I,m back for a moment via my 12" powerbook g4 fand 400w inverter
Yes, that is my understanding. I have read the story and will relay it here when I have more time but it explains how the shape of the enclosure relates to the speaker design.
That is considered to be an advantage - a point source.
Thats the tone I refered to earlier. Wonderful isn't it
Whole loaves and before that fire
My wife loves them and lovingly refers to them as the "E.T." speakers. Whenever I put a different set of speakers in rotation after a few days she always asks when am I putting back the "E.T." speakers.
TTFN
Yes, that is my understanding. I have read the story and will relay it here when I have more time but it explains how the shape of the enclosure relates to the speaker design.
That is considered to be an advantage - a point source.
Thats the tone I refered to earlier. Wonderful isn't it
Whole loaves and before that fire
My wife loves them and lovingly refers to them as the "E.T." speakers. Whenever I put a different set of speakers in rotation after a few days she always asks when am I putting back the "E.T." speakers.
TTFN
He yet lives... I don't envy you in the path of that little breeze.
Hmm. With that periscope, the Swans are effectively close to being an omni above the cabinet's gain BW, and at a somewhat lower frequency than most other boxes, so their behaviour is 'unusual.' Only works properly with certain drivers with a lowish mass-corner of course. Their polar response should / will reflect this (never measured one, but that's what will happen) -probably why I don't particularly like them myself, while some regard them as the best thing since the pre-sliced bread days. YMMV as always.
Hmm. With that periscope, the Swans are effectively close to being an omni above the cabinet's gain BW, and at a somewhat lower frequency than most other boxes, so their behaviour is 'unusual.' Only works properly with certain drivers with a lowish mass-corner of course. Their polar response should / will reflect this (never measured one, but that's what will happen) -probably why I don't particularly like them myself, while some regard them as the best thing since the pre-sliced bread days. YMMV as always.
Re: Ping Charles
Hi Andrew!
Got your email. Thanks for those plans. Looks promising.
I have actually been looking at something like a smaller version of the curved Moose BVR double horn. It looks simple enough to build. I assume (hope) this design would work good with the FE103E's.
Andrewbee said:
Hi Andrew!
Got your email. Thanks for those plans. Looks promising.
I have actually been looking at something like a smaller version of the curved Moose BVR double horn. It looks simple enough to build. I assume (hope) this design would work good with the FE103E's.
The plan I sent you is far away from a double horn unfortunately.
It is specific to the FE103e, there is a version for the FE108EZ which is 10mm deeper with a few changes in lengths internally.
Did you look at the Frugal Horn site? Scottmoose had done many double mouth speakers and you may find something pleasing there although I get the impression from his posting that he usually designs for the 4.5" and larger drivers e.g. FE127.
Andrewbee said:
The plans you sent me or more of a TL, correct? If so, how do they differ from horns as far as driver loading, frequency coverage, output and overall sound (tone)?
I know the actual differences between TL's and horns, but not the differences in sound and driver loading.
Yes, I've been skipping through parts of the FH site, unfortunately usually late at night. So about 10 minutes into it, I start nodding off a bit. LOL I'll see how much of it I can get through today since I'm off.
http://www.frugal-horn.com/spawn-plans.html
Scroll down. Suzy is a single mouth mBVR
A 1st pass at a double mouth version would mirror the vent/horn on top and decrease the vent depth by 1/2.
dave
Scroll down. Suzy is a single mouth mBVR
A 1st pass at a double mouth version would mirror the vent/horn on top and decrease the vent depth by 1/2.
dave
planet10 said:
I didn't see this page before on your site. Nice!
And sorry again, but I'm not too sure what that means about the whole double mouth bit you just said. Are you referring to the opening to the mouth that's already 0.50"? If so, then that means that that opening would be theoretically shut for a double mouth?
I was hoping on doing something in the lines of the Oliva Chang, IF it were possible with the FE103. That's not to say that I wouldn't upgrade to the FE126/127 later down the road.
planet10 said:
Okay, now I see. Thanks Dave.
So I could in fact mirror the Suzy? I assume all other dimensions would remain the same such as the horn load/funnel size and the rear chamber? Just that the driver should be mounted at mid-point in the chamber and one of those divider/reflector braces mounted on the back wall?
This is one of the boxes I've been meaning to revisit at some point. Unfortunately it's not going to be quite as simple as that (would that it were ) -the existing cab. basically uses the horn as an integral stand, so it's aspect ratio as is is already seriously OTT. A doubled version with the 103 would need to be done from scratch. I haven't done a new box for the FH site for a while, other than upgrading Olivia, so I'll rework the existing cab. & have a double-horn option too if it's wanted. Just don't expect them to have any bass.
Speaking generally now, the 103 (& the 108ESigma come to that) is a bit of a PITA to design for IMO. No -that's not right. It's just a case of priority. Trying to get any LF out of them while keeping excursion / distortion within vaguely reasonable limits is not at all easy, without resorting to a full-size horn or multiple drivers at any rate. I prefer to BW limit drivers this size when used solo, on the basis that 0 bass & decent mids + HF is better than a little bit of rubbish bass, the getting of which in the process wrecks the mids & HF.
) -the existing cab. basically uses the horn as an integral stand, so it's aspect ratio as is is already seriously OTT. A doubled version with the 103 would need to be done from scratch. I haven't done a new box for the FH site for a while, other than upgrading Olivia, so I'll rework the existing cab. & have a double-horn option too if it's wanted. Just don't expect them to have any bass. Speaking generally now, the 103 (& the 108ESigma come to that) is a bit of a PITA to design for IMO. No -that's not right. It's just a case of priority. Trying to get any LF out of them while keeping excursion / distortion within vaguely reasonable limits is not at all easy, without resorting to a full-size horn or multiple drivers at any rate. I prefer to BW limit drivers this size when used solo, on the basis that 0 bass & decent mids + HF is better than a little bit of rubbish bass, the getting of which in the process wrecks the mids & HF.
Scottmoose said:This is one of the boxes I've been meaning to revisit at some point. Unfortunately it's not going to be quite as simple as that (would that it were
Hello Scott.
I guess what I should be asking instead of saying "I want to have a double mouth horn" is... What is the point to having a double mouth horn over a single mouth horn? Does the double mouth increase efficiency, extend frequency range, etc, etc?
Also, I take it BSC still applies to horns as they do to normal sealed or ported designs.
As you can tell, I'm totally new to these kind of horns. I'm used to normal compression horns like the old Altec and Klipsch mid and high frequency horns and such.
Scottmoose said:
I don't remember if I said this before or not, but I don't plan on these replacing my main speakers or anything. If anything, these are just a way for me to get my foot in the door (so to speak) in building and listening to full range single driver systems.
I never bought the FE103's with the intentions of using them in my home, but in the dashboard of my vehicle! But now that I have a taste for single drivers, I want to go a little further with what I already have and build actual enclosures for them, just something that will allow them to make some decent sound. Also, if I can, I would really like to NOT have to use any BSC or any passive networks as I feel that defeats the purpose of singe driver systems.
Once I build a pair of enclosures for the FE103's, then I'll be ready for something bigger and better with bigger, better drivers. I would like to eventually have a pair of single driver horns that at least have strong, usable output down to 30Hz or so, and of course get up to 20kHz or close to it.
planet10 said:
Thanks for that link Dave. I've also been doing a little research on Google about BSC.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.