I would like to share my blog post where I do a full test with measurements on the CHR120 along with subjective listening impressions. The cabinet is 28 liter tuned to 40Hz.
https://josephcrowe.com/blogs/news/markaudio-chr120
https://josephcrowe.com/blogs/news/markaudio-chr120
Attachments
-
AB4FEB33-D29A-46A8-AA73-D1807D8A4031.jpeg -
6112B6DE-DCC9-49FC-A5FB-58C4BF455CD8.png -
909F52C4-A009-4274-8B01-ED32AC624D2E.png -
570244CC-DDBA-4977-B942-4C3EC2792031.png -
D093D2F3-96E6-4F84-9104-59CE61A50A39.png -
E5D731D0-E1B5-471A-9455-219CC1B42D79.png -
9CEE83B9-6E8C-4FB2-B903-5CC83F04528F.png -
5D7A228D-6DAC-4D3D-9A55-4BA09AA29E61.png -
BADF7A39-558F-42E5-A743-5F0B7CAB9393.png -
E8FEE7E9-EE25-4FC9-9567-2F73AEF54099.png -
7277551A-B68C-49E3-AFAE-BA9F9C4107A6.png -
090F544E-A9C0-4904-BA5C-9D7C313CA5DA.png -
1B5E08C2-853C-4D20-BDCF-1913CDC6AF48.png -
A7358202-E9B4-4408-B230-74F157318C21.png -
9B662B6D-0BC0-452B-ACC5-10011749F3BB.jpeg
Very good!
I love it.
How about the total cost for the speakers versus the subjective experience?
I love it.
How about the total cost for the speakers versus the subjective experience?
Last edited:
I would say this is relatively good compared to most drivers I test, in the sense that it all dies by 15 cycles. Yes, it’s not as clean as a ribbon tweeter but it has slightly better intermodulation distortion performance than even the Viawave SRT-7 ribbon tweeter, so a good balance of attributes. Is the stored energy a bottleneck to sound quality? I would say not, based on my listening tests. Soundstage depth was 9/10. Where this driver falls short is perceived soundstage width, and sense of dynamic range, which has nothing to do with its time domain performance. It’s just a limitation of all 6.5” fullrange drivers.This is really telling.
dave
What size of a full range driver is optimal for the spread of all frequencies?
Last edited by a moderator:
Technically no single size but a constantly varying one with frequency. That's more or less what all wideband drivers do / attempt, with varying levels of success, but even if you manage the progressive-rate decoupling, you're also constrained to some extent or other as you move off-axis by the physical geometry of the cone and [as relevant] the front surround. Other factors too of course but those are a couple of the major ones.
I have listened to full range drivers up to 12" but I prefer the ones Alpair makes which are relatively smaller.
Maybe there are better midranges and tweeters in the smaller sizes? Or is it the design of the cones?
Maybe there are better midranges and tweeters in the smaller sizes? Or is it the design of the cones?
Last edited by a moderator:
It depends what you call 'better', to be honest. I design & use both wideband driver & multiway systems (and hybrids) so I'm relatively neutral on that point. Everything's a compromise so it usually comes down to selecting those that either suit you, or you can live with. With multiway systems, it also heavily depends on implementation -that in itself is about selecting compromises. For instance, you can make two completely different sounding speakers out of exactly the same drivers & enclosure, by altering the crossover frequency & order, even if they share [more or less] the same axial response curve.
The holy grail is a driver that progressively uses less of the outer cone to reproduce frequencies as those frequencies increase, effectively becoming a variable size driver depending on the frequency being reproduced. How well the designer does at acheiving this determines how much HF ringing (loss of control) or not the driver has. No one has yet reached that goal.
dave
Sound is so individual. What is good for one can be so wrong for another.
The fact that we have such different requirements for how it should sound makes it so difficult to satisfy everyone's requirements.
The fact that we have such different requirements for how it should sound makes it so difficult to satisfy everyone's requirements.
Wel, you got the objective form of "good" which is absolute neutral sounding, low distortion and wide controlled dispertion. But our hearing is subjective, so many of us prefer deviations of that "objective good" standard, and then what is good is very subjective. But I think that subjective value is more important than the objective value of good for the personal enjoyment of music. So in that sense you're right. Otherwise i would not be on this section of the forum, as FR drivers don't fit the objective good standards... As long as you know what your goal is and you can reach it, you made a good speaker i think.
Last edited by a moderator:
They don't? 😉
Wideband Wigeon. This is a commercial 2-way I designed using a 3in wideband mid-tweeter; should be released next year.
Axial response, drivers measured at 2m, 4ms gating window & 1/24th octave smoothing in OmniMic, spliced to the nearfield response at 300Hz & normalised to standard 1m SPL, entered into PCD for display as its graphing is quite nice (if it was good enough for Jeff Bagby, it's more than good enough for the likes of me...). I'll leave you to guess at the filter.
Attachments
Way too sibilant and all that implies for me, typical of Mark's early designs, so at least he's consistent and as popular as his drivers have been/are proves that my hearing isn't typical.
And off axis? And what are the distortion levels of the drivers/speakers at reasoanble volume?. Wideband or fullrange speakers don't score that good on those factors. But that does not mean they can't sound good, that is for sure...They don't? 😉
Wideband Wigeon. This is a commercial 2-way I designed using a 3in wideband mid-tweeter; should be released next year.
Axial response, drivers measured at 2m, 4ms gating window & 1/24th octave smoothing in OmniMic, spliced to the nearfield response at 300Hz & normalised to standard 1m SPL, entered into PCD for display as its graphing is quite nice (if it was good enough for Jeff Bagby, it's more than good enough for the likes of me...). I'll leave you to guess at the filter.
And this is exceptional flat for an wideband design, most are not that flat. But it can be done, that is true, but mostly you need a lot of filtering. It's dsp or analog filtering that you use?
Let's say it different, i love fullrange drivers, and think they sound very good to my ears, but i would never use them as fullrange drivers in a studio monitor, where flat response, controlled even dispertion and low distortion are key factors. But for hifi use, i use them all the time and will keep doing that.
But for monitor speakers, a dome (in a waveguide) or a horn/compression driver tweeter is often better at the top frequencies, and a multiway setup with dsp is needed to reach those goals. If you could do it with a fullrange driver, i would be glad to hear it. But never seen that with measurement proof. Dome tweeters, compression drivers and dsp have other disadvantages, that is true, but it's most fit for that job.
But for monitor speakers, a dome (in a waveguide) or a horn/compression driver tweeter is often better at the top frequencies, and a multiway setup with dsp is needed to reach those goals. If you could do it with a fullrange driver, i would be glad to hear it. But never seen that with measurement proof. Dome tweeters, compression drivers and dsp have other disadvantages, that is true, but it's most fit for that job.
Oh, pure passive speaker level crossover. I'm not very interested in active systems, except in specific instances. Nothing against them, just not interested, in the same way I'm not interested in Aston Martin (I'm a Jensen man, or would be if I had the money 😉 ).
I'm on the wrong system at the moment, but the above holds up -4.5dB 30 degrees off @ 14KHz. Slightly greater losses than a Seas DXT at the same axis & frequency, although it's not a massive difference. It can't get as high in outright terms as some good domes of course, but that's the tradeoff for having the greater emitting area & lower crossover frequency -I have a different version of the same system using a Satori ring-radiator & higher filter frequency, but that's aimed at slightly different requirements. This is basically a mid-sized, 'value' TMM floorstander intended for smaller - medium spaces, which is actually one reason for the mid-tweet as it holds up nicely to about 30 degrees off then drops away. I could have done a waveguide tweeter, but this works as well or better in some ways in a smaller package. The response isn't actually meant to be quite flat though -the 1dB depression 500Hz - 3KHz is intentional, as is the slight rise > 4KHz up to the HF limit. I could adjust the shunt RC to flatten that easily enough, but for me, it works better treating these in a similar way to, say, an XT25 in that sense -since they don't have quite the same level of HF dispersion as some domes etc., a slight axial rise gives a better balance / power response without having too much off-axis beyond a certain point. Crossover is LR6 at 800Hz so power handling & HD are basically a non-issue (or no more or less than most equivalents) within the context of what it is. I wouldn't use it as a studio monitor either (I prefer speakers designed for purpose); that being said, I suspect it would make a better fist of it than a few inexpensive monitors I could mention, which should never be allowed near a studio, except as a check to see what a mix sounds like on something better avoided.
I'm on the wrong system at the moment, but the above holds up -4.5dB 30 degrees off @ 14KHz. Slightly greater losses than a Seas DXT at the same axis & frequency, although it's not a massive difference. It can't get as high in outright terms as some good domes of course, but that's the tradeoff for having the greater emitting area & lower crossover frequency -I have a different version of the same system using a Satori ring-radiator & higher filter frequency, but that's aimed at slightly different requirements. This is basically a mid-sized, 'value' TMM floorstander intended for smaller - medium spaces, which is actually one reason for the mid-tweet as it holds up nicely to about 30 degrees off then drops away. I could have done a waveguide tweeter, but this works as well or better in some ways in a smaller package. The response isn't actually meant to be quite flat though -the 1dB depression 500Hz - 3KHz is intentional, as is the slight rise > 4KHz up to the HF limit. I could adjust the shunt RC to flatten that easily enough, but for me, it works better treating these in a similar way to, say, an XT25 in that sense -since they don't have quite the same level of HF dispersion as some domes etc., a slight axial rise gives a better balance / power response without having too much off-axis beyond a certain point. Crossover is LR6 at 800Hz so power handling & HD are basically a non-issue (or no more or less than most equivalents) within the context of what it is. I wouldn't use it as a studio monitor either (I prefer speakers designed for purpose); that being said, I suspect it would make a better fist of it than a few inexpensive monitors I could mention, which should never be allowed near a studio, except as a check to see what a mix sounds like on something better avoided.
In an objective sense the CHR120 measures extremely well in terms of the intermodulation distortion. The upper treble has lower distortion than the best ribbon tweeter currently available (Viawave SRT-7), so it's not correct to make general statements that fullrange drivers don't measure well. It's simply a matter of finding the correct test metric that correlates with our listening preferences, and low IMD is an important attribute if one wants great low level detail retrieval and a smooth sound character.
Agreed, IMD & HD can make or break (in association with the usual linear distortion on / off axis etc.); comes back to identifying requirements & what data helps you identify likely options (or rule some out as the case may be 😉 ).