I have a couple of CHR-70 (bought a couple of years ago). I wan't to mount them from the back so inly the cone is visible.
Are their any issues I should consider?
1: A hole og 75 mm will only expose the cone, will there be any audible diffraktion noise from the cabinet (the hole will be routed to have minimum front plate thickness where it will meet the cone).
2: Should I make the hole bigger and expose the rubber surround as well?
Are their any issues I should consider?
1: A hole og 75 mm will only expose the cone, will there be any audible diffraktion noise from the cabinet (the hole will be routed to have minimum front plate thickness where it will meet the cone).
2: Should I make the hole bigger and expose the rubber surround as well?
sorry, but I have to ask, WHY? - Mark has gone to great effort with the CHP/CHR /EL70, Alpair 6 and 7 (without extra ring) to design a low profile mounting bezel with minimum diffraction signature. They work best when rebated for flush mounting.
yup, diffraction would be a big big issue
Yes, at the very least you want the hole to expose to the edge of surround/frame juncture, and chamfer or radius the front of opening as well. Of course, you'll then have to worry about having sufficient core of material in front panel to use the stock screw mounting holes - you might need to use something like a sink mounting clip.
Why? - it looks way better. I'm doing it right now with some tang bands, but the surround is not inverse here so I guess they behave quite different. Here I have no problem with diffraction. I hoped someone have tried this, but apparently not.
It's quite simple to make a test baffle, so I will do that, and report back.
It's quite simple to make a test baffle, so I will do that, and report back.
For rear mounting you want to champher the front cutout, and this is a good place to use a piece of aluminum, or at least rebate the inside so that the thickness is thin where the driver front sits. If one rebated the inside so that the back of the bezel was flush with the inside of the baffle a number of large fender washers could be used to hold the driver in place.
Hole should be the size of the outside edge of the active part of the surround, and you will likely need an appropriately thick piece of closed cell foam to fill the small gap between where the surround is glued and the back of the baffle.
dave
Hole should be the size of the outside edge of the active part of the surround, and you will likely need an appropriately thick piece of closed cell foam to fill the small gap between where the surround is glued and the back of the baffle.
dave
thanks. good ideas here.
With my tangbands I have routed the cut out, and again a wider hole, that just fits the outer measures of the gasket. Now I have full control so that the unit don't slide. From the back I push it on the magnet, so it sits tightly in the cabinet - no screws needed.
The inside will be rebated as I mentioned (I just didn't know the right word)
With my tangbands I have routed the cut out, and again a wider hole, that just fits the outer measures of the gasket. Now I have full control so that the unit don't slide. From the back I push it on the magnet, so it sits tightly in the cabinet - no screws needed.
The inside will be rebated as I mentioned (I just didn't know the right word)
Hi Kjeldsen,
Chris B is correct in that your back mount design does run the risk of producing a "tunnel" effect. Depending on the thickness of the front baffle, some restriction of dispersion may result. Usually such effects will be audible, a slightly muffled sound is the most noticeable difference.
Take a look at the illustration. Most Full-Range driver's emittance is limited by the use of top mounted front suspension and deeper cone profiles. These traditional design characteristics are easier to manufacture, reducing the cost of production. The Markaudio designs consist of lower profile cones and use a under-hung front suspension to avoid the restriction posed by top-mount types. Markaudio designs produce a wide dispersion characteristic.
Should you wish to continue with rear mounting the drivers, its best to follow Chris's and Dave's mounting advice.
Thanks
Mark.
Chris B is correct in that your back mount design does run the risk of producing a "tunnel" effect. Depending on the thickness of the front baffle, some restriction of dispersion may result. Usually such effects will be audible, a slightly muffled sound is the most noticeable difference.
Take a look at the illustration. Most Full-Range driver's emittance is limited by the use of top mounted front suspension and deeper cone profiles. These traditional design characteristics are easier to manufacture, reducing the cost of production. The Markaudio designs consist of lower profile cones and use a under-hung front suspension to avoid the restriction posed by top-mount types. Markaudio designs produce a wide dispersion characteristic.
Should you wish to continue with rear mounting the drivers, its best to follow Chris's and Dave's mounting advice.
Thanks
Mark.
Attachments
Last edited:
Thanks - I have modified the image.
The top is my Tangband W4-1320B and the black is the front baffle.
The Markaudio: Should I keep the baffle "under" the green lines as shown? Left is as planet10 shuggests. The right is with the rubber surround covered. I know that the surround is an active part of the speaker, but is the radiating sound from the surround desirable?
![dispersion-illustration[1].jpg](https://www.diyaudio.com/community/data/attachments/223/223502-503241c4c90bffe046ec06c3260031c0.jpg "dispersion-illustration[1].jpg")
The top is my Tangband W4-1320B and the black is the front baffle.
The Markaudio: Should I keep the baffle "under" the green lines as shown? Left is as planet10 shuggests. The right is with the rubber surround covered. I know that the surround is an active part of the speaker, but is the radiating sound from the surround desirable?
Hi K,
For the CHR-70, its best not to impede its wide dispersion performance. Try to keep the front baffle as thin as possible where close to the driver's front suspension. Shaping the front baffle around the front of the driver is desirable (below the green line if possible). Please don't cover the front suspension.
Thanks
Mark.
Last edited:
Mine is older generation
like these
like these
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
thanks again.
Cabinet
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/multi-way/190815-dipole-monopole.html
I can be tilted so chr-70 fires more og less up in the ceiling. This is for finetuning.
I'm going to make a prototype first, to see if my idea is stupid, or something to go along with. I have multiple other drivers if the CHR-70 is not right for the job.
Cabinet
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/multi-way/190815-dipole-monopole.html
I can be tilted so chr-70 fires more og less up in the ceiling. This is for finetuning.
I'm going to make a prototype first, to see if my idea is stupid, or something to go along with. I have multiple other drivers if the CHR-70 is not right for the job.
Mark, I wasn't sure if I should start a new thread, feel free to move this if you want.
Basically this thread has got me thinking. I've got some gen two alpair 7s. Given their wide dispersion I'm thinking that the extra mounting ring would be detrimental in terms of diffraction? I guess the same would be the case with the newer gen three alpairs? Is this why you decided to offer the extra mounting ring as an optional feature?
Would like to hear your (or anyone elses thoughts) on the matter.
Basically this thread has got me thinking. I've got some gen two alpair 7s. Given their wide dispersion I'm thinking that the extra mounting ring would be detrimental in terms of diffraction? I guess the same would be the case with the newer gen three alpairs? Is this why you decided to offer the extra mounting ring as an optional feature?
Would like to hear your (or anyone elses thoughts) on the matter.
The same reasoning keeps me from using the bezel covers whenever they come seperate.
dave
I consider the mounting depth of MA drivers to be a problem. If I am using 18mm/3/4" material, I double it or use doubled 12mm = 24mm. I like a thick baffle anyway, so this is not a philosophical issue to me.
Bob
Hi Westy,
To help with clarity:
1 - There is No diffraction issue with the front cover.
2 - The cover increases the frame stiffness and aids reduction of the boundary resonance coming off the cone/front suspension.
Adding the front cover does increase the recess depth. For some box makers, this is a build challenge, so the choice is their's to decline the use of the covers. Please use the covers where possible, subject to your front baffle thickness. Ideally, net baffle thickness (side wall facing the rear of cone) should not exceed 10-mm and should chamfered off, or angled away from the cone.
Thanks
Mark.
Last edited:
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.