Finally completed the build last weekend. Had this project in my mind for quite some time, and IIRC had most of the pieces cut back in August.
Thanks to Italynstylion - his Lotus^2 build documented through posts on this thread was very helpful and informative.
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/full-range/141496-mark-audio-chr-70-application-thread-7.html
Besides, Steven was always very helpful via PM on any questions I had
. I would also like to pint out the Coniston^2 build thread from Motosapien:
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/full-range/175808-coniston-2-build-2.html
Another well documented build which gave me clear indication on how to go about lining the cabinet. Other members who would like to build either Lotus or Coniston, would do well to go through the above mentioned threads.
Why did I plan to build the Lotus^2:
1. Good reviews from forum members who had built them (they had CHR-70 gen1 drivers IIRC)
2. They had mentioned that bass was really good!
3. Elegant design
4. Since I find the CHR-70 a bit bright (I have gen 2), the side firing design gave me hope of balancing the sound
I am happy to tell you that the final result exceeded my expectations.
I am getting best results by placing them ~8-9 feet apart (even foot or 2 wider would work fine I guess), with the side drivers firing inward towards each other. Placing them closer like 6 feet apart also works, but imaging and balance are much better placed further apart. Most of the times I have been listening from 12-13 feet distance from the speakers, and at times 6-7 feet.
The sound that these speakers put out is good - nice clear top with plenty and I mean plenty of bass... On tracks that have bass, you'll look for the sub-woofer in the room. The bass is not as tight or dry as some MLTL/horn/pipe designs - it's warmer and has more bounce. And even at lower volumes there is healthy bass presence. The speakers put out a big sound stage and tall listening profile (these speakers are ~50" tall with double horn mouths). Sitting or standing the sound is nearly the same. They also have an open and live feel to them on a lot of music.
Another great thing is the wide sweet spot. Lot of FR designs have a very tight sweet spot and sound thins considerably if you are out of that - not with the Lotus^2. I can walk around the room (~250 sq feet) and enjoy the sound. The imaging is not point source type as some other speakers, but it's still good to listen to and instruments get nice separation.
I am using P10 enabled CHR70.2 in these cabs. I tried my Omnes BB4.AL (Black CHR-70 for Germany), but Dave's matched quad sounded smoother to me with more pleasant top. In my experience the CHR-70 gen 2 drivers work nicely with Class D amplification, and I am getting best results with my Dayton Tripath amp.
Music wise I've thrown plenty at them - and the speakers take on all genres well. Again, more advanced drivers capable of more refined sound like the Alp 7 will best the CHR-70 in many areas. But nonetheless, most music sounded good. Acoustic and jazzy stuff played with plenty of detail. Whereas when I tried Progressive House (Anjunadeep Vol 2 and 3) the Lotus^2 delivered in spades. Woofer like bass all the way, with nice articulation (not one note type). I can play around 75-77 dB with 80+ dB peaks and it sounds very loud in the room. Some bass heavy tracks do result in healthy cone movement, but it looked under X-max to me. Hard rock is also good - tried Satriani's Black Swans and Wormhole Wizards and songs had good energy to them with a "live" feel; I noticed 86 dB peaks on some of the tracks. Feeling encouraged I finally tried some real heavy stuff - Carcass's "Tomorrow Belongs to Nobody", and again the speakers acquitted themselves nicely, with solid sounding riffs, bassline, and drums. Tried them out with the TV also - they work very well as front left and right.
Clever design by Scottmoose that brings out the strengths of the driver. I am very happy with the build. Now Coniston^2 beckons!
-Zia
Thanks to Italynstylion - his Lotus^2 build documented through posts on this thread was very helpful and informative.
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/full-range/141496-mark-audio-chr-70-application-thread-7.html
Besides, Steven was always very helpful via PM on any questions I had
. I would also like to pint out the Coniston^2 build thread from Motosapien:http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/full-range/175808-coniston-2-build-2.html
Another well documented build which gave me clear indication on how to go about lining the cabinet. Other members who would like to build either Lotus or Coniston, would do well to go through the above mentioned threads.
Why did I plan to build the Lotus^2:
1. Good reviews from forum members who had built them (they had CHR-70 gen1 drivers IIRC)
2. They had mentioned that bass was really good!
3. Elegant design
4. Since I find the CHR-70 a bit bright (I have gen 2), the side firing design gave me hope of balancing the sound
I am happy to tell you that the final result exceeded my expectations
.I am getting best results by placing them ~8-9 feet apart (even foot or 2 wider would work fine I guess), with the side drivers firing inward towards each other. Placing them closer like 6 feet apart also works, but imaging and balance are much better placed further apart. Most of the times I have been listening from 12-13 feet distance from the speakers, and at times 6-7 feet.
The sound that these speakers put out is good - nice clear top with plenty and I mean plenty of bass... On tracks that have bass, you'll look for the sub-woofer in the room
. The bass is not as tight or dry as some MLTL/horn/pipe designs - it's warmer and has more bounce. And even at lower volumes there is healthy bass presence. The speakers put out a big sound stage and tall listening profile (these speakers are ~50" tall with double horn mouths). Sitting or standing the sound is nearly the same. They also have an open and live feel to them on a lot of music.Another great thing is the wide sweet spot. Lot of FR designs have a very tight sweet spot and sound thins considerably if you are out of that - not with the Lotus^2. I can walk around the room (~250 sq feet) and enjoy the sound. The imaging is not point source type as some other speakers, but it's still good to listen to and instruments get nice separation.
I am using P10 enabled CHR70.2 in these cabs. I tried my Omnes BB4.AL (Black CHR-70 for Germany), but Dave's matched quad sounded smoother to me with more pleasant top. In my experience the CHR-70 gen 2 drivers work nicely with Class D amplification, and I am getting best results with my Dayton Tripath amp.
Music wise I've thrown plenty at them - and the speakers take on all genres well. Again, more advanced drivers capable of more refined sound like the Alp 7 will best the CHR-70 in many areas. But nonetheless, most music sounded good. Acoustic and jazzy stuff played with plenty of detail. Whereas when I tried Progressive House (Anjunadeep Vol 2 and 3) the Lotus^2 delivered in spades. Woofer like bass all the way, with nice articulation (not one note type). I can play around 75-77 dB with 80+ dB peaks and it sounds very loud in the room. Some bass heavy tracks do result in healthy cone movement, but it looked under X-max to me. Hard rock is also good - tried Satriani's Black Swans and Wormhole Wizards and songs had good energy to them with a "live" feel; I noticed 86 dB peaks on some of the tracks. Feeling encouraged I finally tried some real heavy stuff - Carcass's "Tomorrow Belongs to Nobody", and again the speakers acquitted themselves nicely, with solid sounding riffs, bassline, and drums. Tried them out with the TV also - they work very well as front left and right.
Clever design by Scottmoose that brings out the strengths of the driver. I am very happy with the build. Now Coniston^2 beckons!
-Zia
Attachments
Last edited:
Had joined the back before cutting the hole for the terminal cup... Thought I'd resort to something different to get the terminal posts in place.
Cut a 8 mm x 50 mm slit with the router; then used this home-made terminal "cover" (well it''s not a cup) made from 6mm hardwood ply. Worked out nicely.
Cut a 8 mm x 50 mm slit with the router; then used this home-made terminal "cover" (well it''s not a cup) made from 6mm hardwood ply. Worked out nicely.
Attachments
I found I needed to taper away the highs from the side driver. They are wired in series with 68uF cap across the side driver. I think I could now locate them both on the front but wonder if that would reduce the nice spacious sound. And building the cabinets is enough of a job that it keeps me from trying it. I also use a trap inline on positive leg to attenuate the uppermost highs. Could be my tinnitus that makes me sensitive to these frequencies as I've not read about others feeling the need to do this with the EL70.
But back to the topic - Scott's cabinet designs really bring out the best from these drivers.
Jimbro,
Let's see if I can cut out two circular pieces and screw them on in place of the side drivers to check out the single driver performance. But my understanding is that the dual-driver config will be better:
1. Less excursion
2. Side driver acts a 0.5 driver and adds more bass vs top end - balances the CHR-70 sound
3. Wider sweet spot
But if you are looking for bass, the Lotus^2 and Coniston^2 should be right up there.
Motosapien,
Good to know that the Consiton^2s are serving you well. Sorry to hear about your tinnitus, and hope it doesn't trouble you too much.
Douglas,
Please finish the Death Star and Clairtone project first - look fwd to updates on that.
Rvsixer,
Thanks and what are you planning to make with your EL-70s?
-Zia
Let's see if I can cut out two circular pieces and screw them on in place of the side drivers to check out the single driver performance. But my understanding is that the dual-driver config will be better:
1. Less excursion
2. Side driver acts a 0.5 driver and adds more bass vs top end - balances the CHR-70 sound
3. Wider sweet spot
But if you are looking for bass, the Lotus^2 and Coniston^2 should be right up there.
Motosapien,
Good to know that the Consiton^2s are serving you well. Sorry to hear about your tinnitus, and hope it doesn't trouble you too much.
Douglas,
Please finish the Death Star and Clairtone project first
- look fwd to updates on that.Rvsixer,
Thanks and what are you planning to make with your EL-70s?
-Zia
It was just a thought Zia. Maybe on some tracks you may want a more focused image. Common Sense Audio does that with some of their designs. The bass would probably suffer as you say, especially since the driver is not in the ideal position as in the single driver design.
"I've had a sweet spot for double mouth horns" - be aware Scott that these are not typical horns but kind of a cross between bass reflex and horns. I believe that the horn mouths are not used above about 100hz whereas the fh3 horn for example is used from 300 down. The new back horns from Woden would also be like the fh3s. All single drivers though. At least that's what I've read if memory serves.
"I've had a sweet spot for double mouth horns" - be aware Scott that these are not typical horns but kind of a cross between bass reflex and horns. I believe that the horn mouths are not used above about 100hz whereas the fh3 horn for example is used from 300 down. The new back horns from Woden would also be like the fh3s. All single drivers though. At least that's what I've read if memory serves.
Scott,
You really put me in the spot... how do they compare? Let me have a go...
All 3 are good, but different. The Pensils I built were Super Pensil 12s - bigger cabinet, bigger drivers with greater xmax, more refined top vs CHR. The bigger driver is more efficient, can play louder with greater dynamics and scale. I find the Alp 12 in the Super Pensil can create a large and 3D sound stage pretty well. The sound is very detailed, and good recordings sound superb. Bass is plentiful, however the very transparent top can bring out too much detail in music with distortion (mostly heavy/thrash metal recordings), and using a digital EQ helped me. I am going to line the inner walls near the drivers and rearrange the stuffing - let's see if that changes anything.
The CHR-70.2 in the Lotus^2 works very nicely - prodigious and full bass, can handle various genres of music. Sound stage is wide but more diffused - not as point source type as the Pensils. They are not revealing or as detailed vs the Alpair driven Pensils, but probably more accommodating to various genres of music and amps (without use of EQ). The listening profile is tall, and music sounds good standing up or seated. The bass is softer vs horn/pipe designs and MLTL (and their variants), a bit warmer.The overall sound is more "relaxed" too, with a live music feel on well recorded music. In other cabs the CHR-70 gen 2 drivers sounded too bright for me - in Lotus^2 they are much more balanced.
The FH Mk3 is a very good speaker too. The Gen 1 CHP-70 is a really smooth driver and produces plenty of bass in the FH3. The bass is a bit dry vs the Lotus^2 and can sound thick and fat bottomed if placed to near the walls. Placement is trickier vs Lotus^2 or the Pensils and I am not sure if it's my room, but even minor shifts in seating/head position affect the imaging slightly. Sound has a 3D characteristic and the speakers throw a much larger sound stage than what you would expect from cabinets of that size. The CHP-70 seems to like tube amps a bit more vs my Tripath. Plan to try out with an ICEpower amp some time soon. The speakers have a surprising energy to them and the pace sounds crisp, even with tube gear.
I like all of them, need to find the space to keep them.
-Zia
You really put me in the spot... how do they compare?
Let me have a go...All 3 are good, but different. The Pensils I built were Super Pensil 12s - bigger cabinet, bigger drivers with greater xmax, more refined top vs CHR. The bigger driver is more efficient, can play louder with greater dynamics and scale. I find the Alp 12 in the Super Pensil can create a large and 3D sound stage pretty well. The sound is very detailed, and good recordings sound superb. Bass is plentiful, however the very transparent top can bring out too much detail in music with distortion (mostly heavy/thrash metal recordings), and using a digital EQ helped me. I am going to line the inner walls near the drivers and rearrange the stuffing - let's see if that changes anything.
The CHR-70.2 in the Lotus^2 works very nicely - prodigious and full bass, can handle various genres of music. Sound stage is wide but more diffused - not as point source type as the Pensils. They are not revealing or as detailed vs the Alpair driven Pensils, but probably more accommodating to various genres of music and amps (without use of EQ). The listening profile is tall, and music sounds good standing up or seated. The bass is softer vs horn/pipe designs and MLTL (and their variants), a bit warmer.The overall sound is more "relaxed" too, with a live music feel on well recorded music. In other cabs the CHR-70 gen 2 drivers sounded too bright for me - in Lotus^2 they are much more balanced.
The FH Mk3 is a very good speaker too. The Gen 1 CHP-70 is a really smooth driver and produces plenty of bass in the FH3. The bass is a bit dry vs the Lotus^2 and can sound thick and fat bottomed if placed to near the walls. Placement is trickier vs Lotus^2 or the Pensils and I am not sure if it's my room, but even minor shifts in seating/head position affect the imaging slightly. Sound has a 3D characteristic and the speakers throw a much larger sound stage than what you would expect from cabinets of that size. The CHP-70 seems to like tube amps a bit more vs my Tripath. Plan to try out with an ICEpower amp some time soon. The speakers have a surprising energy to them and the pace sounds crisp, even with tube gear.
I like all of them, need to find the space to keep them
.-Zia
I think the classification you're looking for is BVR - Big Vent Reflex, (as opposed to Canada's flat-tailed aquatic rodent)
Well, the 2 new series of Woden double back horns- Maeshowe/Silbury/Avebury for Mark Audio drivers, and Valiant / Victor/Vulcan for Fostex are like the FH3 in the sense of curved aperture rear mouths* - but rather more complicated in terms of number of folds, and of course their fine tuning for specific driver models.
* the earlier Woden designs with front firing mouths have been retired (with probably very few built?) - for those situations where a large rear mouth design can't be implemented, the earlier "Spawn" family of Olson Manifold or BVR designs are slowly being updated for new driver parameters. As Scott is essentially on sabbatical from DIY audio/speaker design to work on a doctoral thesis, this task list is slowly being chipped away at by Dave - he can be contacted through the commercial site for specific inquiries.
Yes, they are intended for single drivers - while "common sense" might suggest that adding an addition driver of same model to such a design would automatically garner improvements, that's not always the case.
ZIA:
delicate treading on eggshells helps keep one sharp, eh what?
Yes, they are intended for single drivers - while "common sense" might suggest that adding an addition driver of same model to such a design would automatically garner improvements, that's not always the case.
I wondered who would be the first to editorialize when I mentioned their designs.
They don't seem to worry how the tuning will change when they switch one driver in or out but since the Lotus and Lotus^2 cabs are identical dimensions it seems like it would work but not be ideal. Or not. Switches are cheap so it might be worth a try.
Yes, they are intended for single drivers - while "common sense" might suggest that adding an addition driver of same model to such a design would automatically garner improvements, that's not always the case.
I wondered who would be the first to editorialize when I mentioned their designs.
They don't seem to worry how the tuning will change when they switch one driver in or out but since the Lotus and Lotus^2 cabs are identical dimensions it seems like it would work but not be ideal. Or not. Switches are cheap so it might be worth a try.
jimbro -mea culpa on the cheap shot implied by the "air quotes" - I've only ever heard one CSA driver, in a probably less than optimal enclosure for its real world parameters - it's among many brands about which I should reserve judgement - but really the intention was to address the perceived earlier question as to practicality of additional drivers in Woden designs not drawn that way
Scott,
You really put me in the spot... how do they compare?
All 3 are good, but different. The Pensils I built were Super Pensil 12s - bigger cabinet, bigger drivers with greater xmax, more refined top vs CHR. The bigger driver is more efficient, can play louder with greater dynamics and scale. I find the Alp 12 in the Super Pensil can create a large and 3D sound stage pretty well. The sound is very detailed, and good recordings sound superb. Bass is plentiful, however the very transparent top can bring out too much detail in music with distortion (mostly heavy/thrash metal recordings), and using a digital EQ helped me. I am going to line the inner walls near the drivers and rearrange the stuffing - let's see if that changes anything.
The CHR-70.2 in the Lotus^2 works very nicely - prodigious and full bass, can handle various genres of music. Sound stage is wide but more diffused - not as point source type as the Pensils. They are not revealing or as detailed vs the Alpair driven Pensils, but probably more accommodating to various genres of music and amps (without use of EQ). The listening profile is tall, and music sounds good standing up or seated. The bass is softer vs horn/pipe designs and MLTL (and their variants), a bit warmer.The overall sound is more "relaxed" too, with a live music feel on well recorded music. In other cabs the CHR-70 gen 2 drivers sounded too bright for me - in Lotus^2 they are much more balanced.
The FH Mk3 is a very good speaker too. The Gen 1 CHP-70 is a really smooth driver and produces plenty of bass in the FH3. The bass is a bit dry vs the Lotus^2 and can sound thick and fat bottomed if placed to near the walls. Placement is trickier vs Lotus^2 or the Pensils and I am not sure if it's my room, but even minor shifts in seating/head position affect the imaging slightly. Sound has a 3D characteristic and the speakers throw a much larger sound stage than what you would expect from cabinets of that size. The CHP-70 seems to like tube amps a bit more vs my Tripath. Plan to try out with an ICEpower amp some time soon. The speakers have a surprising energy to them and the pace sounds crisp, even with tube gear.
I like all of them, need to find the space to keep them
-Zia
Zia,
Thank you for taking the time to describe each one. I can echo your sentiments on the Supers almost exactly except I haven't yet had them be TOO analytical or transparent. I can easily see how they could be for others though. I really want to try the FH3's with some ALP7's, I have a feeling I'd really like those. Only problem is I have no space! Eventually I'll have a dedicated space where I can have as many speakers as I want. Until then, I'll live vicariously through people such as yourself who give such great reviews/descriptions of what they hear
Thanks again!Scott
Reread your statement and this stuck out to me. I might just give this a try in mine while I have them open right now. Line it to start and see how I like it. Good idea!
Scott
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.