Hi,
I'm having a bit of trouble with a small full range that I've built. It's a CHP-70 Gen 2 in a 8L BR tuned to 60. I've tried anywhere from 52 to 60hz and like the bass from 60. Tuning confirmed with impedance measurement. The issue I'm having is with the way they sound. Everything has kind of a cupped hand effect, if that makes sense, and they sound kind of thin with not much texture or richness. I have tried adding a bsc of anywhere from 2 to 5db and they do gain some bass and become more laid back but the traits mentioned above never disappear. Run without any filter seems to sound best, but they still don't sound good.
I'm running it off a Lepai 2020A+ and when I connect other speakers they sound fine.
They only have about 20 hours on them, but it doesn't seem like they should sound like this only from lack of run-in. Maybe this is the problem though.
Also, I know the Chp-70 have a reduced output after 7K and maybe this is just the natural quality of the speaker and I choose wrong.
Any input at all would be appreciated.
Thanks,
Evan
I'm having a bit of trouble with a small full range that I've built. It's a CHP-70 Gen 2 in a 8L BR tuned to 60. I've tried anywhere from 52 to 60hz and like the bass from 60. Tuning confirmed with impedance measurement. The issue I'm having is with the way they sound. Everything has kind of a cupped hand effect, if that makes sense, and they sound kind of thin with not much texture or richness. I have tried adding a bsc of anywhere from 2 to 5db and they do gain some bass and become more laid back but the traits mentioned above never disappear. Run without any filter seems to sound best, but they still don't sound good.
I'm running it off a Lepai 2020A+ and when I connect other speakers they sound fine.
They only have about 20 hours on them, but it doesn't seem like they should sound like this only from lack of run-in. Maybe this is the problem though.
Also, I know the Chp-70 have a reduced output after 7K and maybe this is just the natural quality of the speaker and I choose wrong.
Any input at all would be appreciated.
Thanks,
Evan
Hey zman, thanks for responding.
1. I think they probably do need more break-in
2. I think it is fairly optimal, dim are 7.25x12.75x9.5" WxHxD. 3/4 mdf for now(test cabnet)
3. I did chamfer the back of driver hole.
I have gotten them to sound a bit better by removing the acoustic stuffing and just leaving the walls lined. Also, I didn't recess the driver since this is a test cab; not sure if this could cause any of the effects I'm experiencing.
Evan
1. I think they probably do need more break-in
2. I think it is fairly optimal, dim are 7.25x12.75x9.5" WxHxD. 3/4 mdf for now(test cabnet)
3. I did chamfer the back of driver hole.
I have gotten them to sound a bit better by removing the acoustic stuffing and just leaving the walls lined. Also, I didn't recess the driver since this is a test cab; not sure if this could cause any of the effects I'm experiencing.
Evan
It may well do; diffraction can have odd effects like this. The drivers do need a couple of hundred hours on them before they start to give of their best (and don't try thrashing them with heavy rock etc.: the MA units prefer a more gradual process, like car engines). Equally, the shelved down top end on the 2nd gen. CHP does make a fairly idiosyncratic balance, & it could be you just don't care for it. On the up-side, you can add a tweeter easily enough if that does prove to be the case.
Thanks, they actually are starting to sound better, so I may have jumped the gun a bit without giving them a proper run in. The thing that seemed to help the most was removing the stuffing. I tried anything from a handful to pretty heavily stuffed. Do the MA's not respond well to stuffing? I usually still lightly stuff a BR. Walls are lined with what I had laying around (1.5" acoustic foam and fiberglass insulation).
Also, switching to 2.5 and 3 ways I certainly become aware of the lack of tweeter, but that doesn't seem to be what's bothering me. It's more of an echo and muddy sound, lack of clarity. Maybe that's the "classic sound" mentioned? I don't have really any experience with older speakers.
Evan
They're fine with stuffing, although it's best to avoid placing any too close to the driver, since you can mass-load & thereby slightly deform the cone under dynamic loads.
Acoustic foam is horrible stuff (no pun intended) IMO, although fiberglass works well.
Possibly. The 'classic' sound mentioned presumably refers to the fact that many (not all) older wideband units didn't have much on the top end, i.e. above about 10KHz. However, the gen.2 CHP still does have output to about 15KHz; it's just been rather abruptly shelved down at about -6dB relative to the nominal. So you still have harmonics etc. present in that region, but at a lower level. YMMV. Some people love them, others don't care for it. They seem to go down well in Japan, presumably as a tonic against the Fostex / Diatone etc. sound which tends to have considerable HF energy. Me, I think they make a useful midbass, although there's a dedicated version for that purpose.
Acoustic foam is horrible stuff (no pun intended) IMO, although fiberglass works well.
Possibly. The 'classic' sound mentioned presumably refers to the fact that many (not all) older wideband units didn't have much on the top end, i.e. above about 10KHz. However, the gen.2 CHP still does have output to about 15KHz; it's just been rather abruptly shelved down at about -6dB relative to the nominal. So you still have harmonics etc. present in that region, but at a lower level. YMMV. Some people love them, others don't care for it. They seem to go down well in Japan, presumably as a tonic against the Fostex / Diatone etc. sound which tends to have considerable HF energy. Me, I think they make a useful midbass, although there's a dedicated version for that purpose.
Yes, I know that's the general consensus on BR boxes, though read many designers recommend stuffing lightly and away from port. In this case not stuffing seems to be the way to go.
So anyways, I'm starting to like them more and I'm going to let them run in some more. Do you guys have anymore advice to get the best sound from these in an 8L BR. I'm just starting to build the real boxes for them, so still time to make adjustments.
On the foam, I've used it before with decent results, but I didn't do an a/b with anything else in the same speaker. I would of liked to use felt or cotton insulation, but I couldn't really find any around. This time I'm going to probably try the fiberglass.
Evan
update
Okay, so I have built permanent enclosures for these and let them run in some more. I also have worked in a some bsc; they sound good and lively without it, but I prefer a more laid back speaker. I used 1mh and 4.2 ohm in a 7" baffle for 4db.
I must say that my earlier misgivings have disappeared. They sound excellent. Good tonal balance, voices, piano, violin, electric and acoustic guitar all sound really nice. They have quite a bit of bass for a speaker this size. I originally thought I like port tuning of 60hz to give it a little boost, but I think 57-58 sounds best, still playing with this though. Also they are a little rolled off up top, but the information is still there, just reduced. I don't really miss it unless switching to something with a tweeter.
Thanks for the help guys
Evan
Okay, so I have built permanent enclosures for these and let them run in some more. I also have worked in a some bsc; they sound good and lively without it, but I prefer a more laid back speaker. I used 1mh and 4.2 ohm in a 7" baffle for 4db.
I must say that my earlier misgivings have disappeared. They sound excellent. Good tonal balance, voices, piano, violin, electric and acoustic guitar all sound really nice. They have quite a bit of bass for a speaker this size. I originally thought I like port tuning of 60hz to give it a little boost, but I think 57-58 sounds best, still playing with this though. Also they are a little rolled off up top, but the information is still there, just reduced. I don't really miss it unless switching to something with a tweeter.
Thanks for the help guys
Evan
Erm.. imo It's a Toy speaker..
Charitably these do give a vignette of 'good'.
But Only a small preview. Much more is lacking than is actually delivered.
One could build the truly odd combination of a refrigerator sized box to house a 4" driver, hoping to extract hidden goodness.. or not. Try it?
But what's the sense in that?
Want better sounds? Go much bigger and pay Lots more. Or buy time proven used ?
Caveat Emptor does apply.. as always.
Charitably these do give a vignette of 'good'.
But Only a small preview. Much more is lacking than is actually delivered.
One could build the truly odd combination of a refrigerator sized box to house a 4" driver, hoping to extract hidden goodness.. or not. Try it?
But what's the sense in that?
Want better sounds? Go much bigger and pay Lots more. Or buy time proven used ?
Caveat Emptor does apply.. as always.
Ah, the gentleman is back, moaning because he didn't bother reading the information in the data sheet, didn't bother looking at the frequency response, stuffed the drivers into a pair of boxes salvaged from a minisystem without any thought whatsoever given to the alignmment, and therefore blames them for their HF extension (read the data sheet & look at the FR), and because being 4in wideband drive units, they lack the dynamic range of a couple of 15in Tannoys.
Go figure.
Go figure.
I don't know if i'd say it's a toy speaker... actually I wouldn't say that. It's decent for what it is. It's a small speaker mounted in a small box. As such, there are definitely short comings; bass, sound stage size, super clear detail is lacking because the mid is having to make bass and no high freq driver. I knew these things going in.
I have large speakers and there will be others even bigger on the horizon. I also don't see the point in tiny drivers in a huge speaker. My next build will probably be a 3 way with 10" or 12" bass and 6.5 or 8" mid. Why make a little tiny speaker struggle to produce the bass while also handling the mids when you have all that real estate to put multiple drivers.
Compared to my Troels Graveson Nomex 164's they hang in there pretty good. They don't have the super smooth shimmery highs of the Scanspeak tweeter or the more effortless lows and mids of the dual 6.5" drivers, but they come close in general.
Compared to my Kef's, once again they don't have the bass of a floorstander, but they are much smoother and nicer to listen to.
Regards,
Evan
I have large speakers and there will be others even bigger on the horizon. I also don't see the point in tiny drivers in a huge speaker. My next build will probably be a 3 way with 10" or 12" bass and 6.5 or 8" mid. Why make a little tiny speaker struggle to produce the bass while also handling the mids when you have all that real estate to put multiple drivers.
Compared to my Troels Graveson Nomex 164's they hang in there pretty good. They don't have the super smooth shimmery highs of the Scanspeak tweeter or the more effortless lows and mids of the dual 6.5" drivers, but they come close in general.
Compared to my Kef's, once again they don't have the bass of a floorstander, but they are much smoother and nicer to listen to.
Regards,
Evan
"Smoother and nicer to listen to". That is the goal of every "next" speaker I have built.
The chp-70s in my frugal horns give the most musical presentation I have ever had. Upper end roll off is no problem for my ears at my age. The bottom end is a little "bloomy" but certainly not offensive.
I am presently experimenting with a 2 way plus sub floorstander using the nomex 164. If I can achieve the same musicality as the chp-70 but with improved bottom end I shall be more than satisfied.....for a while. After all, this is a hobby.
I found the amp to make a noticeable difference with the chp. B1 pre and F5 works best for me. Symasym on a breadboard at the moment looks very promising too.
Peter
The chp-70s in my frugal horns give the most musical presentation I have ever had. Upper end roll off is no problem for my ears at my age. The bottom end is a little "bloomy" but certainly not offensive.
I am presently experimenting with a 2 way plus sub floorstander using the nomex 164. If I can achieve the same musicality as the chp-70 but with improved bottom end I shall be more than satisfied.....for a while. After all, this is a hobby.
I found the amp to make a noticeable difference with the chp. B1 pre and F5 works best for me. Symasym on a breadboard at the moment looks very promising too.
Peter
Hey Peter,
Those are my goals too, among others.
Are you meaning you are using the Peerless 830875 for your two way or taking Troels design and tweaking it? The Troels Design is very musical, bass is very respectable (I built the 40L) and they are very smooth and easy to listen to
The Peerless is a nice driver that I have zero complaints about. Seems made well, looks great and sound great.
Evan
Those are my goals too, among others.
Are you meaning you are using the Peerless 830875 for your two way or taking Troels design and tweaking it? The Troels Design is very musical, bass is very respectable (I built the 40L) and they are very smooth and easy to listen to
The Peerless is a nice driver that I have zero complaints about. Seems made well, looks great and sound great.
Evan
Yes, I was not disappointed. One thing is that they are supposed to deliver tons of detail. I think the CHP delivers a little more of the subtle stuff. I have attenuated the tweeter level 2.5db in the NOMEX. Could this be the culprit? I've been planning on bringing it back up to see, but it's a pain in the *** opening the speaker up and tearing the crossover apart.
Peter, Troels Jensen speakers sound like they might fit the bill for you two way with sub. They are three way with 10" I believe. He had planned a version with the Nomex 830875, but I haven't seen it. Not sure if he scraped that one or just not done it yet. You could always ask him; he's a real nice guy. They crossovers for those speaker are a nightmare cost wise though. Of course you can use cheaper stuff than he does.
Evan
Possibly, although it's also quite likely a matter of the voicing of the drivers. Without being able to measure them side by side to ascertain exactly what's going on, it's difficult to say. Personally, I'd leave Troels' design as-is since it's likely a balance that will suit extended periods.
The reason I attenuated it further, only about .5 db more than he calls for, is that female vocals were sounding just a bit shrill. Now the speakers are rather warm and mellow and vocals sound very real. They are probably not real balanced, but it doesn't stand out. Overall, they sound great
Evan
Evan
Hi Evan....
Not meaning to digress from the full range, but to respond to your question, I am using the peerless 830875 and vifa xt25 in my 2 way w/dayton 10" sub actively crossed. If you are interested, there is a picture of it attached to my last post in the multi-way forum. In fact, my Frugelhorn is there too. I have some other drivers that i intend to try also, that I have acquired over the years. If I can achieve the almost holographic quality of the full ranger, I'll be really pleased, but I suspect that may be a quality limited to crossoverless speakers.
Peter
Not meaning to digress from the full range, but to respond to your question, I am using the peerless 830875 and vifa xt25 in my 2 way w/dayton 10" sub actively crossed. If you are interested, there is a picture of it attached to my last post in the multi-way forum. In fact, my Frugelhorn is there too. I have some other drivers that i intend to try also, that I have acquired over the years. If I can achieve the almost holographic quality of the full ranger, I'll be really pleased, but I suspect that may be a quality limited to crossoverless speakers.
Peter
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.