You run into the same problems with any small FR. The metal Alpairs with their extremely thin cones are particularily vulnerable (CHR/EL70 not near so much).
A simple passive 1st order filter (at a minimum) preferablly line level but certainly a series cap at a minimum, will give you better mid and top as well as give a measure of protection against over excursion.
dave
All great info people, thanks. I will have to take a look at the MA are not woofers thread, love the idea of an extra set of inputs on the amp too.
My query comes from this thread, with no apparent issue running 7.3 wide open baffle w/o crossover:
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/full-range/170079-new-alpair-7-small-ob-project.html
My query comes from this thread, with no apparent issue running 7.3 wide open baffle w/o crossover:
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/full-range/170079-new-alpair-7-small-ob-project.html
I'd be less worried about a sturdier paper cone such as CHP/EL70 or for that matter Fostex, but having ruined several Alpair and CHR70 with a slight glancing touch, I'm aware of the fragility of the metal cones and would still want the extra security of HP filtering these somewhere above 120 in an OB. Somewhere photos are posted of MA metal cones crinkled by over excursion, and IIRC those were not in an OB.
I believe I saw the wrinkled metal cone in the MA aren't woofers thread mashaffer referenced. Looks like I might stick with the original FAST/biamp plan, the flexibility offered is tremendous. I am still on the fence CHR-70.3 vs EL70.
The EL70 is EOL (though from what I read here still in good supply for the foreseeable future), and the planet10-hifi site has several nice alternative boxes to build if my OB does not work out. The CHR-70 has many more alternative box designs posted, but are those not specifically marked CHR-70.3 even compatible (especially interested in the HT surrounds).
The EL70 is EOL (though from what I read here still in good supply for the foreseeable future), and the planet10-hifi site has several nice alternative boxes to build if my OB does not work out. The CHR-70 has many more alternative box designs posted, but are those not specifically marked CHR-70.3 even compatible (especially interested in the HT surrounds).
rvsixer,
While I am a newbie at DIY audio and cannot provide any guidance whatsoever on driver choice, I do have a suggestion regarding rendering the 192kbps internet streams less fatiguing. Approach it from the source side, rather than the drivers. For around $100, try adding the Grant Fidelity B-283 (AKA Yaqin CD2) between your source and your SS amp. This "tube buffer" will go a long way to removing the "digitalness" from the stream and bring some "tubiness" to the sound. If you are using integrated audio (or even a "good" sound card) in the PC, I also highly recommend going with an external DAC. I went with a lower cost but very excellent sounding one called the HotAudio DAC-WOW. The combination of this DAC ($150) and the B-283 ($100) renders even 128kbps mp3 very, very listenable for extended periods of time (not that I make an effort to do so very often 🙂 ). FLAC files sound simply sublime through this setup.
This way, you can choose drivers that are as revealing as you wish, without revealing the "digitalness" of lower-end digital streams. The bonus is that FLAC, etc. will sound that much better. A double-bonus is that you can pick up different sets of tubes (for pretty cheap) for the B-283 and do some "tube rolling", which is very fun and rewarding. On my setup, I can really feel the difference between Sylvanias and Mullards, for instance. For about $15 a pair, this is some cheap fun 🙂
While I am a newbie at DIY audio and cannot provide any guidance whatsoever on driver choice, I do have a suggestion regarding rendering the 192kbps internet streams less fatiguing. Approach it from the source side, rather than the drivers. For around $100, try adding the Grant Fidelity B-283 (AKA Yaqin CD2) between your source and your SS amp. This "tube buffer" will go a long way to removing the "digitalness" from the stream and bring some "tubiness" to the sound. If you are using integrated audio (or even a "good" sound card) in the PC, I also highly recommend going with an external DAC. I went with a lower cost but very excellent sounding one called the HotAudio DAC-WOW. The combination of this DAC ($150) and the B-283 ($100) renders even 128kbps mp3 very, very listenable for extended periods of time (not that I make an effort to do so very often 🙂 ). FLAC files sound simply sublime through this setup.
This way, you can choose drivers that are as revealing as you wish, without revealing the "digitalness" of lower-end digital streams. The bonus is that FLAC, etc. will sound that much better. A double-bonus is that you can pick up different sets of tubes (for pretty cheap) for the B-283 and do some "tube rolling", which is very fun and rewarding. On my setup, I can really feel the difference between Sylvanias and Mullards, for instance. For about $15 a pair, this is some cheap fun 🙂
Last edited:
My CHR boxes work across all the versions so far (except the new millSize CHR-Ken which is 70.3 only).
dave
won't make me popular to reiterate it, but not me - AFAIC, the EL70 is the silly bestest value in the entire line of Mark's drivers - that and the Alpair7 are standouts.
indeed, at the current rate of consumption, Bob's stock is likely to last at least several more months (such forum discussions as this could change that status, but not likely his decision)
Well, how many candidate enclosure designs does one really need? Frankly I get a bit confused and frustrated myself trying to remember all the combinations of drivers and boxes I've built over the past few years. Dave can correct me, but I think there's been very few enclosure topologies / sizes that can't fairly easily be adapted for the difference between the CHR and EL70. I do have my personal favorite enclosures, and as stated above, drivers as well.
cogitech: If I every decide to ditch the HT and or have space/$$$ for a dedicated stereo setup, this sounds like a good way to go.
Dave: Thanks for the CHR gen clarification.
This may come down to a coin toss 😀.
Dave: Thanks for the CHR gen clarification.
This may come down to a coin toss 😀.
We seem to keep posting at the same time <g>. No worries about being unpopular from me...
Here's the crux of my confusion. I've read many of the EL70 and CHR-70.3 threads here, the recurring theme I see is CHR-70.3 is second only to the Alpair 7.3 by a slight margin (HF bump and extension), while the EL70 is better on lower end, but not quite as good on the high end than either MA driver. Since I am not after low end extension, on the face of it the CHR seems a "better" choice, but the EL70 might be better with lower quality sources.
For me, more design alternatives is always good (imo that is what is so attractive about this line of drivers). Have wood/tools to build boxes, don't have $$$ to keep buying drivers for new boxes until I find the "right" sound for me.
Analysis paralysis is a terrible thing 😉.
Are you using a PC as HT source (HTPC?) ?
If so, there is no reason why you can't have the SPDIF going from the HTPC to the HT receiver, and then have a separate USB DAC + Tube Buffer going to analog input on the HT receiver. Then you just configure your movie/video player app to use SPDIF out for AC3/DTS direct to the receiver and configure your audio player app to use the DAC device.
Dedicated audio "on top" of the HT. Sure it is still just a HT SS amp, but I promise it'll sound way better driven by a DAC + Tube Buffer than it will using it's own DSP. Stick the HT reciever in "Pure Direct" mode (if it has something like it) and you might be surprised.
-- All my opinion, but i'm pretty comfortable with it, given that they parallel Chris' (we have likely had as much chance to listen to them all, and many others as most, and can pick from a wide range of speakers to listen to) and other locals.
The difference between 70.3 & 7.3 is not slight -- i'd say that even as inexpensive as it is CHR does not represent the value for the dollar of the A7. I no longer regularily treat CHR because at what i'd have to sell them for you can add a tenner & have A7 (even thou CHR70eN>>CHR). Don't get me wrong, all of the Mark Audios represent very high value for the dollar.
If you have a system that is hard up top, the new CHP, a system that is really laid back on the top, the CHR, but straddling the 2, just right as Goldylocks would say, is EL70. This is exemplified by comments i've seen on EL70 that on one hand say the top is too hot and on the other, guys that are adding tweeters. (ie speakers are part of an amp/wire/speaker system that are inextricably interdependent.
dave
The best thing you can do for your hifi listening pressure is to ditch all the lossy compressed stuff.
I regularily carry around an iPod loaded with AIFF and give people as chance to compare to their iPod with MP3. Sometimes i have trouble teasing my iPod away.
dave
In my setup I won't be using any HT SS amps for the L/R mains, a tube amp will be driving the MA drivers. However per your system description, I do now see how I can get closer to stereo/HT separation using a dedicated DAC through the HT receiver analog inputs. Thank you.
If you re-read my post you'll see that I was referring to AC3 and DTS in regard to HT (home theatre) application. What I mean by this is "watching movies". I do not see how one can "ditch" AC3, DTS, etc. over SPDIF if one's objective is watching movies.
What I was suggesting is that the OP stick with PC --> SPDIF --> HT receiver for watching movies (AC3, DTS, etc.) but then use PC --> USB-DAC --> Tube Buffer --> analog inputs of HT receiver for audio only. This solution allows him to have "semi-dedicated" 2-channel audio.
Either way, I agree about avoiding compressed formats for hi-fi audio, but the OP likes to stream 192. The combination I have suggested would smooth that 192 out like nobody's business. If he is streaming 192 from the internet and then pushing that straight out his PC SPDIF to the HT receiver then I can certainly understand why it is fatiguing...
Regarding portable audio, I run FLAC from a Sandisk running Rockbox. It "rocks" 🙂
Last edited:
I just reviewed my post above and I realize two things a) the tone could easily be misread and b) it is basically off-topic.
To be clear, I mean no offense to anyone in this forum and I have utmost respect for everyone here, especially the senior/industry members. I apologize for going so far off-topic as well.
To be clear, I mean no offense to anyone in this forum and I have utmost respect for everyone here, especially the senior/industry members. I apologize for going so far off-topic as well.
cogitech: I do appreciate your input to this thread. But as the OP, I can assure you the system usage/configurations alluded to as mine are not. I would hate to have some VERY valuable contributors to my thread run off by any misguided demands.
cogitech:
FWIW, I've heard the particular tube buffer to which you refer, and would opine that with a decent USB DAC and HT receiver in bypass mode could easily survive without it.
FWIW, I've heard the particular tube buffer to which you refer, and would opine that with a decent USB DAC and HT receiver in bypass mode could easily survive without it.
Just curious, but did you listen to one "as shipped"? If so, I agree that I could live without it if I was only listening to uncompressed formats of high quality recordings. In it's stock configuration (ie. with the Chinese 6J1 tubes) its main advantage is "de-digitalizing" compressed audio formats and generally warming up the sound. I do my best to only listen to uncompressed formats, but enough of my music library is still MP3 (of various quality) that I sometimes don't have a choice. The tube buffer makes the MP3s a lot more pleasant, regardless of what tubes are in it...
However, once you start rolling some NOS vintage European or American tubes, even uncompressed "audiophile" level recordings and re-masters benefit from the processor. All hints of "digitalness" just disappear, the sound is warmer, the soundstage opens up, and then depending on the tubes you can get really fast, tight bass with brighter highs (Sylvania) or smooth-as-silk bass with forward mids and refined highs (Mullard), etc. It can go the other way, too. The (used) Raytheons I bought have fat, flabby bass, distant mids and variably distorted (very odd) highs. They are probably done.
If you already have tube amplification, excellent source(s) and fantastic speakers (which I suspect you do) then I am not surprised at all that you can live without the B-283 🙂
Last edited:
Dave,
I thought long and hard about this post (as well as my re-read of this entire thread). Mark, chrisb, and yourself have a vast amount of experience with these drivers, and I for one really appreciate all of you sharing it (and your patience with us MA/EL noobs).
A pair of EL70's have been ordered 😀!
- Status
- Not open for further replies.