I have moved all the posts that are more appropriately in the build thread over there. The ones that could be either i left here.
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/full-range/172937-frugel-horn-mk3-beta-builds.html
dave
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/full-range/172937-frugel-horn-mk3-beta-builds.html
dave
Sorry for the jerks and thieves that wreck it for others, you should get your do share and respect imo, but the world is full of AHoles as we all know..
So leaving OB, Hmm?, okay how about entering the world of front loaded horns instead of BLH, and working some MJK magic on that genre of sound reproduction
The kind of OB I am interested in is understood in my opinion. I am not interested in the narrow baffle, multi-amped, and heavily EQed designs that have become very popular recently.
okay how about entering the world of front loaded horns instead of BLH, and working some MJK magic on that genre of sound reproduction
I have some BLH work to finish. I have new worksheets but still want to make a calculation for the acoustic impedance at the mouth when a BLH is corner loaded and include that result in my models. I want to try a range of designs so I can use some of the smaller Fostex drivers and larger Lowther drivers that are sitting behind the couch in my listening room.
Front loaded horns are of interest and I have some ideas on how I would like to improve the models I had available a few years ago. This includes using some compression drivers and the previously mentioned cone drivers sitting behind the couch.
All this takes time so progress si slow at the moment.
Martin
Last edited:
In post #314 Chrisby wrote
However, I managed a good A-B session this afternoon accompanied by a close mate who really loves the sound of the CHP70 FH’s. He is also very critical on how my builds sound so I value his input.
First off I must state the only CHR70 drivers I have are the Gen1 originals with Gray coloured cones. So this may not fully reflect the sound of the latest Gen2 drivers and then we have in the wings the up and coming Gen3 drivers.
To cut to the chase the difference between the two drivers in these cabinets is not subtle. Day and night as Chris, my mate put it.
The CHP paper coned drivers have a certain richness and presentation of the music that is not subtle. In comparison the original CHR70 are more forward tonally. Harder sounding and don’t have the same dynamic capability the CHPs. The CHPs just draw you in; whereas the CHRs kind of shout at you. With the CHPs the music just sounds so much more natural and together.
Perhaps due to the metal cones but the CHRs are slightly brighter than the CHPs, which can lead to a touch of sibilance with some female vocals. Bass is also less well defined but more ‘Plumby’ as our DaveD would put it. But this may be down to fine tuning the cabinets specific to the metal coned CHRs with more damping below the driver over that required for the CHP’s my cabinets are optimised for?
I’m not dissing the CHRs here as I like these very much and they perform excellently indeed in my Chillingham cabinets – a modified MLTL variant of the Planet10 Castles with twin drivers and design by Scottmoose. In these cabinets the CHPs just do not sound right, whereas the CHRs excel. So it’s not the drivers that are inferior, just to my ears, the CHPs work better in the Frugel-Horn Mk3 design. I must say I also prefer the CHRs in the FHs over the Fostex FE126En. I’m sure others will not agree with my personal preference and that’s what makes this hobby so involving.
Hope this helps.
Apologies Crisby for the delay in reporting back on this, but I’ve been busy with other things.
However, I managed a good A-B session this afternoon accompanied by a close mate who really loves the sound of the CHP70 FH’s. He is also very critical on how my builds sound so I value his input.
First off I must state the only CHR70 drivers I have are the Gen1 originals with Gray coloured cones. So this may not fully reflect the sound of the latest Gen2 drivers and then we have in the wings the up and coming Gen3 drivers.
To cut to the chase the difference between the two drivers in these cabinets is not subtle. Day and night as Chris, my mate put it.
The CHP paper coned drivers have a certain richness and presentation of the music that is not subtle. In comparison the original CHR70 are more forward tonally. Harder sounding and don’t have the same dynamic capability the CHPs. The CHPs just draw you in; whereas the CHRs kind of shout at you. With the CHPs the music just sounds so much more natural and together.
Perhaps due to the metal cones but the CHRs are slightly brighter than the CHPs, which can lead to a touch of sibilance with some female vocals. Bass is also less well defined but more ‘Plumby’ as our DaveD would put it. But this may be down to fine tuning the cabinets specific to the metal coned CHRs with more damping below the driver over that required for the CHP’s my cabinets are optimised for?
I’m not dissing the CHRs here as I like these very much and they perform excellently indeed in my Chillingham cabinets – a modified MLTL variant of the Planet10 Castles with twin drivers and design by Scottmoose. In these cabinets the CHPs just do not sound right, whereas the CHRs excel. So it’s not the drivers that are inferior, just to my ears, the CHPs work better in the Frugel-Horn Mk3 design. I must say I also prefer the CHRs in the FHs over the Fostex FE126En. I’m sure others will not agree with my personal preference and that’s what makes this hobby so involving.
Hope this helps.
The current Gen.2 CHR-70 is quite an improvement over the stock Gen.1 unit in this regard; it's closer to the CHP in design terms (they were done at about the same point) so they are fairly consistent in design terms, although the CHP does have some minor suspension tweaks also employed in the Omnes branded BB4-AL version of the CHR.
Hi all,
I didn't hear the comparison at Colin's but I did hear the CHP-70's last week. I'd never heard anything so detailed, two things spring to mind, a Cello where on certain notes I became aware of the body of the instrument and again on a FortePiano where I could hear the timber frame.
Astonishing speakers, It's been 6 days now and I haven't recovered from the experience, still wandering about thinking about that sound.
Warmest wishes - Jim
I didn't hear the comparison at Colin's but I did hear the CHP-70's last week. I'd never heard anything so detailed, two things spring to mind, a Cello where on certain notes I became aware of the body of the instrument and again on a FortePiano where I could hear the timber frame.
Astonishing speakers, It's been 6 days now and I haven't recovered from the experience, still wandering about thinking about that sound.
Warmest wishes - Jim
FE127 in Frugel-Horn Mk3
Over the last weekend i got the FE127eN into the FH3 and into the main system. Today i got to give them a proper listeb. I am enjoying them as i type. They work just fine. Damped as for the FE126En, almost against the wall, i have the FH1 deflecors behind them, and those are out from the wall about 10 cm (as close as i could get them to the back wall without my equipment rack impinging too much on their placement.
dave
Over the last weekend i got the FE127eN into the FH3 and into the main system. Today i got to give them a proper listeb. I am enjoying them as i type. They work just fine. Damped as for the FE126En, almost against the wall, i have the FH1 deflecors behind them, and those are out from the wall about 10 cm (as close as i could get them to the back wall without my equipment rack impinging too much on their placement.
dave
I'm just waiting on a window of opportunity when my CNC router supplier has completed his existing order book. Hopefully that will be sometime next week.
I then just need to sort my MJK commercial licence and get some final postage costs for shipping within the UK.
The initial run will be for 10 kits.
I shall also be offering some outrigger style spiked feet as an add-on extra. These are MkII version my originals and made from 1" wide flat strip aluminium with gold plated spikes. I hope to get the ali flat strips powder coated, black. I'll post up pictures when they are ready.
To date I have had 3 expressions of interest in the UK for the kits.
I then just need to sort my MJK commercial licence and get some final postage costs for shipping within the UK.
The initial run will be for 10 kits.
I shall also be offering some outrigger style spiked feet as an add-on extra. These are MkII version my originals and made from 1" wide flat strip aluminium with gold plated spikes. I hope to get the ali flat strips powder coated, black. I'll post up pictures when they are ready.
To date I have had 3 expressions of interest in the UK for the kits.
Ours are the original prototypes with removable baffle. Flatpaks should have an edge due to 1 piece 18mm baffle, rebated drivers, and speaker cables not exiting right below the driver on the front baffle.
They are paulwd's, perhaps you can cox him to post more pics.
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/full-range/172937-frugel-horn-mk3-beta-builds-21.html#post2506669
dave
I stumbled on this track.
I have made three of this type of folded horn, two tall 1m20 and one medium in height at 1 m, all with Fostex 103 Sigma, 15 cm wide.
Just a thing for discussion: Like they say, a build.
The difference is that I have the units lower than indicated in these folded horns here. I choose to have the unit at nearer the 1/3rd from the top, reducing any resonance in the front half of the 'tube'.
The funny thing is that with this placing of the unit, it is again at approx 1/3rd the distance of the whole 'horn'.
Why? this would reduce resonances. This means that (i thought at least) that this would lead to a smoother sound but I never tested it though.
The concept of a TWQT in general is prone to have a dominant frequency range like an organ pipe. My sister, instead of turning her yamaha class a amplifier off, just reduced the volume - but occasionally a few sounds would break through, a very odd experience, as if she had a ghost in her house.
I like the extra bass 'horn' opening in the back. This will also disperse the frequency of the 'tube' I expect.
albert
I have made three of this type of folded horn, two tall 1m20 and one medium in height at 1 m, all with Fostex 103 Sigma, 15 cm wide.
Just a thing for discussion: Like they say, a build.
The difference is that I have the units lower than indicated in these folded horns here. I choose to have the unit at nearer the 1/3rd from the top, reducing any resonance in the front half of the 'tube'.
The funny thing is that with this placing of the unit, it is again at approx 1/3rd the distance of the whole 'horn'.
Why? this would reduce resonances. This means that (i thought at least) that this would lead to a smoother sound but I never tested it though.
The concept of a TWQT in general is prone to have a dominant frequency range like an organ pipe. My sister, instead of turning her yamaha class a amplifier off, just reduced the volume - but occasionally a few sounds would break through, a very odd experience, as if she had a ghost in her house.
I like the extra bass 'horn' opening in the back. This will also disperse the frequency of the 'tube' I expect.
albert