I can't speak to the stock drivers, but i'd guess that the better control of the HF break-up on the new driver would make them preferrable.
Once the peak issue is dealt with, the difference gets much less. The FH3 loaded FE126eN^2 gains dynamics, bass, slam (if even appropriate to talk about in light of a 4" driver), some HF extension, but looses a bit of finese.
It perhaps needs it less. The driver still gets better with treatment (i feel quite a bit).
EnABL2 gives real but slight improvements (where it gains is with really low level information, so in cases of ancilliary gear that buries that stuff, little if no difference). EnABL puts the rings in a generic position on the cone, EnABL2 lets the driver tell you where the rings go. In the last years, many drivers got EnABL 1.5 -- the ones with extra rings dictated by the cone. Any of my FE126/127eN with stealth rings and all EL70eN wcould be called EnABL1.5
dave
Frugalhorn Mk3
I'm curious about what makes this such a good match for the Fostex 126? Most other RLH designs seem to have complex labyrinths in the cabinet yet this appears more simple. Also does anyone have a link to an explanation of why an RLH works as well as it does for small full-range drivers? I'd like to understand a little of the theory without getting too bogged down with physics.
I'm curious about what makes this such a good match for the Fostex 126? Most other RLH designs seem to have complex labyrinths in the cabinet yet this appears more simple. Also does anyone have a link to an explanation of why an RLH works as well as it does for small full-range drivers? I'd like to understand a little of the theory without getting too bogged down with physics.
Last edited:
It should -- chacteristic are broadly similar to the Mark Audio. The pexperiment to confirm just requires me to solder the already installed drivers to the terminals, and install the removable baffles into the FH protos.
dave
Next you look at those complicated back horns imagine unfolding the turns and you will see how it straightens out and gets wider from top to bottom. Over the last several years software was developed to help understand building these types of cabinets (rather than experimentation) allowing us as a DIY community to better understand, simplify, build and enjoy what were once complicated back horns. I look at the FH3 as a modern build that takes advantage of modern software and a large DIY community. I can only imagine how the FH3 would have been received 50 years ago. It's likely audiophiles would have been flabbergasted!
It is interesting how full range drivers usually occupy back horns (tho not always). I believe it's due to a different mindset in building speakers. Rather than build boxes containing drivers optimized for specific frequencies and blend them via crossover networks, a full range driver often only requires bass augmentation. Therefore, full range drivers offer a more simple solution in what are most certainly more complicated cabinets.
The Fostex 126, among others, are excellent candidates for back horns.
It is interesting how full range drivers usually occupy back horns (tho not always). I believe it's due to a different mindset in building speakers. Rather than build boxes containing drivers optimized for specific frequencies and blend them via crossover networks, a full range driver often only requires bass augmentation. Therefore, full range drivers offer a more simple solution in what are most certainly more complicated cabinets.
The Fostex 126, among others, are excellent candidates for back horns.
Small wide-range drivers often need horn loading because...
- the cone is small. This makes it relatively ineffective at exciting lots of air in one go (like in a sealed cabinet, where only the front of the driver is exciting the room). Exciting lots of air is needed for low frequencies. Many people have subwoofers. 18" drivers are used pretty often, as they are able to shift a lot of air.
- so, we need a way of getting the small driver to be coupled (and therefore able to move) more air. We do this with an expanding (in area) tube. This mechanically couples (ie, in a controlled way) the small driver to a much larger amount of air. This means, when the cone moves back and forth, the 4" cone is coupled to as much air as an 18" cone (for example). Clearly, this extra coupling will increase low frequency output.
Chris
- the cone is small. This makes it relatively ineffective at exciting lots of air in one go (like in a sealed cabinet, where only the front of the driver is exciting the room). Exciting lots of air is needed for low frequencies. Many people have subwoofers. 18" drivers are used pretty often, as they are able to shift a lot of air.
- so, we need a way of getting the small driver to be coupled (and therefore able to move) more air. We do this with an expanding (in area) tube. This mechanically couples (ie, in a controlled way) the small driver to a much larger amount of air. This means, when the cone moves back and forth, the 4" cone is coupled to as much air as an 18" cone (for example). Clearly, this extra coupling will increase low frequency output.
Chris
I love this forum! One beginner who is clever enough to ask and two old hands giving, combining both postings, a very sensible explanation.And as to Zilla´s comment about doing it per compooter...too right.
In olden days (and nobody wants them back) you had one set of formulas each for horn/bass reflex/transmission line and it took you hours with pen and paper to calculate just one - only to spend time and money to build a trial version and fall flat on your face. Horn builders never have a cold workshop, there´s always enough wood from the last trial to heat the place.
Those formulas are correct, don´t misunderstand, but they are but fence posts - you can sit on one or the other. The programs available nowadays allow you to think a horn that is a bit bassreflexish and feels like a TL - instead of sitting on just one fence post you have the whole meadow to play in.
Even nicer - you don´t have to. There are enough plans available, and the friends who have built any are always happy to tell you wheter this, that, or the other one would be best for your room.
Pit
All the folds in a traditional horn work instead of stuffing to kill off mid and high frequencies. The usual rationalization goes that it's a more efficient way of doing the job. Trouble is that all the resonating parts introduce slight colourization to the sound, are very inflexible when it comes to tuning and are not at all efficient when it comes to building.
I have the suspicion that they are mostly advocated by people who like to build unnecessarily complicated things and show them off to each other.
The simple folded pipe has been known for years and years but simple things are less impressive and therefore must be worse...
I have the suspicion that they are mostly advocated by people who like to build unnecessarily complicated things and show them off to each other.
The simple folded pipe has been known for years and years but simple things are less impressive and therefore must be worse...
"my Mercedes has more sparkplugs than your Porsche" ?
Very good posts by both of them... a year ago Chris was a rookie, just shows what a sponge young brains can be
dave
Plus he keeps you away from machinery that tries to bite your fingers off - good man to have in the workshop.Very good posts by both of them... a year ago Chris was a rookie, just shows what a sponge young brains can be
dave
Plus he keeps you away from machinery that tries to bite your fingers off - good man to have in the workshop.
I think Dave was talking about mr661 - sure I generally keep him away from dangerous power tools, and while my brain and other "vital" organs could certainly be described as spongy - I would definitely fail the youth test. I have chisels on my work bench older than Chris661 and Rullnuks combined. OK, they're no longer the sharpest ...., make your own joke
Thanks, guys.
As people whose opinions I trust, your words are much appreciated.
What sort of power tools would be called dangerous?
I've sustained more (granted, minor) injuries from hand tools, though that was when I was inexperienced with such things.
hm - having now heard the FE126eN in a FH3, I can assure you that excursion never becomes an issue - the cone barely moved (only just visibly) with decent listening levels (too loud for a proper conversation), powered by a low power valve amp. As these speakers are most likely to be used with valve amplifiers, in smaller rooms (I'm not saying they can't play in larger rooms, just that their dimensions makes them suitable for a smaller-room system), they go loud enough, before passing Xmax.
Anyway, I should probably go and get ready for college.
Chris
As people whose opinions I trust, your words are much appreciated.
What sort of power tools would be called dangerous?
I've sustained more (granted, minor) injuries from hand tools, though that was when I was inexperienced with such things.
hm - having now heard the FE126eN in a FH3, I can assure you that excursion never becomes an issue - the cone barely moved (only just visibly) with decent listening levels (too loud for a proper conversation), powered by a low power valve amp. As these speakers are most likely to be used with valve amplifiers, in smaller rooms (I'm not saying they can't play in larger rooms, just that their dimensions makes them suitable for a smaller-room system), they go loud enough, before passing Xmax.
Anyway, I should probably go and get ready for college.
Chris
"hm - having now heard the FE126eN in a FH3, I can assure you that excursion never becomes an issue - the cone barely moved (only just visibly) with decent listening levels (too loud for a proper conversation), powered by a low power valve amp. As these speakers are most likely to be used with valve amplifiers, in smaller rooms (I'm not saying they can't play in larger rooms, just that their dimensions makes them suitable for a smaller-room system), they go loud enough, before passing Xmax."
Thats believe not knowledge, show us measurements, impedance and or simulations
you have made for construction.
If you only listen below householt levels than tell us, max. SPL can be only ~85 dB max.
sorry that is only below 1/2 watt, above you will get distortion K2 and more K3 because
the driver must made more than 0,35 mm stroke, you are right 0,35 mm is
nearly nothing.
Thats believe not knowledge, show us measurements, impedance and or simulations
you have made for construction.
If you only listen below householt levels than tell us, max. SPL can be only ~85 dB max.
sorry that is only below 1/2 watt, above you will get distortion K2 and more K3 because
the driver must made more than 0,35 mm stroke, you are right 0,35 mm is
nearly nothing.