diyAudio

diyAudio (http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/)
-   Markaudio (http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/markaudio/)
-   -   CHR-70 ver3 instead of EL70 (http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/markaudio/219554-chr-70-ver3-instead-el70.html)

portreathbeach 11th September 2012 08:35 PM

CHR-70 ver3 instead of EL70
 
I have built a pair or Derwent speakers using CSS EL70 drivers. They sound very good. I want to build another set of speakers using the CHR-70s. I was looking at the Windermere2 enclosures (also part of the Lake District series) which is meant to have 2xEL70 drivers, but I would like to use parallel CHR-70s in it. Would they work? If not, what would I have to change to keep the same tuning of the box?

chrisb 11th September 2012 09:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by portreathbeach (Post 3161122)
I have built a pair or Derwent speakers using CSS EL70 drivers. They sound very good. I want to build another set of speakers using the CHR-70s. I was looking at the Windermere2 enclosures (also part of the Lake District series) which is meant to have 2xEL70 drivers, but I would like to use parallel CHR-70s in it. Would they work? If not, what would I have to change to keep the same tuning of the box?



"work?" - certainly you'd get some sound, although even with whatever changes might be required for box tuning, I doubt you'd ever get the same bottom end performance from the CHR as from the EL70s (or earlier CHP70)

That said, if you do proceed, I'd highly recommend the angled / top-firing configuration for the second driver - shown by my count on page 10 of the plans set.

edit: change that to Page 16 of the (now) 27 page plan set


But it might well be that the Lotus2 (which have been built, I believe) could well be the "better" design for dual CHR70

Then of course, there's always the P10 Microtower (Castle version); there are just too many designed penned by Dave and Scott for anyone to be crazy enough to build them all - or globe-trotted around to hear them - as much as some of us have tried

portreathbeach 11th September 2012 09:12 PM

Thanks for the reply. I really like the look of the Windemere2 speakers more than the Lotus2.

If I were to build the Lotus2 can the second driver be put under the first driver and what kind of bottom end could I expect?

chrisb 11th September 2012 09:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by portreathbeach (Post 3161185)
Thanks for the reply. I really like the look of the Windemere2 speakers more than the Lotus2.

If I were to build the Lotus2 can the second driver be put under the first driver

IINM the first of such designs by Scott ( Calhoun for Cal Weldon) had the second driver side mounted to allow for playing with sound-stage / dispersion, but Dave or Scott should answer the question as to efficacy of both front mounted

Quote:


and what kind of bottom end could I expect?
detailed and quick, but not likely the same depth or weight as with dual EL70s

Scottmoose 11th September 2012 10:06 PM

Should be OK. YMMV on that score.

It's not optimal: I do not advocate randomly stuffing drivers into cabinets that are not designed for them & hoping for the best. However, in the case of Windermere, you've got outright bulk on your side, which tends to swamp the differences between the drivers. Nessies are technically 'characterful' enclosures anyway, although mine are rather better aligned than any others I am aware of. Those who like them tend to really like them though.

planet10 11th September 2012 10:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by portreathbeach (Post 3161122)
...CHR-70s. I was looking at the Windermere2 enclosures (also part of the Lake District series) which is meant to have 2xEL70 drivers, but I would like to use parallel CHR-70s in it. Would they work?

Not well. Look at the difference in size between Coniston^2 and Lotus^2 to get an idea why.

dave

portreathbeach 11th September 2012 10:31 PM

Quote:

Not well. Look at the difference in size between Coniston^2 and Lotus^2 to get an idea why.
I see your point.

Maybe I'll look into the Lotus^2, not so tall and would look better in the room. The side facing driver also look like an interesting idea. How far apart should the cabinets be?

I notice that the bottom deflector can be angled or stepped. Has anyone built a stepped version, and if so, what do they think of the difference in sound from the angled one.

chrisb 11th September 2012 10:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by portreathbeach (Post 3161271)
I see your point.

Maybe I'll look into the Lotus^2, not so tall and would look better in the room. The side facing driver also look like an interesting idea. How far apart should the cabinets be?

I notice that the bottom deflector can be angled or stepped. Has anyone built a stepped version, and if so, what do they think of the difference in sound from the angled one.


I've built designs with both stepped and angled single piece for deflectors, and honestly couldn't say that I could attribute much sonic advantage to either method.

The steps have the advantage of adding some mass that should theoretically contribute to damping of panel resonances, as well as they're generally composed of straight 90` cuts. If I was to build a tall narrow double mouth enclosure again, I'd probably use steps on the bottom (for ballast) and an angled deflector on the top, or even eliminate the top void altogether as shown on the page 12 of Lake District series plan set. I'm of the opinion that disrupting as much as possible the symmetry of panel resonances is a worthy pursuit in designs of this type.

zman01 12th September 2012 05:55 AM

Portreathbeach,

To my knowledge the side firing drivers act as 0.5 drivers and add more bass to the sound; my WAG would be that two front firing drivers would add more mid and HF - some folks find the CHR-70.x a tad bright (and others would also point out comb filtering effects... :eek:). The side drivers also widen the soundstage - please note that the Lotus even with a single driver has a more diffused image vs some of the other builds I have done with CHR-70 drivers. The CHR-70.2 in the Lotus^2 sounds less bright and the overall sound is more relaxed with warmer/softer bass.

In my rooms they've worked best placed 6-9 feet apart with the side firing drivers faced inwards. Distance from the rear wall - around 18"-24".


- Zia

Scottmoose 12th September 2012 07:18 AM

See post 5


All times are GMT. The time now is 09:06 AM.


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