I'll post pictures once I build them, but I've been modeling various alignments in hornresp. First inspired by this alignment table and tweaking for response and aesthetics, I landed on:
L= 142 cm (`56")
Zd= 54cm (21.15")
So= 113 cm^2 (17.5 sq in)
Sl= 697 cm^2 (108 sq in)
Tuned to 40Hz
Total volume (remember, it's a bipole) is 52L
Factoring in the legs the driver will be at a height of 38-39" off the ground. That's at a null in the harmonics, but not the best one (which would have the driver lower)
A drawing to scale looks like:
.. and the response in hornresp looks like
.. and with estimated room gain based (it's a a large open area for living and dining room, almost 65 m^2, or 700 sq ft), rough ballpark in-room response might look plausibly something like:
This has a little less volume (per driver) than the Bluebuck. It has a slightly softer roll off at lower frequencies, but it looks close enough that based on Leif's observations I'm optimistic it'll return great results
L= 142 cm (`56")
Zd= 54cm (21.15")
So= 113 cm^2 (17.5 sq in)
Sl= 697 cm^2 (108 sq in)
Tuned to 40Hz
Total volume (remember, it's a bipole) is 52L
Factoring in the legs the driver will be at a height of 38-39" off the ground. That's at a null in the harmonics, but not the best one (which would have the driver lower)
A drawing to scale looks like:
.. and the response in hornresp looks like
.. and with estimated room gain based (it's a a large open area for living and dining room, almost 65 m^2, or 700 sq ft), rough ballpark in-room response might look plausibly something like:
This has a little less volume (per driver) than the Bluebuck. It has a slightly softer roll off at lower frequencies, but it looks close enough that based on Leif's observations I'm optimistic it'll return great results
CHP-90s in stock at Madisound:
https://www.madisoundspeakerstore.com/fullrange/markaudio-chp-90-90mm-paper-cone-fullrange/
https://www.madisoundspeakerstore.com/fullrange/markaudio-chp-90-90mm-paper-cone-fullrange/
What are the differences you are hearing between the two?
FWIW, I personally like that CHP-90 has a higher sensitivity of ~90dB vs MAOP 10.2 ~86dB and for that reason would gravitate to do a build with CHP-90 over MAOP 10.2 but wonder what I'm giving up?
It doesn't make much difference.
10.2Maop are more homogenous where both bass and mid range have more power. The sound have more body. That is where they differ. Maybe the treble is a little better, little more details in the CHP-90.
A friend tell me that CHP-90 have all he needs. He has a tubeamp.
10.2Maop are more homogenous where both bass and mid range have more power. The sound have more body. That is where they differ. Maybe the treble is a little better, little more details in the CHP-90.
A friend tell me that CHP-90 have all he needs. He has a tubeamp.
Last edited:
I'm a little confused in here (and a little off topic but wasn't sure to revive an old thread),
Ended up with 4 TG9's 4 ohms
when making a 1.5, the second driver is HP or LP?
I thought one would make it LP for BSC but then i stumbled upon Nola Brio Trio clone thread and it seems otherwise...
Ended up with 4 TG9's 4 ohms
when making a 1.5, the second driver is HP or LP?
I thought one would make it LP for BSC but then i stumbled upon Nola Brio Trio clone thread and it seems otherwise...