Most of the points have been covered already. Steve Deckert continuing to raise obfuscation, incomplete or half-truths, twisting facts, and outright misinformation to new levels.
Even big commercial builds with 8(s), 10(s), 12(s) or 15(s) rarely reach 20 Hz.
In the white paper, desciption of its functionality clearing defines a BVR. Recently resurrected by the Replikons from historical examples, and simplified and made accessible by Scott's Changs. We go to some pain pointing out over and over again that they aren't horns, but that doesn't seem to stop many, so i guess it is OK for Steve too.
FE126En, FX120, F120A are all the same size, 4.5". FE126En is 94 dB.
The efficiency of the speaker above the horn cut-off will be that of the driver, 88 dB.
All the same size: Medallion is quite a bit larger. FH1 is about 1 1/2" narrower & 1 1/2" less depth. Hornshoppe is smaller yet.
Now, since i'm intimately familiar with the Frugel-Horn, to counter Steve's misinformation let me summarize its hi-lites, development & history.
1st: How many verion 1.0 pieces of software have you used that didn't have shortcomings or just weren't ready for primetime?
The original design brief for the Frugel_horn was (to paraphrase): A DIY similar to Hornshoppe Horn. In this respect it succeeded beyond expectation.
Step 1: take all the dimensions that could be measured in a hornshoppe horn, and then using the same design methodology -- scale the Buschhorm Mk1 to fit a 4" driver -- to fill in the blanks. Martin simmed this and showed that it was substantially the same as the EdHorn. Much later the side of an actual EdHorn was removed. Except for 2 smallish differences we were bang on (in respect of Ed i will not reveal in public, email me if curious). We built 2 pair to confirm functionality.
As early as the drawing phase some changes just made sense. These lead to the original FH1 Level 0 prototypes which debuted 4 yrs ago this summer (VI diyFEST #4). Performance exceeded the expanded Buschhorn. Ron Clarke added more with deflectors, the curved back & the supraBaffle. These enhancements brought bass response from an estimated 75-80 hz to 50-55 Hz.
The actual horn flare (ignoring the Ron Clarke additions), is essentially a refolded expanded BHorn Mk1 (in otherwords much the same as the EdHorn)
People built these and they brought musical enjoyment to many. It also exposed the limitations and problems.
Now an aside to look at this bit of obfuscation in the white paper:
This is gexter's build. One of the features of the FH1 was the ability to have 3 base sizes of air cavity to allow people to easily play with air cavity size, and air cavity treatment. Gex built with the middle size one so that he could do just that. The starting point for the 4" driver is the small cavity of about half the volume.
The opened up picture has the top off. Large throat alludes to the horizontal distance from the baffle to the top, horizontal partition, whereas the actual throat is defined by the vertical distance from this partition to the top.
On with the story. It wasn't long before we started working on FH2. Many ideas were explored & discarded. More info was gathered as to what diyers wanted, and what they wanted fixed. Scott, inspired by the FH1, had a hugely creative period, starting out with the Harvey/Iris/Bruce BVRs, the Olson/Nagaoka inspired double horns (of which Saburo & Sachiko were huge hits) and the re-envisioning of the BVR in the form of all the Changs (a name that stuck, but Scott was never thrilled with) -- a side effect of FH1 that was of big benefit to the diy community. Much was learned. We kept banging our heads against the wall with FH2.
Some interesting events too: Sachiko, tooled up for regular commercial distribution, gaoned a $10k retail price (the recent economic slump sweeping away that effort) and the diy community (along with 6moons), sent a company that tried to pawn off a 12k euro version of the FH1 back to the drawing board.
Then the discontinuation of the FE126e, forced a start over again. All the input from end users on how to improve FH, all that Scott had learned from spawn, all the failed attempts at FH Mk2 came together. Scott sent me an idea for FH3 based loosly on a FH2 idea which ended up being called The Duck, Chris built and we were listening to this within a week. Shortcomings were found. Simple revisions and 2 weeks later the proto for what we have now made its 1st public showing almost 3 years after the original (VI diyFEST #7). It went into beta, with build after build being deemed a success.
FH3, better, simplier, more elegant, more versatile (both drivers & placement) than the original. Steve Deckert is bashing a design rendered obselete almost a year ago to promote his product. Steve, you are late to the party!
dave
Even big commercial builds with 8(s), 10(s), 12(s) or 15(s) rarely reach 20 Hz.
In the white paper, desciption of its functionality clearing defines a BVR. Recently resurrected by the Replikons from historical examples, and simplified and made accessible by Scott's Changs. We go to some pain pointing out over and over again that they aren't horns, but that doesn't seem to stop many, so i guess it is OK for Steve too.
FE126En, FX120, F120A are all the same size, 4.5". FE126En is 94 dB.
The efficiency of the speaker above the horn cut-off will be that of the driver, 88 dB.
All the same size: Medallion is quite a bit larger. FH1 is about 1 1/2" narrower & 1 1/2" less depth. Hornshoppe is smaller yet.
Now, since i'm intimately familiar with the Frugel-Horn, to counter Steve's misinformation let me summarize its hi-lites, development & history.
1st: How many verion 1.0 pieces of software have you used that didn't have shortcomings or just weren't ready for primetime?
The original design brief for the Frugel_horn was (to paraphrase): A DIY similar to Hornshoppe Horn. In this respect it succeeded beyond expectation.
Step 1: take all the dimensions that could be measured in a hornshoppe horn, and then using the same design methodology -- scale the Buschhorm Mk1 to fit a 4" driver -- to fill in the blanks. Martin simmed this and showed that it was substantially the same as the EdHorn. Much later the side of an actual EdHorn was removed. Except for 2 smallish differences we were bang on (in respect of Ed i will not reveal in public, email me if curious). We built 2 pair to confirm functionality.
As early as the drawing phase some changes just made sense. These lead to the original FH1 Level 0 prototypes which debuted 4 yrs ago this summer (VI diyFEST #4). Performance exceeded the expanded Buschhorn. Ron Clarke added more with deflectors, the curved back & the supraBaffle. These enhancements brought bass response from an estimated 75-80 hz to 50-55 Hz.
The actual horn flare (ignoring the Ron Clarke additions), is essentially a refolded expanded BHorn Mk1 (in otherwords much the same as the EdHorn)
People built these and they brought musical enjoyment to many. It also exposed the limitations and problems.
Now an aside to look at this bit of obfuscation in the white paper:
This design has a significant air space behind the driver and a clearly defined throat, albeit rather large
This is gexter's build. One of the features of the FH1 was the ability to have 3 base sizes of air cavity to allow people to easily play with air cavity size, and air cavity treatment. Gex built with the middle size one so that he could do just that. The starting point for the 4" driver is the small cavity of about half the volume.
The opened up picture has the top off. Large throat alludes to the horizontal distance from the baffle to the top, horizontal partition, whereas the actual throat is defined by the vertical distance from this partition to the top.
On with the story. It wasn't long before we started working on FH2. Many ideas were explored & discarded. More info was gathered as to what diyers wanted, and what they wanted fixed. Scott, inspired by the FH1, had a hugely creative period, starting out with the Harvey/Iris/Bruce BVRs, the Olson/Nagaoka inspired double horns (of which Saburo & Sachiko were huge hits) and the re-envisioning of the BVR in the form of all the Changs (a name that stuck, but Scott was never thrilled with) -- a side effect of FH1 that was of big benefit to the diy community. Much was learned. We kept banging our heads against the wall with FH2.
Some interesting events too: Sachiko, tooled up for regular commercial distribution, gaoned a $10k retail price (the recent economic slump sweeping away that effort) and the diy community (along with 6moons), sent a company that tried to pawn off a 12k euro version of the FH1 back to the drawing board.
Then the discontinuation of the FE126e, forced a start over again. All the input from end users on how to improve FH, all that Scott had learned from spawn, all the failed attempts at FH Mk2 came together. Scott sent me an idea for FH3 based loosly on a FH2 idea which ended up being called The Duck, Chris built and we were listening to this within a week. Shortcomings were found. Simple revisions and 2 weeks later the proto for what we have now made its 1st public showing almost 3 years after the original (VI diyFEST #7). It went into beta, with build after build being deemed a success.
FH3, better, simplier, more elegant, more versatile (both drivers & placement) than the original. Steve Deckert is bashing a design rendered obselete almost a year ago to promote his product. Steve, you are late to the party!
dave
I think Scott was referring to the naughty bits inside - throat aperture dimensions, flare rates, path length, vent terminus (oops- "mouth") dimensions.
No doubt that if Steve was concerned about the perception of folks outside his target clientel, he'd be well served to find someone to proof read / ghost-write his ad copy.
I met him at a small trade show (gosh, ten years ago now), and had the opportunity to hear several of his small and quite delightful SE amps, as well as an early model of one of his Radial speakers. In person he and enclosure guru Bob Z were earnest, affable and quite fun to spend hours with late into the evening just listening (well OK, I think a couple of "pops" may have been involved)
His commercial website has evolved into quite a slick and for the most part quite visual appealing presence, but the purple prose of some of his more recent ad copy and technical writing in "white papers" while frequently amusing, does often give pause to wonder if there's any technically competent support staff checking his work.
As to the speaker itself - it could sound quite delightful - but who here would risk installing a tube amp upside down in the mouth of a "horn" loudspeaker enclosure
for which they're claiming response "solid at 20Hz"
Many of us go to the extreme of isolating even the simplest of passive speaker level XO networks from the active section of enclosures.
Does the 5 year warranty also cover the optional amps?
All that said, I remain convinced that Steve, et al are earnest in their offerings, if not always prepared for the analysis and critique that weak or suspicious technical documentation invites.
DAK catalogs
The more I read Steve Deckert, the more I am reminded of Drew Kaplan and the DAK catalogs from the 80's. Remember those?
You can get a good look at a t-bone by sticking your head up a bull's......
One more observation, if his speaker did go down to 20Hz flat response, why in hell would you stick a TUBE amp in the bottom of the thing?
The more I read Steve Deckert, the more I am reminded of Drew Kaplan and the DAK catalogs from the 80's. Remember those?
You can get a good look at a t-bone by sticking your head up a bull's......
One more observation, if his speaker did go down to 20Hz flat response, why in hell would you stick a TUBE amp in the bottom of the thing?
Last edited:
don't remember the original from the 80's, but the current site's quite a good laff - almost as fun as the late night Ron Popeil (winner of 1993 Ig Nobel Prize* for consumer engineering) spots that everyone must have seen
*The first Ig Nobels were awarded in 1991, at that time for discoveries "that cannot, or should not, be reproduced".
well, that's enough googling for now - my "ice tea" is getting warm
blah blah blah... who cares about what he writes about them. What do they sound like??? What percentage of people really pay attention to those papers, knows what he's talking about, or cares?... I mean other than the speaker nerds here [and I mean that in the most respectful way ] ;-) The proof is in the listening and eventually the word will get out by people who have actually heard them. The design will live or die by that, and to some extent the Decware reputation. I have owned various Decware amps and speakers, as well as the Edhorn, the Frugel-horn and built a side firing version of Ron's A126 horn. Decware's products have generally been of high quality and their amps of high value IMO. Perhaps getting a bit less through the years as their prices have gone up, and the speakers are a bit out of my price range except on the used market. But I don't see Steve doing anything less than Ed did when he was marketing his horns - except that Steve put's more down on paper where Ed would just talk... and talk... ;-) Let'em market the way they want and let the products speak for themselves, I say. If this stuff ticks you off you must be continually stressed/pissed off, what with the way high-end in general is marketed, particularly wires, cables, and power conditioners.
Last edited:
Here's another thing. 1000 views and 25 replies in two days on just this site alone. Not bad for free marketing. Why not make "bold claims" that draw attention?
Oh, and IMO that built-in amp was done clearly to be different, strange, and controversial. There's no other explanation. It makes no sense other than perhaps it might better come to the attention of a reviewer at 6Moons or some other place that likes stuff out of the ordinary.
Oh, and IMO that built-in amp was done clearly to be different, strange, and controversial. There's no other explanation. It makes no sense other than perhaps it might better come to the attention of a reviewer at 6Moons or some other place that likes stuff out of the ordinary.
Last edited:
Ed Schilling, of the Hornshoppe.
Something tells me he isn't going to be thrilled about Decware using pictures from his website in their marketing literature, especially when coupled with the less-than positive remarks about them in the text. On which note, I'd be interested to know why, since Decware clearly define a horn as being a pipe that expands toward the terminus, Ed's horn for some reason does not meet said criteria.
Something tells me he isn't going to be thrilled about Decware using pictures from his website in their marketing literature, especially when coupled with the less-than positive remarks about them in the text. On which note, I'd be interested to know why, since Decware clearly define a horn as being a pipe that expands toward the terminus, Ed's horn for some reason does not meet said criteria.
I used to find it "off-putting" as well, but it's so prevalent I've learned to just ignore it. To some extent I think it's just a necessary evil of the business. It's done to hasten the spread of how great your product(s) are, or how they suck. At least the discovery part of online products, which must precede the listening, and purchasing (or 30 day money-back purchase). I can't say I wouldn't do it too if I were in the biz. And anyway, the brash claims in the end may be justified. They might sound fantastic. Nobody's heard them yet.
[Note to Steve if he's listening; doubtful] Please sell the cabinet design for us poor DIYérs living outside the USA!
cheers! -Brad-
I would think Ed would be happy that people are even still talking about his speakers after all these years. And anyway, Steve does not mention Ed's horns by name, or did I miss that? Only you guys are making that connection here because you know what they look like internally/externally. Steve is merely showing examples of other (competing?) product designs and *his opinion* that/why his is better. What's wrong with that? There has been money made on both sides of that fence. I could imagine Ed being completely fine with it especially given the higher price of the Decware DNA speakers - they are potentially targeting different buyer segments. Ed could actually end up selling more speakers.
cheers, -Brad-
cheers, -Brad-
Yes he does. See the (cough) 'Audio Paper' which I have refered to several times, and linked to on the Decware web page. It refers to Ed's horn by name, and contains pictures taken directly from his website. The text is inconsistant with previous statements (see my previous post), and quite deliberately paints said product (along with others) in a negative fashion. For example, the remark about 'no clearly defined horn throat.' Note that at no time do Decware state what a 'clearly defined horn throat' is supposed to be; presumably for the excellent reason that the phrase is meaningless. But it sounds persuasive in advertising copy doesn't it?
Perhaps it's just me who thinks that directly naming a rival product / products & criticising them in your own advertising copy is rather distasteful, above all when the critique resorts to statements of at best questionable validity.
FYI, Ed has already started selling a variation of his Horn in precisely this price bracket.
Perhaps it's just me who thinks that directly naming a rival product / products & criticising them in your own advertising copy is rather distasteful, above all when the critique resorts to statements of at best questionable validity.
FYI, Ed has already started selling a variation of his Horn in precisely this price bracket.
Last edited:
Brad - I think most of us understand to at least try to compartmentalize the marketing blather / hype noise, and anyone's who's heard any of Steve's amps or speakers is well aware of how silly good they can be - but for the amount of effort put into new product development and glossy web-site presentation, a little fact and spell checking wouldn't hurt .
FWIW, the "suggested list" tag line has always annoyed me a bit as well
anyway - it'll be interesting to await listeners' impressions
Has anyone found pricing on his site yet for the optional amps? - he's long since dropped the EL34 SE mono amps from the price list, and the closest product is the ZTI stereo chassis @ $1295 - not an outrageous price, all things considered.
I do understand where some of the annoyance comes from though. I had an audiophile friend who used to be a Decware customer but stopped buying from them. He got annoyed with how they came out with product after product (amps in this case) which claimed superiority, often in outlandish ways, over the previous versions. But IMO that was this guys insecurity issue continually needing to own/seek-out "the best" - something all too common with audio fanatics. And I could see the other side of the issue... What is the alternative for Decware? Never improve products? let sales stagnate? It was silly to me.
I think Ed believes he's created the perfect sounding speaker, or at least to the limits of what he can do, or is interested in doing. That's fine, it's his decision, and I respect that. That has likely been a double-edge sword for him and his business.
I think Ed believes he's created the perfect sounding speaker, or at least to the limits of what he can do, or is interested in doing. That's fine, it's his decision, and I respect that. That has likely been a double-edge sword for him and his business.
One difference is that Ed has I think on more than one occasion stated that "these are a finished design, folks" . No question the Heil AMT is a masterfully brilliant transducer, and who are we to question his choice of XO point (800Hz) but even though he'll likely want to take credit for it, he's certainly not the first / only guy to use them in combination with other drivers .
Perhaps Steve will get one of those "death to you and your firstborn" emails for Ed?
Bob
Frankly, I and another audio friend are more annoyed by the direction Decware has gone with respect to pricing. They used to sell great sounding $500 tube amps, kits, speaker cabinet designs, etc., that were more affordable for larger percentage of people. He used to pride himself on value and bringing great sound to the masses. Now their prices on average are MUCH higher and it seems he's become part of the "high-end" audio scene that he used to scoff at for selling pretty gear at price/sound ratios well past the point of diminishing returns. They also don't seem to sell as many kits and speaker plans as they used to. Steve doesn't seem to care as much about the poor music loving guys. Oh well, I guess there are business reasons for them doing this. Sales/profits no doubt. I understand. It's a business. He has a family and employees to feed, but it's a shame IMO.
I never posted this POV on the Decware forum, but maybe I should have, or should.
I never posted this POV on the Decware forum, but maybe I should have, or should.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.