Evan’s design is as best as I can determine a fairly straightforward BR, while Dave’s are more restrictively vented. After a couple of comparative builds between the two topologies probably a decade or so ago, I’ve stuck with the latter type for small boxes; even as elaborate as the full mini-onken style with multiple vertical side mounted slot vents-which are rather a pain to build, especially the floorstanding size.
Due to placement/WAF considerations, I’ve mostly used Pensils, compact mini-onkens, or Castle style micro-towers for my home systems.
Upstairs system is now sort of a hybrid between Castle and homage to old EPI M201 - a sorta MTM using discontinued CSS VWR126X midbass and ERT26 softdome tweeter.
Back to the two designs in question - Scott or Dave could best answer as to differences in tuning and anticipated bass response between them. Of course you’re probably familiar that the room and upstream system can often swamp minor differences between competent enclosures’ real world performance.
Due to placement/WAF considerations, I’ve mostly used Pensils, compact mini-onkens, or Castle style micro-towers for my home systems.
Upstairs system is now sort of a hybrid between Castle and homage to old EPI M201 - a sorta MTM using discontinued CSS VWR126X midbass and ERT26 softdome tweeter.
Back to the two designs in question - Scott or Dave could best answer as to differences in tuning and anticipated bass response between them. Of course you’re probably familiar that the room and upstream system can often swamp minor differences between competent enclosures’ real world performance.
first build, plus the lack of experience in acoustics made me ask this question. listening corner is around 8' in length and 7' in width, give or take, it would be 2-channels system w/o sub. going for the basics in both build and setup, nothing too fancy or complicated for me. have to figure the optimal distance between both speakers, wall space, the right height, and how far the listening chair would sit. many questions also regarding the build material, but that would come later since i’ve not settled on a plan yet.
waiting for scott or dave inputs.
Well, Chris is perfectly competent (understatement of the decade) to give advice on such matters given his vast experience, so please do listen to what he has to say.
I have a feeling the latter might actually have been done by muggins here & drawn by Evan, but don't quote me on that; I use a tame black hole as a filing system. Either way, Chris's technical points are correct. The difference is that the former is designed to have a modest degree of vent resistance and a relatively well-damped LF loading. Not as much as some of Dave's pay-for designs, but it leans in that direction. The latter is a conventional vented box with a lightly damped LF alignment; it will have a bit more output on the bottom end, although this should not become excessive as it's a properly designed box of the type. It will unload a little more quickly below Fb though. Swings & roundabouts.
I have a feeling the latter might actually have been done by muggins here & drawn by Evan, but don't quote me on that; I use a tame black hole as a filing system. Either way, Chris's technical points are correct. The difference is that the former is designed to have a modest degree of vent resistance and a relatively well-damped LF loading. Not as much as some of Dave's pay-for designs, but it leans in that direction. The latter is a conventional vented box with a lightly damped LF alignment; it will have a bit more output on the bottom end, although this should not become excessive as it's a properly designed box of the type. It will unload a little more quickly below Fb though. Swings & roundabouts.
Althou Chris has said that the little uSETs are the hardest to do because there is no room for clamps. We did not build many large ones.
The purpose of the restricted vent (high ratio) is to add R to the vent. This makes the box less sensisitive to dynamic changes in T/S parameters which can cause a simplier circyular vented box to move in & out of tune.
The alignment needed to take advantage of the highR vent only allows bas sto go as low as it goes, so you can get lower bass from a more typical BR box (depending on the design) but one sacrifies bass finesse.
dave
Where does the CHN-110 sit in the range of drivers? Any reason to use this over other drivers? Is this better suited to an array of drivers?
ps: is there a 120 coming? Saw a post earlier...
ps: is there a 120 coming? Saw a post earlier...
The CHN 110 would be the largest (current) example of the cheapest range of Mark Audio (when we see the CHN120, it will be the 2nd largest). The other drivers in the range would be CHN50/70/100.
dave
dave
There is a 120 coming, I've got some being sent as we speak should be about 6 weeks depending on ocean weather and Corona virus. It's a CHR though, not a CHN. I've not had any communication with the factory about a CHN-120
Thanks for the info.
Has anyone yet tried the P7HD's? Mine are still on the shelf awaiting a suitable box.
Has anyone yet tried the P7HD's? Mine are still on the shelf awaiting a suitable box.
I have a pair. That they have FR tuned to Japanese tastes has put it at the bottom of my to try list.
dave
dave
Pluvia 7P-HD (paper cone) has a balance similar to the CHP-70.2. The Pluvia 7HD (metal cone) is more or less the guts of the old Alpair 7.3 with a different cap, tweaked coil & new basket. Not the ideal naming structure IMO!
Last edited:
I literally put my pair of 7P-HD in service yesterday. Obviously very early for an opinion but two things stood out.
The mid range to die for for lack of a better term
Resolution and clarity. You know when someone connects up something new, cues up a familiar recording and says I never heard that voice / sound, whatever before... well its true this time.
I think according to the Spec sheet they begin curtailing output at ~ 5K but there is still lot of sound up to that point.
I already have a pair of B&C ME10 and Peerless DFM-2535R00-08 C.D's to to take care of that along with a DBX 223XS to play with.
The mid range to die for for lack of a better term
Resolution and clarity. You know when someone connects up something new, cues up a familiar recording and says I never heard that voice / sound, whatever before... well its true this time.
I think according to the Spec sheet they begin curtailing output at ~ 5K but there is still lot of sound up to that point.
I already have a pair of B&C ME10 and Peerless DFM-2535R00-08 C.D's to to take care of that along with a DBX 223XS to play with.
I really like the Chp70.2 a lot, but even after living with them for the past few years and really liking it, I have to say that I hear difference when comparing it to 2 ways. With the A11ms that I recently aquired, even in cardboard boxes, I would have a hard time believing there’s no tweeter if it was a blind listen. They are another level.
+1
Well, it should be, it's from the range above. 😉 That being said, don't forget that the CHP and 7P-HD were designed to have that balance. For those who want more on the top end, other models (or speakers in general) which have that will likely be preferred.
It’s great to hear another A11MS owner is enjoying them, I was worried I’d be missing out on the top end but it’s only during action movies that I occasionally miss a little “bite” at the top, for music listening, i can’t fault them.
Ha ha, I do enjoy stating the obvious 😀
I'll add that I noticed the difference more when I put the CHP's in smaller sealed boxes, than when they were in a larger mltl, type box. In the larger boxes they were a lot more balanced and while you would think having them produce more bass would highlight the rolled off high end, it was the opposite - to my ears, in those boxes they did have a nice warm/rich, vintage type of sound. In the smaller sealed boxes they just didn't sound alive, which I guess makes sense.