driver that can be used for multiple applications and in many cabinets. It will not bring out as much details as the Alp 7, neither does it have teh sound stage.
I have not used either. Recently ordered CHR70.2eN
Some differences would be: design, materials, tolerances, target market. On the generation 1 models, the cone-shaped "cap" in the center seemed better done on the A7. On my gen1 CHR70, the cap was held in place by (four?) sort of spot-welds or joints whereas the A7 seemed (to my memory) to be more seamless? But that's all gen1 stuff.
I would not say the CHR70 is "more forgiving" than the A7. The A7 is "sweeter" in my limited experience.
All the Alpairs are inherently "forgiving" (in my limited experience) compared to, say, Fostex in part because the response doesn't have those peaks, are physically more robust, and (over-generalizing) target a higher Q than the majority of (but not all) popular Fostex (some exceptions: F120A, F200A, but there are others).
I would not say the CHR70 is "more forgiving" than the A7. The A7 is "sweeter" in my limited experience.
All the Alpairs are inherently "forgiving" (in my limited experience) compared to, say, Fostex in part because the response doesn't have those peaks, are physically more robust, and (over-generalizing) target a higher Q than the majority of (but not all) popular Fostex (some exceptions: F120A, F200A, but there are others).
Hi
the Alpair plays in my "CHR-istmas-Box"
ImageShack® - Online Photo and Video Hosting
Don't care about the german language - plan is a the end of text, pictures will speak for themselve.
It's a 8L BR enclosure.
there is a photo in the CHR-70-thread, both driver (CHR70 and MA7) run fine in it.
edit:
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/plan...iday-sales-special-chr70-2en.html#post2389898
Last edited:
Mark continues to refine the various models of drivers - some of the changes are very obvious such as shape and attachment location/methods for dust cap/ center dome and 2 part molded gasket, others not as obvious (without the benefit of micro / X-Ray vision) to motor and suspension components, cone profile & machining tolerances.
Since it's not possible to implement such revisions to all models at once or those already in the field/supply pipeline, we need to careful when comparing models as each are likely to be at different evolutionary stages. Further fun ensues if such changes effect T/S parameters significantly enough to require tweaking of enclosure design/tuning etc before just dropping in a replacement new model.
For me, all of which makes building and talking about this hobby even more interesting.
That said, the simplest description I can make of the difference between the versions of CHR70 and A7 that I've heard would be refinement / resolution of lower level details, soundstage dimension, and deeper LF extension. The CHR is a silly good bargain, but the A7 is superior in every respect.
I'm not even sure I want to hear the 10.2 once they've recuperated from their break-in / treatment process and are ready to populate their awaiting cabinets - I've had to completely change both my working systems twice within the past year and half .
Since it's not possible to implement such revisions to all models at once or those already in the field/supply pipeline, we need to careful when comparing models as each are likely to be at different evolutionary stages. Further fun ensues if such changes effect T/S parameters significantly enough to require tweaking of enclosure design/tuning etc before just dropping in a replacement new model.
For me, all of which makes building and talking about this hobby even more interesting.
That said, the simplest description I can make of the difference between the versions of CHR70 and A7 that I've heard would be refinement / resolution of lower level details, soundstage dimension, and deeper LF extension. The CHR is a silly good bargain, but the A7 is superior in every respect.
I'm not even sure I want to hear the 10.2 once they've recuperated from their break-in / treatment process and are ready to populate their awaiting cabinets - I've had to completely change both my working systems twice within the past year and half .
Thanks for the links Jörn, your speakers look nice.
From all the photos, different builds, cabinet choices the CHR70 does look like one fun driver! And the price is real sweet also.
Eagerly waiting to get my hands on the matched quad I ordered...😀
-Zia
From all the photos, different builds, cabinet choices the CHR70 does look like one fun driver! And the price is real sweet also.
Eagerly waiting to get my hands on the matched quad I ordered...😀
-Zia
The differences between CHR & A7 come down to finesse.
1/ Althou both cones are multiformed (no machining on the 2nd gen cones) the A7s cone has tolerances something like 10x tighter. (and the tolerances in CHR are already tighter than most drivers extant)
2/ spider on CHR is standard, on A7 one of Matsubara-sans finest
3/ A7 basket is more sopisticated, stronger, stiffer, more open, and comes with Mark's super gasket
4/ similarily front suspension, voice coil (square wire), and other details all extract more performance out of the driver.
Build wise, CHR is on similar footing with JX92, A7 is in a whole nother league. As such the A7 has nore finesse and greater downward dynamic range. This allows the A7 to expose more of the flaws of the ancillaries where the CHR will smush those over.
Don't take that as a dis of the CHR... it is a fantastic driver for the money.
dave
1/ Althou both cones are multiformed (no machining on the 2nd gen cones) the A7s cone has tolerances something like 10x tighter. (and the tolerances in CHR are already tighter than most drivers extant)
2/ spider on CHR is standard, on A7 one of Matsubara-sans finest
3/ A7 basket is more sopisticated, stronger, stiffer, more open, and comes with Mark's super gasket
4/ similarily front suspension, voice coil (square wire), and other details all extract more performance out of the driver.
Build wise, CHR is on similar footing with JX92, A7 is in a whole nother league. As such the A7 has nore finesse and greater downward dynamic range. This allows the A7 to expose more of the flaws of the ancillaries where the CHR will smush those over.
Don't take that as a dis of the CHR... it is a fantastic driver for the money.
dave
Interested to see what the gen 3 chr 70 will be like, hoping the fs will be a bit lower rather than higher. Also hope the frame isn't so massive.
The frame is unlikely to get any smaller -- not without moving to a (lessor) cast or stamped metal basket
dave
dave
Its a new frame tho, right? well, here's hoping, but it looks the same size. The gen 2 driver had a highish Fo/Fs, have a hunch the new one might be significantly lower, around 60 hz
Last edited:
The new frame is the same size, it is just stronger & stiffer,
Another point on the subject... i believe the A7 has a more advanced alloy in the cone... certainly it has a lot smoother surface (something you appreciate when putting thousands of spots on the drivers.
dave
Another point on the subject... i believe the A7 has a more advanced alloy in the cone... certainly it has a lot smoother surface (something you appreciate when putting thousands of spots on the drivers.
dave
- Status
- Not open for further replies.