Greets!
True, 'best' is application dependant, so I should have used 'better' since typically either many more EQ'd ~flat or of various Q/BW are required to deal with a room's complex room modes.
At 80 Hz though, unless a single sub is centrally located, I'd rather have dual subs separate from the mains to move around than one offset in a corner or behind some furniture, like is often done.
Frankly, folks naysay 'stereo' corner loaded subs/wide BW systems like I use and having tried them with/without EQ down low where the modes are strongest, I prefer them without, which increases the peak's/null's Qs, like comparing an end loaded TL with/without any stuffing, which lowers all the Qs, making them broadband enough to potentially be obvious. Not technically accurate, but down low we're keying off the peaks since we're amplitude centric, so the lower the null's noise floor, the less likely we're to notice it.
As always though, YMMV.
GM
True, 'best' is application dependant, so I should have used 'better' since typically either many more EQ'd ~flat or of various Q/BW are required to deal with a room's complex room modes.
At 80 Hz though, unless a single sub is centrally located, I'd rather have dual subs separate from the mains to move around than one offset in a corner or behind some furniture, like is often done.
Frankly, folks naysay 'stereo' corner loaded subs/wide BW systems like I use and having tried them with/without EQ down low where the modes are strongest, I prefer them without, which increases the peak's/null's Qs, like comparing an end loaded TL with/without any stuffing, which lowers all the Qs, making them broadband enough to potentially be obvious. Not technically accurate, but down low we're keying off the peaks since we're amplitude centric, so the lower the null's noise floor, the less likely we're to notice it.
As always though, YMMV.
GM
Re: Sealed FE126E Bipole
I hope you meant FE127? If so, they certainly work very well in the mono and bipole MLTL designs posted numerously on this thread and at Planet10 site, as well as the aperiodically loaded Fonken. Has anyone built a pair of the bipole Fonkens yet? On my list, but not for a month or two at least.
Regardless of modelling predictions, how successful the 127's might be in a sealed cabinet is uncertain; and while they'll never deliver the bass extension of the CSS drivers, the midrange is something else again.
I think you'll find the rising HF response of any of the FExx6 series to be best suited to BLH horns* - Ron C continues to work on a family of great designs that many of us have played with.
* otherwise passive or active EQ will be required, which to my mind contradicts the whole premise of full-range drives, particularly for those seeking that magical synergy with low powered NFB SET amps.
GG said:
I hope you meant FE127? If so, they certainly work very well in the mono and bipole MLTL designs posted numerously on this thread and at Planet10 site, as well as the aperiodically loaded Fonken. Has anyone built a pair of the bipole Fonkens yet? On my list, but not for a month or two at least.
Regardless of modelling predictions, how successful the 127's might be in a sealed cabinet is uncertain; and while they'll never deliver the bass extension of the CSS drivers, the midrange is something else again.
I think you'll find the rising HF response of any of the FExx6 series to be best suited to BLH horns* - Ron C continues to work on a family of great designs that many of us have played with.
* otherwise passive or active EQ will be required, which to my mind contradicts the whole premise of full-range drives, particularly for those seeking that magical synergy with low powered NFB SET amps.
Re: Re: Sealed FE126E Bipole
Yes, I did mean the FE127E!
Having built the BD-Pipes, I want to try the FE127E in a sealed box to see if I can get better midrange. Yep, they will get help from subs. If it don't work well, the conversion to a t-line is rather simple.
I have always been fond of Onken style cabinets. With the vent pattern around the driver, they should provide the best imaging.
chrisb said:
Yes, I did mean the FE127E!
Having built the BD-Pipes, I want to try the FE127E in a sealed box to see if I can get better midrange. Yep, they will get help from subs. If it don't work well, the conversion to a t-line is rather simple.
I have always been fond of Onken style cabinets. With the vent pattern around the driver, they should provide the best imaging.
Greets!
Yes, but it's doing so with increasing phase delay, so the driver output and vent outputs are comb filtering with each other, ergo you want the vent's output to roll off as quickly as possible for best accuracy.
IOW, there's two components to imaging, one being polar response, which the Onken does a decent job of matching driver/vent outputs as you note (though the original in Thuras' 1932 reflex patent is best), and accuracy, which determines how it's perceived by the listener. I mean, I don't know about you, but I prefer a more defined soundfield to the more diffuse one of an audibly comb filtering system, as apparently does many of the folks who've built the Onkens over the decades judging by the damping stuck in the vents to attenuate their strong pipe harmonics.
GM
Yes, but it's doing so with increasing phase delay, so the driver output and vent outputs are comb filtering with each other, ergo you want the vent's output to roll off as quickly as possible for best accuracy.
IOW, there's two components to imaging, one being polar response, which the Onken does a decent job of matching driver/vent outputs as you note (though the original in Thuras' 1932 reflex patent is best), and accuracy, which determines how it's perceived by the listener. I mean, I don't know about you, but I prefer a more defined soundfield to the more diffuse one of an audibly comb filtering system, as apparently does many of the folks who've built the Onkens over the decades judging by the damping stuck in the vents to attenuate their strong pipe harmonics.
GM
All right, I am possibly considering constructing the bipole TL version some time soon. This will be my first DIY project and really my first introduction into high-end speakers (I've been into headphones so far and can be found around www.head-fi.org. I don't really plan to leave them, but I also want to hear what true hi-fi speakers can sound like). However I am torn between this design and GM's Jordan JX92S MLTL-48 design. Both are simple cabinets that I should have no problem constructing. However, the Jordan design is considerably more expensive due to the driver cost (The only NA dealer I have seen is Mark Audio). How do these two designs compare sonically and what would be the advantages and disadvantages to either. Thanks in advance for helping out this speaker newb!
Hey noob, (a1rocketpilot)
From what you say you might want to consider
on splitting the difference... one pair of FE127's
in the GM measures for the MLTL. It'll give
that tall slender cabinet with a port at the bottom
with drivers 1/4 the cost of the Jordans. I speak from
experience as a builder of this design that it sounds good
with little muss or fuss.
Greg's post is right above here. He can repost it
since, as usual, I have misplaced it. For some added
enjoyment, there migtt be dims for that corner
shaped MLTL on the Jordan site for the FE127.
From what you say you might want to consider
on splitting the difference... one pair of FE127's
in the GM measures for the MLTL. It'll give
that tall slender cabinet with a port at the bottom
with drivers 1/4 the cost of the Jordans. I speak from
experience as a builder of this design that it sounds good
with little muss or fuss.
Greg's post is right above here. He can repost it
since, as usual, I have misplaced it. For some added
enjoyment, there migtt be dims for that corner
shaped MLTL on the Jordan site for the FE127.
How would that design compare to the bipole designed in this thread? I haven't ruled out the Jordan's completely for cost, but the Fostex's do look better in terms of value. From a price no object standpoint, how would the bipole, GM's MLTL with the Jordans, and the MLTL with the Fostex's compare in terms of sound quality? If the Jordan's are better (and at over $300 for a pair, I would expect them to be), is the difference significant?