There has been some discussion about the "market niche" for the FH2.
As background reference I have prepared a quick survey of existing published designs for the FE126e. Just an illustration, a link to the design, and simulated response chart:
FE126e-horns2.pdf (external download link)
I agree with others that the size of the new model could be increaed a little - if the increase in can make for better performance. Maybe even a little sub-100Hz umph.
Adding about 4" in height should still make it fit the level of the windowsills, and an inch or two in added width might also be acceptable while still keeping a reasonably petite appearance?
SveinB.
As background reference I have prepared a quick survey of existing published designs for the FE126e. Just an illustration, a link to the design, and simulated response chart:
FE126e-horns2.pdf (external download link)
I agree with others that the size of the new model could be increaed a little - if the increase in can make for better performance. Maybe even a little sub-100Hz umph.
Adding about 4" in height should still make it fit the level of the windowsills, and an inch or two in added width might also be acceptable while still keeping a reasonably petite appearance?
SveinB.
Svein, don't forget the modified Buschhorn MKI in the pantheon of DIY designs for this driver ( see final page of Dave's plans document for the Frugal Horn). As I've noted (ad nauseam to some) I've built a pair of this design for both FE108E Sigma and FE126E, and can definitely speak to the differences between these 2 drivers in this box.
Then of course, there is a well known, and so far quite small group of commercial designs - including the ill-fated Atelier First Horn, several familiar looking but custom OEM proprietary designs by Scott for Jeff Carder, and of course the ole gran pappy of em all.... (well, originally with an earlier driver*, but when sweet little miss serendipity sits on your lap, it's hard not to respond , or is it hard if you do? )
* almost said more, but for once, common sense prevailed
Then of course, there is a well known, and so far quite small group of commercial designs - including the ill-fated Atelier First Horn, several familiar looking but custom OEM proprietary designs by Scott for Jeff Carder, and of course the ole gran pappy of em all.... (well, originally with an earlier driver*, but when sweet little miss serendipity sits on your lap, it's hard not to respond , or is it hard if you do? )
* almost said more, but for once, common sense prevailed
Uh-oh. The dreaded performance comparisons have started up. Personally, I don't want to get involved at all in that side of things, especially when they are based upon simulations, so I may revise my participation in the thread (entirely amicably I hasten to add) over the next few days, as I can forsee the potential for a major headache, and the last thing you guys want is me in grumpy old (well, 30 year old) man mode.
That said, it's certainly useful to have a survey of 126 designs, providing no over-generalised conclusions are drawn / inferred.
That said, it's certainly useful to have a survey of 126 designs, providing no over-generalised conclusions are drawn / inferred.
Great document SveinB!
Thanks for including the BIB too! I'd love to see a chart for the Austin if one has been published... There are soooo many excellent, well documented designs for the 126/127e including some simple ported boxes and fonkens. Amazing how in one or two short years so many great cabinet designs are available to choose from for a moderately priced full range driver!
Godzilla
Thanks for including the BIB too! I'd love to see a chart for the Austin if one has been published... There are soooo many excellent, well documented designs for the 126/127e including some simple ported boxes and fonkens. Amazing how in one or two short years so many great cabinet designs are available to choose from for a moderately priced full range driver!
Godzilla
1. Scott's right that the curves don't tell the story. The Harveys I heard (courtesy of Mssr. Phil Townsend) were set up expertly, driven beautifully, and performed incredibly, and I don't believe the curve bears any resemblance to what I heard in-room.
2. In terms of the distinction between BLH and BVR, is it merely that: (a) BLH tends to use a longer path / smaller chamber, and BVR uses a shorter path / bigger chamber, and (b) the calculations are different for each type -- but is that it? Or is there something else?
3. Chrisby, thou naughty varlet.
2. In terms of the distinction between BLH and BVR, is it merely that: (a) BLH tends to use a longer path / smaller chamber, and BVR uses a shorter path / bigger chamber, and (b) the calculations are different for each type -- but is that it? Or is there something else?
3. Chrisby, thou naughty varlet.
I'm bumping this thread up to agree with some that a taller FH would be better with furniture. I've been looking at Ron's A126, but I have no idea which document is the most current and believed correct.
With the success of the various Spawns it seems that FH will usually be built just for corners. I'm not sure what the downside is of a higher diver height. It would add some to material cost, but the build difficulty wouldn't change.
With the success of the various Spawns it seems that FH will usually be built just for corners. I'm not sure what the downside is of a higher diver height. It would add some to material cost, but the build difficulty wouldn't change.
Dave, I don't think you'll find anyone complaining about all the "heavy lifting" you and the other guys do for us.
A few days ago I was looking at a pair of $14,000 speakers. DeVere I think. Seemed to be a pretty straightforward 3 way design in an easy to build box. I imagine it uses the best drivers.
I don't care what it costs, but what struck me was all the tuning that was claimed to have gone into the speaker. You guys that work on the great designs for us do mention tuning all the time, and give good suggestions. I wonder if in a new reference if ease of tuning could be considered in the design. Taking this further, could some of the the sound path be adjustable beyond changing volume? What does the model say happens, for example, if compression is changed a bit?
What got me thinking about this is the fine tuning of the DeVere versus the real world of speaker placement. We all know how much placement affects sound. Especially with corner horns where the walls are really the final part of the speaker box. In the final adjustment I make changes to please me. I don't care if it's accurate. But I want to start out with a flat response. I also want to judge room problems from a flat response.
I've been playing around with the Behringer DEQ2496. As some of you know its a digital equalizer, does real time analysis, and has good D/A and A/D converters. It makes a good DAC for digital from a computer. Getting to the point, it makes it easy for me to make speaker changes and get objective information on those changes. It can be left in the system to do DAC and EQ, or it can can be removed. It,s not going to be left in a Vinyl to SET to full range system. But for a nice system that fed by computer where the wife or GF controls speaker placement, it can improve sound remarkably.
So for me I've found my speaker adjustment for dummies tool. And a pretty good DAC for the price of a typical low end Hifi DAC. I would like to be able to make as many adjustment as possible with the speaker, as opposed to electronically.
A few days ago I was looking at a pair of $14,000 speakers. DeVere I think. Seemed to be a pretty straightforward 3 way design in an easy to build box. I imagine it uses the best drivers.
I don't care what it costs, but what struck me was all the tuning that was claimed to have gone into the speaker. You guys that work on the great designs for us do mention tuning all the time, and give good suggestions. I wonder if in a new reference if ease of tuning could be considered in the design. Taking this further, could some of the the sound path be adjustable beyond changing volume? What does the model say happens, for example, if compression is changed a bit?
What got me thinking about this is the fine tuning of the DeVere versus the real world of speaker placement. We all know how much placement affects sound. Especially with corner horns where the walls are really the final part of the speaker box. In the final adjustment I make changes to please me. I don't care if it's accurate. But I want to start out with a flat response. I also want to judge room problems from a flat response.
I've been playing around with the Behringer DEQ2496. As some of you know its a digital equalizer, does real time analysis, and has good D/A and A/D converters. It makes a good DAC for digital from a computer. Getting to the point, it makes it easy for me to make speaker changes and get objective information on those changes. It can be left in the system to do DAC and EQ, or it can can be removed. It,s not going to be left in a Vinyl to SET to full range system. But for a nice system that fed by computer where the wife or GF controls speaker placement, it can improve sound remarkably.
So for me I've found my speaker adjustment for dummies tool. And a pretty good DAC for the price of a typical low end Hifi DAC. I would like to be able to make as many adjustment as possible with the speaker, as opposed to electronically.
In my mind... faced with a dillema of demand for more FH v1 flat-paks, i think it might make more sense to forge ahead with 2v0 and do a beta run of those -- so that bumps this project up in the queue. The elegant BVR (more akin to the replikon than anything he has done before), that is very appealing due to its simplicity. And Scott's BVR track record is pretty good. The long path horn is gonna take more work and tuning, but i think we may well end up with 2 FH 2v0 -- we'll need to come up with suffixes to tell them apart.
(ie other than in my head no progress -- i've got at least a full-time month of just designs & drawings in the queue and being a small business, paying jobs come 1st)
dave
(ie other than in my head no progress -- i've got at least a full-time month of just designs & drawings in the queue and being a small business, paying jobs come 1st)
dave
Hi Dave
Please, no need to rush on my behalf; take the time you need. I am more than thankful for the effort Scott, Chris, and yourself put into these projects.
It will be nice to see a long(ish?) path BVR back in fold now that the others appear to have been, er, superseded by the Chang-style designs.
Cheers
Raymond
Please, no need to rush on my behalf; take the time you need. I am more than thankful for the effort Scott, Chris, and yourself put into these projects.
It will be nice to see a long(ish?) path BVR back in fold now that the others appear to have been, er, superseded by the Chang-style designs.
Cheers
Raymond
Scottmoose said:
Right, a true BLH will be a slowly expanding one with a typical spec 'FR' driver, so totally unacceptable for wide BW use above its mass corner due to the audible time delay between the driver's front and rear radiation. As you make the expansion 'faster' (shorten it at the expense of a larger throat, ergo larger mouth to maintain the same net bulk), the driver's specs has to change in a complementary way which shifts them towards an OB spec one. A way around this is to make the filter box bigger and use a higher cut-off horn 'vent', hence the 'BVR' moniker to differentiate between the two design routines.
GM
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.