I was wrong, it's not a CHN-110 either. Looks like it might be a Sota 11r. Same bezel design and diameter, but without the dimple in the center of the dust cap. I guess the description that was written for him says CHN-110.
CHR-70 only has 4 mounting holes in the bezel, so it's easy to spot.
jeff
CHR-70 only has 4 mounting holes in the bezel, so it's easy to spot.
jeff
Do you mean rolled off? I did not find MA drivers to be muddy, but their higher frequencies do sound more rolled off than the published curves would have you believe. A tweeter above 10k or 15k might help those who want more extended highs.
Did you equalise them before testing? The fact that they each have their own resonance profile could but doesn't necessarily mean they won't sound the same when they are equalised to be the same.
Since I would be using only two woofers, I thought about using the 4-ohm version (in series) of the SB23MFCL drivers. The T/S specifications are quite different from the 8-ohm version. In 45 litres (which is my target box size), the 4-ohm version (red - vented 30Hz and pink - sealed) model is quite different from the 8-ohm version (green - vented 20Hz and blue - sealed). Which version (4-ohm or 8-ohm is preferred).
I also tried both woofers tuned to 30Hz, which results in a bit of peak for the 8-ohm version.
Also, is there any place I can get the FRD and ZMA files for the SB23 woofers? Thanks.
Last edited:
It's the V2 but for Mark Audio Alpair 5.3, it just add the passive XO, that makes it V3.
Attachments
That's nice. I didn't know Dave did custom work.
The SB23MFCL45 woofers are 122mm deep. Putting 2 of them back to back would mean that the inside width of the cabinet would have to be 244mm at the least. Given that I am considering a cabinet that is less than 200mm wide outside (150mm inside width) these drivers wouldn't fit.
The SB17CAC5-8 and SEAS L16RN-SL, however, would both work. Which one is preferred? Both are available in quantities of 8 (I need 4 per speaker). I compared their response using WINISD in sealed and vented (45L for four drivers) below. The SEAS was tuned to 30Hz, and the SB was tuned to 25Hz.
V3 is only replacing FF85wk with Alpair 5.2/3. I have added a really early suggestion for an XO.
dave
Is a 10% difference in specification about what I should expect between 2 MAOP 10.2’s?
I did think they’d be matched closer than that, given all the talk of specification matching pairs for sale.
Not sure how much of a difference it will make in real world listening though, happy to be educated.
You havn't got a pair.
300A + 300B is a pair.
Or 302A + 302B.
Sorry
I am disapointed now.
Contact the dealer and ask them if you got the right pair.
When i match a driver pair, all the percentage metrics need to be 3% or less, and sensitivity within 0.25dB.
I plugges your numbers (no BL) into my matching table.
dave
I plugges your numbers (no BL) into my matching table.
dave
Yeah. Definitely not a matching pair. Hopefully I’ll get a response from the supplier tonight (my time). Thanks!
I drew this up over the weekend. How do we take it from here? You can email me at navin@elektromag.com. The listening height can be lowered by moving all five drivers lower. I just used the maximum height as a starting point.
The top and bottom have been consciously left out. They will be added once the rest of the design is finalised. Since most 8" woofers (such as the SB23MFCL45) would be too deep to fit in push-push, I am toying between using either the SEAS L16RN-SL or SB17CAC35-8. I would have preferred the SB driver, but Erin's unflattering review of the 4-ohm version of SB17CAC35 has confused me.
https://www.erinsaudiocorner.com/driveunits/sbacoustics_sb17cac35-4/
That looks good. I have no comments on the woofers. Some SBs are superb some are not.
Given that you are taking away the part of the range where midbasse sound most different, if the bass drivers you choose satisfy depth, box size and budget you will still be good. Don’t get to buried in analysis paralysis.
I did similar midTL in the Facets. But i did run it all the way to the top instead of terminating just above the driver.
This is our attempt at the Blade-style driver arrangement. It developed from the dual woofer uFonken+woofT below. We had to really jump thru hoops. Likely to never be built again (i am still working on them [the pic shows the new rebate for A5.3. The bas sloading is a crooked ML-Voigt], gotta work out a passive.
dave
Given that you are taking away the part of the range where midbasse sound most different, if the bass drivers you choose satisfy depth, box size and budget you will still be good. Don’t get to buried in analysis paralysis.
I did similar midTL in the Facets. But i did run it all the way to the top instead of terminating just above the driver.
This is our attempt at the Blade-style driver arrangement. It developed from the dual woofer uFonken+woofT below. We had to really jump thru hoops. Likely to never be built again (i am still working on them [the pic shows the new rebate for A5.3. The bas sloading is a crooked ML-Voigt], gotta work out a passive.
dave
Agreed, after reading a bit, I understand that the SB woofer's advantages are in the midrange, which leads me to believe that the SEAS woofer might be a better choice. Dennis Murphy was a little surprised by Erin's measurements, given his experience with the SB woofer.
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...idwoofer-purifi-4-inch-midwoofer.18350/page-3
Yeah, I remember seeing this design before. I believe it uses the FF85K.I did similar midTL in the Facets. But i did run it all the way to the top instead of terminating just above the driver.
This looks like a very complicated build. And with the woofers so far from the full range did you have any trouble sonically integrating the woofers?This is our attempt at the Blade-style driver arrangement.
dave
The version of the Blade I've seen uses four woofers (2 per side). I liked the idea, particularly since I have managed to source someone who makes threaded bolts as long as 300mm. I could then run these bolts right through both opposing woofers (see image below).
For the base, I am hoping to copy what Karl-Heinz Fink did for the Q-acoustics Concept 500 but make it out of solid wood thick enough to support isolation feet (the kind SVS sells).
The woofers go up to 10k amd are not that far from the midTweeter. Actually closer than with the µFonkenSET + woofT.
The facets were VERY difficult build. That is why it is likely a 1-off. The midTweeter is getting changed to A5.3 (i have copper ones)
dave
The facets were VERY difficult build. That is why it is likely a 1-off. The midTweeter is getting changed to A5.3 (i have copper ones)
dave
Yes, even though IIRC it took Dave quite some time to figure out how to translate the Facet thought experiment - much closer to the Blade concept to my mind - into decipherable drawings, they were a much harder build than the MicroFonken SET & woofer towers. The latter were still tricky due to the very tight fit of the little ScanSpeak mid bass drivers in the trapezoidal shaped enclosures, and the grain matching/wrapping of the veneer on 4 separate cabinets.
Peerless 830870 not Scan.
This is what i gave Chris (there are also cut plans)
dave
This is what i gave Chris (there are also cut plans)
dave