CHN-110 cabs

Jump to Latest
#44
Teaser, purposely too small to read dims, Scott is doing QC.

Quad0CHN110-teaser.png


dave
 
  • Like
Reactions: LeifB60 and GM
#45
Excuse me for hijacking this thread. I scored myself a pair of CHN-110 when they're on special from the local distributor a few months back. The pair have been breaking-in in the garage 24/7 ever since. Initially set my heart on the Pensil cabinet but for some unknown reason never get it done. Recently I came across another cab called Proteus on MA website, looks interesting, slightly smaller, apart from that very little info available. Has anyone built one, how does it compare to the the larger Pensil? Thanks

Proteus-CHN110-RTL.png
 
Last edited by a moderator:
#51
No, there isn't a specific megalith for CHN-110; since it's not generally considered a 'horn driver' (although it can be used that way easily enough) I didn't really bother, since it goes straight into Silbury with only some damping changes needed.

Truth to tell, we've let the Woden site get years out of date -time, money, heath, software etc. all played their role. Most of the horns have had updates over the years as driver generations have changed or new models appeared: they just haven't been noted on the site or pdf titles. For reference, Silbury is current for:
  • Alpair 10.3 / 10P (discontinued but a few still available)
  • MAOP10 (ditto)
  • CHR-90 (basically the guts of the 10.3 with a new basket, coil & cap, & a slightly trimmed down cone which actually makes it stiffer)
  • CHP-90
  • CHN-110
  • Pluvia 11
  • MAOP11
  • Alpair 11MS
She's a a high-gain (by design intent) horn so in practice, all that really changes between the drivers is the damping -which builders will be ('should' 😉 ) be adjusting anyway to suit their own systems / rooms as part of the normal adjusting / optimising process. The alignment changes a little, as you'd expect, but not actually by a great deal & differences in that sense will be swamped out by the differences in the damping mentioned, and room location / acoustics.

We did have a mk1 Brodgar -I largely discontinued that because the 11MS essentially does as well in Silbury, so there was little value in having the separate design. A mk2 version is in the works for MA200 since it's a good name & it would be a shame to lose it. 😉
 
#57
For that, read 'doesn't require some form of horn loading' (unlike many low Q / high mass-corner units). That doesn't mean it doesn't benefit from one, depending on circumstance / requirements. Strictly speaking, if a drive unit is suited to vented box loading, it can be used in a back-loaded horn if desired.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GM
#58
Ok, I should give a little more context of where I am at decision wise. Here is where I see the benefits of each speaker design. Please correct me if I am wrong or elaborate as needed. Without seeing simulations of all of these designs, I am having trouble weighing my options. At first, I am kind of favoring the Joan and the Kangchenjunga.

Kewel - Plays low, smaller form factor (not a concern) not really sure the benefit of this design over a straight ported design.
Kangchenjunga - Larger than the Kewel, not sure how low it plays, acoustically more efficient with lower power handling. I like to form factor on this one
Pensil - May not play the lowest. I am worried with this one being front "ported" since that usually does not work well in my room. My room tends to favor rear ported.
Joan - Needs rear wall for bass extension, may not play as low, but has better midbass
Silbury/Avebury - these seem awesome as in overall scale. Not sure these are truly needed to get the most out of the CHN110.
 
Last edited:
#59
Going through:
johnny5jz said:
Kewel - Plays low, smaller form factor (not a concern) not really sure the benefit of this design over a straight ported design.
Click to expand...
It gets lower than a regular Helmholtz based box

johnny5jz said:
Kangchenjunga - Larger than the Kewel, not sure how low it plays, acoustically more efficient with lower power handling. I like to form factor on this one
Click to expand...
Not quite as low as Kewel actually -roughly the mean between it and the pensil. Reduced forcing, the longitudinal is doing more of the work toward tuning.

johnny5jz said:
Pensil - May not play the lowest. I am worried with this one being front "ported" since that usually does not work well in my room. My room tends to favor rear ported.
Click to expand...
I suspect that might have as much to do with the speaker designs you've tried (specifically their alignments) as the vent location. The LF is essentially omnidirectional at these wavelengths, so assuming the same alignment, any differences are only going to kick in with relatively extreme positioning. Trouble is, it's difficult for many to compare since they rarely build identical boxes with simply a difference in vent positioning. What often happens is you get speakers with fairly flat anechoic LF alignments, and most of the time, if you shove those too close to boundaries, you'll get an excess of LF. That will apply no matter where the vent is though. Rear ducts can have some advantages & visa versa though, depending on design -if you've an acoustically small box for tuning for e.g., it can be a way to help reduce audible noise.

johnny5jz said:
Joan - Needs rear wall for bass extension, may not play as low, but has better midbass
Click to expand...
'Different' rather than 'better' depending on exactly which it's compared to & how they're loaded; it has the potential for more though.

johnny5jz said:
Silbury/Avebury - these seem awesome as in overall scale. Not sure these are truly needed to get the most out of the CHN110.
Click to expand...
Again, depends how you're defining 'get the most'. If you want the most, then they'll give that of any existing enclosure for the driver that I'm aware of. Whether somebody 'needs' (or wants) that though is a slightly different question & down to what they're prioritising.

Edit: Hmm. A lot of 'thoughs' in that. I really must work on my vocabulary...
 
#60
You are correct in that I need to define "get the most". I would like a design that gives a bass response that makes the overall response flat enough where I will not be wanting a baffle step compensation circuit. I have not heard a full range where I have not needed a baffle step circuit. I know that Mark Audio seems to have a mid bass hump that should help alleviate this, but I also want the best enclosure design to also help in that area.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom