So I build the Frugel-Horn mk3. I shouldn't have... 
It was only an experiment and didn't really expect much, but damn they sound good.
So good I am afraid they possibly will replace my Triangle Antal Ex.
Really impressive, I just can not imagine how so small drivers can make so much bass.
Only thing I could whish better is that they could go a little deeper. I thought about using a subwoofer but the plan is that they are going to be used with my ACA amplifier (if I ever get the kit...) so maybe I should go with the Frugel-Horn XL?
But I find it difficult to find any comparisons between the mk3 and the XL.
Have anybody made measurements of them both?
I have no doubt the XL has more bas, but it has a larger driver so how good is the mid and high range compared to the XL?
By the way, drivers are Alpair 7.3 vs. 10.3.
With these drivers are the XL as good as the mk3 just with more bass?
It was only an experiment and didn't really expect much, but damn they sound good.
So good I am afraid they possibly will replace my Triangle Antal Ex.
Really impressive, I just can not imagine how so small drivers can make so much bass.
Only thing I could whish better is that they could go a little deeper. I thought about using a subwoofer but the plan is that they are going to be used with my ACA amplifier (if I ever get the kit...) so maybe I should go with the Frugel-Horn XL?
But I find it difficult to find any comparisons between the mk3 and the XL.
Have anybody made measurements of them both?
I have no doubt the XL has more bas, but it has a larger driver so how good is the mid and high range compared to the XL?
By the way, drivers are Alpair 7.3 vs. 10.3.
With these drivers are the XL as good as the mk3 just with more bass?
No acoustic measurements upon which to base my observation - and with rear mouthed designs such as these, much of what you'd be measuring would be the largest variable likely to be encountered in any build- i.e. the room.
I have heard quite a few drivers in all 3 of the FH family, and certainly the A7.3 and A10.3. AFAIC, the enclosure design doesn't have any affect on one of the biggest areas of difference between these two - the FR and "detail" from about 2000? Hz up.
While it could be argued that the smaller driver has an edge in lower level detail - "finesse" as Dave would like to say, the 10.3 simply goes much lower than the 7 in comparably configured / loaded enclosures, and the extra 2 and a bit dB sensitivity is always handy.
If you're not itching to build something bigger, I'd be inclined to high pass the A7.3 in the 80-100Hz area, and supplement with your sub.
I have heard quite a few drivers in all 3 of the FH family, and certainly the A7.3 and A10.3. AFAIC, the enclosure design doesn't have any affect on one of the biggest areas of difference between these two - the FR and "detail" from about 2000? Hz up.
While it could be argued that the smaller driver has an edge in lower level detail - "finesse" as Dave would like to say, the 10.3 simply goes much lower than the 7 in comparably configured / loaded enclosures, and the extra 2 and a bit dB sensitivity is always handy.
If you're not itching to build something bigger, I'd be inclined to high pass the A7.3 in the 80-100Hz area, and supplement with your sub.
The FHXL puts out more usable bass. The new A10.3 comes within a smidgen of the A7.3 in terms of “finesse”, but it does take serious break-in time to fully acheive that. And that smidgen extra the A7.3 has i sprobably not realizable unless everything in front is suitably refined — in most systems i would suspect the A10.3 to be best.
Chris says 2dB difference, but real world measures show more like a half dB.
For ultimate performance, as Chris indicates, it is hard to beat a WAW. We have 2 with A7 — our favorite midTweeter — with XOs at 180 & 250 Hz.
dave
Chris says 2dB difference, but real world measures show more like a half dB.
For ultimate performance, as Chris indicates, it is hard to beat a WAW. We have 2 with A7 — our favorite midTweeter — with XOs at 180 & 250 Hz.
dave
If you could get your hands on some SDX7, that'd be my first suggestion. They work like a charm in small sealed boxes, and are in fact the units seen in photo Dave posted above of the Ellipses - TMM with A7.3. But as those are now rather hard to find, something like the SB Acoustics 20PFC30 might be worth looking at - could be a new sleeper in the 8" woofer class, and cheap enough that a stereo pair with LP around 100-120 Hz, could still be in a comfort zone? I tend to prefer a HP on the wide-band driver in such configurations.
In the backgrond you can see a pair of triangular prisms (in the bottom frame). These are deflectors/stealthWoofers for the FH3. They have a single SDX7 firing towards the wall.
These are the easier to build 90° triangles and about 14 litres. Moving to a more acute triangle — i have drawings with 75° — gives more volume without getting excessively wide, but are harder to build. 75° is IIRC what Ron suggested as optimum for deflector use.
The little cubes on the floor are also SDX7, each with a Foster plate amp (12” cube external, about 14 litre for the SDX7).
I have been (very) slowly and intermittently working on th enext generation… with the revival of the SDX10, a 75° prism for 1 of those looks very doable for the FHXL.
dave
These are the easier to build 90° triangles and about 14 litres. Moving to a more acute triangle — i have drawings with 75° — gives more volume without getting excessively wide, but are harder to build. 75° is IIRC what Ron suggested as optimum for deflector use.
The little cubes on the floor are also SDX7, each with a Foster plate amp (12” cube external, about 14 litre for the SDX7).
I have been (very) slowly and intermittently working on th enext generation… with the revival of the SDX10, a 75° prism for 1 of those looks very doable for the FHXL.
dave
I have had the remarkable luck to chance upon a pair of FH3s and FHXLs built by two mad keen audiophiles in New Zealand, and selling them within a month of each other, so I snaffled both!
The babies came along first, and I was struck by them right away. They're really lightweight physically but not actually, their tiny CHR-70 drivers producing genuinely surprising bass. I literally plonked them down where my previous speakers were - BIBs with FF125wks - and they sounded tonally correct right away. The CHRs take a bit of driving though, and I picked up an Ice Power amp (47wpc into 4ohms) which made them come alive (my 5wpc 6A3 wasn't quite doing the business). I've had better staging and imaging from other speakers but then these are tiny drivers.
As mentioned, along came the opportunity to buy some FHXLs, some of the first built and the process was detailed here on DIYaudio. Anyhoo, they just arrived yesterday (drivers were sensibly sent separately) and they're a big step up on the FH3s, worth the effort and cost I believe. The reality is that the footprint is not much bigger; mainly they're wider. But they are also more real in the way they depict the music. The A10Ps are very smooth to my ears, the bass is angelic (my powered subs are now in another room) and these just seem to make music. Even the bad recordings are good. Better staging and imaging for sure. Just more realistic overall. I prefer them to my BIBs too.
Next test is to hook up the tube amps and see how 5-8wpc drives the 88dB sensitive AP10s.
The babies came along first, and I was struck by them right away. They're really lightweight physically but not actually, their tiny CHR-70 drivers producing genuinely surprising bass. I literally plonked them down where my previous speakers were - BIBs with FF125wks - and they sounded tonally correct right away. The CHRs take a bit of driving though, and I picked up an Ice Power amp (47wpc into 4ohms) which made them come alive (my 5wpc 6A3 wasn't quite doing the business). I've had better staging and imaging from other speakers but then these are tiny drivers.
As mentioned, along came the opportunity to buy some FHXLs, some of the first built and the process was detailed here on DIYaudio. Anyhoo, they just arrived yesterday (drivers were sensibly sent separately) and they're a big step up on the FH3s, worth the effort and cost I believe. The reality is that the footprint is not much bigger; mainly they're wider. But they are also more real in the way they depict the music. The A10Ps are very smooth to my ears, the bass is angelic (my powered subs are now in another room) and these just seem to make music. Even the bad recordings are good. Better staging and imaging for sure. Just more realistic overall. I prefer them to my BIBs too.
Next test is to hook up the tube amps and see how 5-8wpc drives the 88dB sensitive AP10s.
Attachments
As does the FHXL (a size larger thou). A10PeN is my personal favorite thou.
I very much like what EnABL does to the already very good A7.3 — better small detail, better image/soundstage. A7 MOAP are in the same league, maybe a bit better. I have aquired Chris’ pair and will EnABL them at some point.
dave
MAOP = IIRC, Micro Arc Oxidation Process - a very expensive process of subjecting the thin metal cones to plasma (?) treatment that effectively crystalizes the first (few?) molecular layers. I owned the pair to which Dave referred for several years, prior and subsequent to which I've heard many pairs of stock and EnABL'd Mark Audio drivers of almost every model.
The MAOPs are pretty damned special, very costly, and almost unobtainable - I'd certainly be inclined to leave them as is
The MAOPs are pretty damned special, very costly, and almost unobtainable - I'd certainly be inclined to leave them as is
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.