Have started my FHXL build, have cut my 18mm ply for sides and all other parts as strips ready for cutting to size once sides are finished. I was planning on using MA Alpair 11 MS, but are interested in the CHN-110 drivers which have received very good reviews. I think Dave mentioned that the CHN-110 is better suited to the Joan, what would be the sound difference between the two drivers in a FHXL box. Is the Alpair 11 a far better driver than the CHN-110, do you get what you pay for, or is the CHN-110 hitting well above it's weight. I've seen that other plans for the 110 like the Pencil that have bigger dimensions to one for a Alpair 11, so what effect would this have fitting the 110 to a FHXL rather than Joan. If I did go with the 110 would the box require more stuffing of less.
Chn 110 has higher Q , needing twice as big box than alpair 11.
I still have my chn110 in a 31 liter ported speaker ( resonance tuning at 36 Hz ) . This plays music better than my SAM monitors .
I have also thought about buying 11m instead of chn110, but the measurements for 110 shows it’s better performing than most Markaudio drivers . The 11m needs half of the volume but can’t play as loud as 110 or go as deep .
Because of the high Q of the 110, it’s very suitable to use a ported construction in a big box and tune the speaker 10 Hz below the drivers fs .
The chn110 is good enough to show big differences in your source and amplifier . It’s a fantastic driver in my opinion.
Last, I strongly advice room correction with dsp for every speaker used, easily done with a Wiim pro or Wiim ultra.
I still have my chn110 in a 31 liter ported speaker ( resonance tuning at 36 Hz ) . This plays music better than my SAM monitors .
I have also thought about buying 11m instead of chn110, but the measurements for 110 shows it’s better performing than most Markaudio drivers . The 11m needs half of the volume but can’t play as loud as 110 or go as deep .
Because of the high Q of the 110, it’s very suitable to use a ported construction in a big box and tune the speaker 10 Hz below the drivers fs .
The chn110 is good enough to show big differences in your source and amplifier . It’s a fantastic driver in my opinion.
Last, I strongly advice room correction with dsp for every speaker used, easily done with a Wiim pro or Wiim ultra.
Last edited:
Thanks for your reply, what you say is very interesting. Coming round to thinking the CHN 110 might be a good choice for my FHXL build, even if the case is on the small side of ideal.
At the risk of introducing some facts [and even science 😉 ] here:
We designed CHN-110 as a high value drive unit specifically to require larger enclosure volumes, and to provide more LF extension than Pluvia 11 or Alpair 11MS. That was largely driven by market conditions, and that Mark [although he sold the company years ago] was trying to present it as an alternative to inexpensive midbass drivers. Which it is, to a point. It's a very flexible drive unit in that sense. However:
Alpair 11MS:
Peak current draw = 2.205A
SPL = 88.364dB 1m/2.83v
SPLmax = 100.35dB
η0 = 0.388%
CHN-110:
Peak current draw = 2.572A
SPL = 89.05dB 1m/2.83v
SPLmax = 101.88dB
η0 = 0.43%
CHN-110 has a higher voltage sensitivity of 0.686dB and 1.53dB greater potential peak outout, partly from its lower impedance coil & that we designed it to be somewhat more 'robust'. However, in real-world conditions, the extra LF potential comes with the requirement of a box around 2.6x larger, and the price of that is reduced power-handling [roughly a 20% reduction for an equivalent 4th order alignment], since unfortunately, we don't get something for nothing. 11MS, having a thinner coil winding & higher impedance, has less thermal power handling, & being tuned higher unloads that much higher, so these two factors largely balance each other out. It also has more in the way of HF potential than CHN, which was designed to be a bit softer on the top end; the two drivers were measured on different systems & different chambers so the data isn't exactly comparable, but the additional axial output on 11MS is partly because a consequence of the negative camber cone is that although it promotes a flatter power response through the upper midband, it has a little more blanking off-axis in the HF so it needs some extra axial output to compensate. Overall, it's a higher performance unit & if you back to back them in the same enclosure like the KJF kits I worked up with Stefan, it's not a subtle difference; that being said, CHN is a great performer for the money and punches well above its weight. 11MS is worth the extra unless you really want the greater LF extension potential [which only applies with enclosures designed for that purpose]; in that sense, unfortunately 😉 you get what you pay for, but you can't go too far wrong with either, so if budget it tight, you'll still get very good results.
We designed CHN-110 as a high value drive unit specifically to require larger enclosure volumes, and to provide more LF extension than Pluvia 11 or Alpair 11MS. That was largely driven by market conditions, and that Mark [although he sold the company years ago] was trying to present it as an alternative to inexpensive midbass drivers. Which it is, to a point. It's a very flexible drive unit in that sense. However:
The first and last parts are true enough, for the excellent reason that it wasn't designed to require a large enclosure or for maximum LF extension. 11MS has significantly more damping at resonance, a more advanced, lower distortion motor assembly, mono-suspension and a negative camber cone to provide a flatter power response through the upper midband. Regarding 'it can't play as loud' using the published mean data values:
Alpair 11MS:
Peak current draw = 2.205A
SPL = 88.364dB 1m/2.83v
SPLmax = 100.35dB
η0 = 0.388%
CHN-110:
Peak current draw = 2.572A
SPL = 89.05dB 1m/2.83v
SPLmax = 101.88dB
η0 = 0.43%
CHN-110 has a higher voltage sensitivity of 0.686dB and 1.53dB greater potential peak outout, partly from its lower impedance coil & that we designed it to be somewhat more 'robust'. However, in real-world conditions, the extra LF potential comes with the requirement of a box around 2.6x larger, and the price of that is reduced power-handling [roughly a 20% reduction for an equivalent 4th order alignment], since unfortunately, we don't get something for nothing. 11MS, having a thinner coil winding & higher impedance, has less thermal power handling, & being tuned higher unloads that much higher, so these two factors largely balance each other out. It also has more in the way of HF potential than CHN, which was designed to be a bit softer on the top end; the two drivers were measured on different systems & different chambers so the data isn't exactly comparable, but the additional axial output on 11MS is partly because a consequence of the negative camber cone is that although it promotes a flatter power response through the upper midband, it has a little more blanking off-axis in the HF so it needs some extra axial output to compensate. Overall, it's a higher performance unit & if you back to back them in the same enclosure like the KJF kits I worked up with Stefan, it's not a subtle difference; that being said, CHN is a great performer for the money and punches well above its weight. 11MS is worth the extra unless you really want the greater LF extension potential [which only applies with enclosures designed for that purpose]; in that sense, unfortunately 😉 you get what you pay for, but you can't go too far wrong with either, so if budget it tight, you'll still get very good results.
Smoother. At the expense of DDR.
As an analogy would be a body of water. The CHN-110 has a smoother surface but the water is not as deep (surface = measured FR, depth is the DDR [ability to do detail, the small bits])
CHN-110 is REALLY good value.
dave
Very interesting, a very clear description of what both drivers are capable of. I understand a bit more now, thank you. Probably stick with my first choice, the Alpair 11 MS.