Banned
Joined 2002
planet10 said:
Well Dave, I removed the dividers that I had put in the CC. I then tried paint cans. Not too much different. Still lacking bass and lower midrange. Now, here is the interesting thing. I took that paint can out and am using the entire chamber (the entire chamber in the ones that you and I built, not including the lower vertical part that we blocked out on your earlier versions). The bass opened up quite alot. Not just low, but lower to low mid-bass as well. I don't know what to think of it. I mean this has to be 3 liters right? Well, I sat down and did some calcs and if my calcs are correct came to the conclusion that for this driver (fe126e), the 3 liter CC may be ideal. I was using Dr. Marshall Leach's horn modeling formulas. What are your thoughts on my findings?
Seems all the action is here on the frugal horns
doorman and chrisby your hanging here as well
Greetings Planet 10 I have been spending a great deal of time going through your stuff and learning volumes.. so thanks
I was asking on using the shielded fostex in the horns with my TV that is set in the corner. the horns that are at the sides of the TV will fire back into the same corner.
They will also be raised about 20 inches from floor height.
with the CC being flexible has anyone figured a CC that may work well with the FE127E.
I was going to use the fostex hybrid for the FE126E but some say that these frugal horns will outperform them.
doorman and chrisby your hanging here as well
Greetings Planet 10 I have been spending a great deal of time going through your stuff and learning volumes.. so thanks
I was asking on using the shielded fostex in the horns with my TV that is set in the corner. the horns that are at the sides of the TV will fire back into the same corner.
They will also be raised about 20 inches from floor height.
with the CC being flexible has anyone figured a CC that may work well with the FE127E.
I was going to use the fostex hybrid for the FE126E but some say that these frugal horns will outperform them.
gexter said:
Gex: if you're reading my posts here and at Decware, it's already been indicated that the 127 shouldn't be used in any BLH design, so comments regarding CC don't apply to it.
If you're looking for cute, show your wife the pictures of either Scott Dunn's,
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/attachment.php?s=&postid=844259&stamp=1139810421
or my own version of the monopole MLTL for the FE127s.
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/attachment.php?s=&postid=887811&stamp=1144394613
There are other enclosure aspect ratios (i.e. wider & shallower) that might possibly deliver wider dispersion with reduced baffle-step, but WAF might be a little lower.
e.g.:
http://www.omegaloudspeakers.com/
Banned
Joined 2002
chrisb said:
Careful Jase, there's nothing(=dodgy) goin on here. These are at least 2 years old, and certainly not much similar under the jacket, or quite as well crafted as any of your designs.
The word does not go with the emoticon. I just used the purple emoticon because it was best.. dodgy means nothing
The one time i tried to implement Leach, i got non-sensical results & haven't gone back to check where i messed up.
Tom Danley has used Leach with very good results, we liked what we have with the big CC in the RonHorn.
Our trials with a smaller CC & supra-baffles & some CC damping (we maybe shouldn't make 3 changes at once) has been a step backwards.
dave
planet10 said:
Leach has (as posted over at Fullrangedriver.com) been called by Edgar the most accurate way to calc. I am not entirelly positive I calced it right though I checked and double checked. I will go back and look at my calcs and see. Regardless, I like the fullness of the low end with the large CC. I am trying to develop a method to use just one wall as well (as per the Carfrae horns). I know it will increase the foot print of the speaker but, heck, we don't all have corners to work with and I am tired of having to put the speakers away when I am done with them. Though the WAF is high on these little guys, nothing will make them acceptable when they block the way through a room
.
RtV said:
Chris & i are building & listening. Measureing kit is being put in place.
Both Martin & Ron Clarke are participating (both have modeling tools in advance of anything available -- and i can't run Martin's sheets at the moment -- no Windows. Scottmoose is also running some models.
dave
GM said:
Well, this could certainly turn out to be a "foot in mouth" remark - I'll be able to try a quick audition only test in the next day or so.
My comment was based on the significant difference between the T/S parameters and rising frequency response above 150Hz in Fostex's published specs.
For a fact, the basket frame size is identical for the 2 drivers and the 127's magnet assembly is much (26.3mm) narrower and only slightly (4mm) deeper, so except in cases where cabinet includes bracing tightly wrapping the magnet structure, there's no reason at all that they shouldn't be "interchangeable"
For that matter, if I get around to swapping drivers out, I may as well try the 126's in the Fonken aperiodically vented boxes.
Care to make any predictions on subjective performance ( I don't have access to any measuring kit )
chrisb said:
Greets!
Apparently we are having a 'failure to communicate'.
As I implied, the 127 isn't suitable for any 126 vented design, but that doesn't imply that the 127 is unsuited for BLH apps.Easy rule-of-thumb: compare the driver's T/S max flat alignments. If they are reasonably close, then they are interchangeable, so 'shoehorning' the 127's ~0.44 ft^3/65 Hz alignment in the 126's ~0.08 ft^3/111 Hz seems like a match made in 'acoustic hell' and the higher gain of a BLH is just going to amplify any misalignment.
Turning it around, we see too large a cab, but if it's not tuned too far below Fs, the driver/cab can be tuned to 'fit', so where a multiple use cab is desired, design it around the space 'hog'.
GM
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.