Hi guys, thanks for the comments, Dave, I'd be happy to send some bigger pics just let me know how big you want them.
The drivers are bog standard so I am experiencing some resonance issues, but I'll attend to that according to Dave's and others advice elsewhere on this forum, they've had about 250 hours in sealed boxes so I imagine there's more breaking in to do!
So far I'm more than happy with how they sound, imaging is great, bass extension exceeds my expectations (I've upgraded from Bert Doppenberg fe103 tqwp's) they just sound so much more rounded and smooth! I just want to make sure everything's right so I'll be tweaking the cc with some foam blocks (someone has suggested some squishy closed cell stuff) which will take place of the rough and ready sock filled with shot!
I'm loath to say any more about the sound because I'm new to all this and don't know what 'mid range articulation' or 'transient response' wossits are!
The drivers are bog standard so I am experiencing some resonance issues, but I'll attend to that according to Dave's and others advice elsewhere on this forum, they've had about 250 hours in sealed boxes so I imagine there's more breaking in to do!
So far I'm more than happy with how they sound, imaging is great, bass extension exceeds my expectations (I've upgraded from Bert Doppenberg fe103 tqwp's) they just sound so much more rounded and smooth! I just want to make sure everything's right so I'll be tweaking the cc with some foam blocks (someone has suggested some squishy closed cell stuff) which will take place of the rough and ready sock filled with shot!
I'm loath to say any more about the sound because I'm new to all this and don't know what 'mid range articulation' or 'transient response' wossits are!
Myron said:
I'd hold off on stuffing the CC with absorbant until the drivers have some more time on them. The lead filled sock might work just fine!
Even better, some careful cone treatment and basket damping a la Dave D can substantially improve midrange clarity and low level detail.
As for the buzzwords, I think you'll recognize them when you hear them.
Yup, think I will leave fiddling till the drivers have a few more miles in them and the mods are done, I've also got to sort out a misbehaving gainclone and get some decent speaker cables, I'm pretty sure the horns are being strangled by yards of rubbish cable! Once the source and supply chain is ok I'll be in a better position to assess the results of any changes I make to the compression chamber.
Gexter, they're in a smallish room about 17'x14' and in the corners, I have yet to try them without the deflectors.
That's all for now!
Gexter, they're in a smallish room about 17'x14' and in the corners, I have yet to try them without the deflectors.
That's all for now!
Myron said:
permit me a few suggestions, including the repetitions?
Keep the reflectors
Contact Dave at Planet10 regarding treatment to the driver cones / baskets
Try some small gauge solid core speaker wire - e.g. single pair of CAT5 plenum (#24), or magnet wire.
My own 2 builds of these are most enjoyable with low powered tube amps, ranging from 2A3, to SEP EL84 to P/P EL84. With a high damping factor SS amp, some series resistance might be in order.
I strongly encourage you to build an F2. After that, you''ll discover that Gainclone is good for making background music, in the kitchen maybe
That is an opinion? Sorry but my battery PS NIGC way outperforms the SEX little SET and provides a clarity and detail that has me using it as my main amp.
I realize that some ppl are biased towards tubes and the resultant 2nd order distortion but the actual physics of moving a given loaded mass a given distance in a given time requires a given energy cannot be disputed.
Now if the SEX had a different PS it would perform better IMHO.
Note! i am not putting down tubes, but i tend to look at questions from a pure physical sense.
Dave has a very good small horn that will work well in a smaller type room but as with any given efficency of a system its still based on physics.
ron
That is an opinion? Sorry but my battery PS NIGC way outperforms the SEX little SET and provides a clarity and detail that has me using it as my main amp.
I realize that some ppl are biased towards tubes and the resultant 2nd order distortion but the actual physics of moving a given loaded mass a given distance in a given time requires a given energy cannot be disputed.
Now if the SEX had a different PS it would perform better IMHO.
Note! i am not putting down tubes, but i tend to look at questions from a pure physical sense.
Dave has a very good small horn that will work well in a smaller type room but as with any given efficency of a system its still based on physics.
ron
Been following this thread for a long time, and planning to build the horns in the near future, but just chiming in on the gainclone. I have a very hi res system currently using open baffles, and subs, I am using LM1875 battery powered clones. Fairly modded though, here is a link to the raw module without its cover etc ( http://homepage.mac.com/braddles/PhotoAlbum3.html ). the bottom one on the copper plate in this case.
They sound just like a tube tube amp and by that I mean a good one without the woofly bass and other deficits, my sub modules and preamp are also battery powered. It might sound implausible that a cheap basic amp could sound this way.....but it does and with high efficiency drivers it really sings, just like a good tubey. Good match for the Frugels i'd say.
Battery power makes a big big difference to gainclones, all cloners should try it at least once.
All the best
Zero One
They sound just like a tube tube amp and by that I mean a good one without the woofly bass and other deficits, my sub modules and preamp are also battery powered. It might sound implausible that a cheap basic amp could sound this way.....but it does and with high efficiency drivers it really sings, just like a good tubey. Good match for the Frugels i'd say.
Battery power makes a big big difference to gainclones, all cloners should try it at least once.
All the best
Zero One
Sorry for an OT, but that was my (perhaps rude) opinion based on a direct comparison between GC (not battery powered though) and an F2. I agree that this is subjective, and it depends on the type of speakers you use. Someone who may tried both amps with Frugel-Horn could provide more objective opinion. Maybe in some other thread, I don't want to start any flame wars here...
Regards,
Vix
Regards,
Vix
No flames will start from me.
Its just like any application there are good and bad designs. I had to go to a gold plated1.5 lb brass bar/channel that was suspended (isolated) and dual mono with each own 12V battery supply. This gave me around 5 watts and a very strong current reserve. This gave the energy to provide cone control in loaded BLH alingments. Now i am not stating that tubes cant do the same thing, but the amp will still have to have a given amount of current to move the cone in a loaded condition.
TC (RIP) also believed in low wattage tube amps with huge PS. IMO if there are low watts then the only compensation is lots of current reserves.
With the given efficency of Daves horns/126 driver i believe that tubes will sound very good, but for better performance a tube amp ,be it either SET or PP, will require at least 5 watts or lots of current reserves if < 5 watts.
ron
Its just like any application there are good and bad designs. I had to go to a gold plated1.5 lb brass bar/channel that was suspended (isolated) and dual mono with each own 12V battery supply. This gave me around 5 watts and a very strong current reserve. This gave the energy to provide cone control in loaded BLH alingments. Now i am not stating that tubes cant do the same thing, but the amp will still have to have a given amount of current to move the cone in a loaded condition.
TC (RIP) also believed in low wattage tube amps with huge PS. IMO if there are low watts then the only compensation is lots of current reserves.
With the given efficency of Daves horns/126 driver i believe that tubes will sound very good, but for better performance a tube amp ,be it either SET or PP, will require at least 5 watts or lots of current reserves if < 5 watts.
ron
Today Silicon Chip Magazine in OZ have published a new class A amp kit of 20watts or so that they are claiming to be the lowest distortion DIY amp ever published, the specs are quite amazing and it is a update of a previous kit. The previous one was a stellar performer so I would say this one is very very good.
It just could be the ultimate DIY amp for the frugels, and will be quite reasonably priced to build to.
Unfortunately it is not on their website yet, here is the link http://www.siliconchip.com.au/
I imagine it will be up in the next week.
I have built many Silicon Chip Mag projects and all of them have been excellent, so this one should not be a disapointment. I suggest check it out next week. I imagine the kits will be available from Jaycar and Altronics in OZ. Obviously this one won't be able to be run on batteries, it draws 100watts continuously at 24V I think, so the batteries would run down pretty quick, unless they were massive!........but then again?
No matter how we cut it, high efficiency drivers and full range need really good quality amps, otherwise they sound pretty ho hum in my experience as they show up all the faults of the amp.
It just could be the ultimate DIY amp for the frugels, and will be quite reasonably priced to build to.
Unfortunately it is not on their website yet, here is the link http://www.siliconchip.com.au/
I imagine it will be up in the next week.
I have built many Silicon Chip Mag projects and all of them have been excellent, so this one should not be a disapointment. I suggest check it out next week. I imagine the kits will be available from Jaycar and Altronics in OZ. Obviously this one won't be able to be run on batteries, it draws 100watts continuously at 24V I think, so the batteries would run down pretty quick, unless they were massive!........but then again?
No matter how we cut it, high efficiency drivers and full range need really good quality amps, otherwise they sound pretty ho hum in my experience as they show up all the faults of the amp.
They are finally done! They were a lot of fun to build. I learned a lot. I feel they turned out very well considering this was my first build of this design. Now that I'm aware of all the pitfalls in building these, I have plans for another pair, using higher quality materials and technique throughout.
They sound quite nice. Sweet, warm, and inviting. Tight bass down to the upper-50's. I could only find one recording I have where they couldn't play a very low, soft kickdrum. Other than that, I can hear everything. I did use a notch filter to knock off up to 2 dB between 2k and 10k. That warmed the sound up nicely and really brought out the vocals. If you want a sharper, cleaner sound, the filter can be left out. I may experiment a bit with that later myself.
Construction details:
Build version: Wedgie
Driver: Fostex FE108ES
Wire: one Cat 5e, four strands each side (although I understand one 24g sold core would be better).
Notch filter: C=5.1 uF; R=2 Ohm; L=0.15 mH. This knocks off 1-2 dB between about 1200 Hz and 10k Hz. It removes the "hissiness" from these drivers.
Finish: Wood: Sanded to 600 grit followed by clear paste wax only. Suprabaffle and base: Black lacquer, 4 to 6 coats, sanded between coats. (and no, it's not perfect
The cabinets are absolutely DEAD! I put in lots of extra bracing and filled all voids with cat litter (yes, I have plenty of that). After building the carcass in 3/4 inch (external) and 1/2 inch (internal) plywood, I wrapped them with some beautiful 1/8 inch quartersawn oak plywood with solid oak corners and edges. I used contact cement to glue the plywood as I wanted that extra damping effect.
Stuffing/Damping: Just a little bit in the line immediately after the throat. I found that putting stuffing or damping anywhere else in the line did not help. I can still access this little bit by removing the driver, so I may experiement with this in the future.
The CC (compression/coupling chamber) required a lot of tweaking. I had to make changes a number of times during construction, so in the end I estimate its size to be about 1.7 liters or 107 cubic inches. Anything over 1.8 liters, to me, made the vocals sound fuzzy. If you go much lower (i.e., 95 inches, or 1.4 liters, you lose bass.
The suprabaffles started out 13 inches square x 3.5 inches thick. They are slightly asymmetric (meaning the driver is not perfectly centered; it's off by over 1/4 inch). I attached them to the cabinets with silicone caulking, hoping to get more decoupling from the cabinets. The driver is mounted flush to the surface, i.e., it's set in about 3/16 inch. After trimming, etc., the final width of the suprabaffle is 12 5/8 inches.
Doug
Some photos:
They sound quite nice. Sweet, warm, and inviting. Tight bass down to the upper-50's. I could only find one recording I have where they couldn't play a very low, soft kickdrum. Other than that, I can hear everything. I did use a notch filter to knock off up to 2 dB between 2k and 10k. That warmed the sound up nicely and really brought out the vocals. If you want a sharper, cleaner sound, the filter can be left out. I may experiment a bit with that later myself.
Construction details:
Build version: Wedgie
Driver: Fostex FE108ES
Wire: one Cat 5e, four strands each side (although I understand one 24g sold core would be better).
Notch filter: C=5.1 uF; R=2 Ohm; L=0.15 mH. This knocks off 1-2 dB between about 1200 Hz and 10k Hz. It removes the "hissiness" from these drivers.
Finish: Wood: Sanded to 600 grit followed by clear paste wax only. Suprabaffle and base: Black lacquer, 4 to 6 coats, sanded between coats. (and no, it's not perfect
The cabinets are absolutely DEAD! I put in lots of extra bracing and filled all voids with cat litter (yes, I have plenty of that). After building the carcass in 3/4 inch (external) and 1/2 inch (internal) plywood, I wrapped them with some beautiful 1/8 inch quartersawn oak plywood with solid oak corners and edges. I used contact cement to glue the plywood as I wanted that extra damping effect.
Stuffing/Damping: Just a little bit in the line immediately after the throat. I found that putting stuffing or damping anywhere else in the line did not help. I can still access this little bit by removing the driver, so I may experiement with this in the future.
The CC (compression/coupling chamber) required a lot of tweaking. I had to make changes a number of times during construction, so in the end I estimate its size to be about 1.7 liters or 107 cubic inches. Anything over 1.8 liters, to me, made the vocals sound fuzzy. If you go much lower (i.e., 95 inches, or 1.4 liters, you lose bass.
The suprabaffles started out 13 inches square x 3.5 inches thick. They are slightly asymmetric (meaning the driver is not perfectly centered; it's off by over 1/4 inch). I attached them to the cabinets with silicone caulking, hoping to get more decoupling from the cabinets. The driver is mounted flush to the surface, i.e., it's set in about 3/16 inch. After trimming, etc., the final width of the suprabaffle is 12 5/8 inches.
Doug
Some photos:
Attachments
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.