Hi Chris
The drivers are still pretty fresh. I think there may have been an air leak, or maybe the drivers did not have good contact with the brace. I had to slide a piece of veneer between one of them. I really like the 3Dish sound from top firing drivers
Thx Cogitech. I think they may be quite good hooked up to the TV too. Certainly the right size. I really feel the proportions are spot on.
Zia - good point about the ports - note that tuning for the now discontinued EL70 and current CHR70s would be different. Mind you, depending on how the bottom plate & port tubes were installed, it could be "tricky" to adjust that or the stuffing at this point.
My first 2 pairs were buttoned up tight, on the third (slot port, slanted top and CHBWs & tweeters) the bottom plate with XO attached was screwed and gasketed in place.
My first 2 pairs were buttoned up tight, on the third (slot port, slanted top and CHBWs & tweeters) the bottom plate with XO attached was screwed and gasketed in place.
hi guys...
Sorry for the long delay, I've been way too busy....
chris: The thing about driver break-in (at least in my humble experiences) that I generally adhere to is the ability to swing some current (not necessarily high voltage, but rather higher current). This is assuming the output impedance of the amp << the impedance loudspeaker system.
I suppose when Bryston eventually took what was essentially the .5 preamp and the 2BLP and made the B60 integrated amp (although perhaps 20 or 25 years too late in my opinion) they were sort of admitting that. (not sure if the BP60 was/is dual mono or bridgeable). I'm not even sure if they make a smaller (as in 50-60 W/ch) power amp anymore.
The Bryston 2BLP is an amp I still covet today. If I could find one and get it rebuilt by Bryston, I'd be pretty happy. Dual mono, well built using a relatively simple circuit. All the larger Bryston amps had what I call "errors of addition". At higher levels they held together better than the little 2B, but at anything less than full throttle, I'd take a 2BLP (or two) over any one of the larger (3B, 4B) Bryston amps of the day. As long as the little 2B was/is operated within its design envelope, it was a mightly fine little amp that sounded way better than it should have.
I'm not suggesting that brute force is the thing to consider, but given my 'druthers, I'd rather lower (ultimate) power with increased available current than not (everything else being equal, and here strictly speaking bout SS-based amps) when breaking in loudspeakers. Multi-channel amps with parallel channels (so ultimately no more voltage gain, but loads of available current) seem to me to be the failing of many of the digital amplifiers (not all, but many of the smaller Tripath amplifiers for example).
Tubes of course are another thing altogether, and I do love the little DIY SE84 that glows in the front room more often than the McCormack DNA 0.5 deLuxe
. They both have their place, but in my current room and at the levels that I generally listen at, the little Decware (on a chunk of press-board no less!) is plenty enough for me.
Sorry for the long delay, I've been way too busy....
chris: The thing about driver break-in (at least in my humble experiences) that I generally adhere to is the ability to swing some current (not necessarily high voltage, but rather higher current). This is assuming the output impedance of the amp << the impedance loudspeaker system.
I suppose when Bryston eventually took what was essentially the .5 preamp and the 2BLP and made the B60 integrated amp (although perhaps 20 or 25 years too late in my opinion) they were sort of admitting that. (not sure if the BP60 was/is dual mono or bridgeable). I'm not even sure if they make a smaller (as in 50-60 W/ch) power amp anymore.
The Bryston 2BLP is an amp I still covet today. If I could find one and get it rebuilt by Bryston, I'd be pretty happy. Dual mono, well built using a relatively simple circuit. All the larger Bryston amps had what I call "errors of addition". At higher levels they held together better than the little 2B, but at anything less than full throttle, I'd take a 2BLP (or two) over any one of the larger (3B, 4B) Bryston amps of the day. As long as the little 2B was/is operated within its design envelope, it was a mightly fine little amp that sounded way better than it should have.
I'm not suggesting that brute force is the thing to consider, but given my 'druthers, I'd rather lower (ultimate) power with increased available current than not (everything else being equal, and here strictly speaking bout SS-based amps) when breaking in loudspeakers. Multi-channel amps with parallel channels (so ultimately no more voltage gain, but loads of available current) seem to me to be the failing of many of the digital amplifiers (not all, but many of the smaller Tripath amplifiers for example).
Tubes of course are another thing altogether, and I do love the little DIY SE84 that glows in the front room more often than the McCormack DNA 0.5 deLuxe
. They both have their place, but in my current room and at the levels that I generally listen at, the little Decware (on a chunk of press-board no less!) is plenty enough for me.I'm looking for the perfect solution for my ht system, until now I have selected the pensil r70.3, 7.3, and 70.3 ml twin chr-tl but I can not make a decision yet... I also saw the halftower who has a remarkable waf!
One of my problems is the depth of the speakers,my TV is very close to the wall so when I look at it from the side, where I have the table, there is the risk that a deep speaker shade the screen.
So, the twin-ml tl is maybe a little too high, the 7.3 is less deep than the 70.3 and probably also the voices are better too, and the halftower is really thin!That's a good think.
But I wonder how it sounds compared to 70.3 I'll use only for ht not for music (I have another system for that).
Any advice?
One of my problems is the depth of the speakers,my TV is very close to the wall so when I look at it from the side, where I have the table, there is the risk that a deep speaker shade the screen.
So, the twin-ml tl is maybe a little too high, the 7.3 is less deep than the 70.3 and probably also the voices are better too, and the halftower is really thin!That's a good think.
But I wonder how it sounds compared to 70.3 I'll use only for ht not for music (I have another system for that).
Any advice?
verderme,
Both the Alp 7.3 and CHR-70.3 work in the Half Towers - Dave can comment if changes to the port are required from last update of plans (depending on choice of driver). The Half Towers are decent sounding for their size and since it is for HT, I am assuming you will have a sub and have the XO set at 100 Hz or higher?
Dave and Chris also might have some floor standing MarKen designs of compact size too?
Both the Alp 7.3 and CHR-70.3 work in the Half Towers - Dave can comment if changes to the port are required from last update of plans (depending on choice of driver). The Half Towers are decent sounding for their size and since it is for HT, I am assuming you will have a sub and have the XO set at 100 Hz or higher?
Dave and Chris also might have some floor standing MarKen designs of compact size too?
First thought is that the Alpair7.3 is a more refined driver than any of the CH - series, period - and for my money, worth the difference every time.
The compact floorstander enclosure that has been mentioned elsewhere is the shallowest design in which I've heard any of Mark's drivers. It's another one of Dave's clever topologies that has so far been able to accommodate a range of drivers with changes in volume (by adjusting width) and tuning - (length of internal port slot). I currently run a pair with A10Ps in my own 5.1 rig, along with a "matching" centre channel enclosure. They replaced Pensil7s and centre - as much as anything, just because I felt like changing speakers at the same time as upgrading the receiver (from Denon to an Onkyo)
Back to the CFS-Ken , I would imagine versions for 7.3 and other drivers in this weight class would be possible, but if not, the Pensil 7.3 is a known performer, and at just under 11" deep, not all that obtrusive.
What, if anything, do you have in mind for the centre channel?
The compact floorstander enclosure that has been mentioned elsewhere is the shallowest design in which I've heard any of Mark's drivers. It's another one of Dave's clever topologies that has so far been able to accommodate a range of drivers with changes in volume (by adjusting width) and tuning - (length of internal port slot). I currently run a pair with A10Ps in my own 5.1 rig, along with a "matching" centre channel enclosure. They replaced Pensil7s and centre - as much as anything, just because I felt like changing speakers at the same time as upgrading the receiver (from Denon to an Onkyo)
Back to the CFS-Ken , I would imagine versions for 7.3 and other drivers in this weight class would be possible, but if not, the Pensil 7.3 is a known performer, and at just under 11" deep, not all that obtrusive.
What, if anything, do you have in mind for the centre channel?
As already said in this discussion:
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/markaudio/165297-pensil-7-alpair-7-a-18.html
I coudn't find a lot of design for center channel...only this one:
http://p10hifi.net/FAL/downloads/dMarKen7-centreA-070311.pdf
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/markaudio/165297-pensil-7-alpair-7-a-18.html
I coudn't find a lot of design for center channel...only this one:
http://p10hifi.net/FAL/downloads/dMarKen7-centreA-070311.pdf
dMar-Ken7.3 CentreA released as part of the Frugel-Horn project
http://www.planet10-hifi.com/downloads/dMarKen73-centreA-030513.pdf
Really could use an 18mm baffle, increase the space between vent shalt and back by 2mm.
dave
http://www.planet10-hifi.com/downloads/dMarKen73-centreA-030513.pdf
Really could use an 18mm baffle, increase the space between vent shalt and back by 2mm.
dave
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.