Suggestions on Harvey or Saburo for FE126E. - diyAudio
Go Back   Home > Forums > Loudspeakers > Full Range

Please consider donating to help us continue to serve you.

Ads on/off / Custom Title / More PMs / More album space / Advanced printing & mass image saving
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 10th June 2008, 10:00 PM   #1
diyAudio Member
 
speakrsrfun's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Toronto
Default Suggestions on Harvey or Saburo for FE126E.

I have several of these drivers and have been wanting to do a horn for a good long time and these designs seem like the best of both worlds.

I'm leaning towards the Saburo soley on WAF appeal and being able to get exotic veneers over that width. I'd like to cut the wood this weekend if possible and with the Saburo's looking to use an extra sheet to build I'd like to get performance reviews from users who have either the Harvey's or Saburos before I spend the cash on an extra sheet. Honestly my main concern is solid performance above the subwoofers which I will employ for sub 60hz bass, but having used the 126 in previous BR cabinets I was less than impressed with bass below 100hz or so, it was there just not THERE.

Like I said above I will employ subs for the lower octaves and there in itself lies a question regarding the use of the Shadow cabinet with a Peerless XLS 12", can it be swapped out instead of the SD12 both having very low Q. I have two of these drivers on hand and would like to utilize them..

Anyone with personal experiences I'd love you to chime in as it will only help to make a desicion I'm already having a hard time with. I'd like some feedback on room placement, bass performace, build ease ect, give it all to me, Take care.
__________________
What was that?... I can't hear you I have a line array filling my ears.
  Reply With Quote
Old 10th June 2008, 11:04 PM   #2
diyAudio Member
 
Scottmoose's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: UK
Hmmmm, well, the current version of Harvey is set up for the 127, not the 126, which prefers longer path designs like Saburo.

ROT: none of the MTM layout horns like being near sidewalls. They're very placement sensitive -move them an inch & you'll hear it, so you've got quite a lot of flexibility over tailoring the soundstage to your requirements.
__________________
Community sites www.frugal-horn.com http://frugal-phile.com/
  Reply With Quote
Old 11th June 2008, 01:05 AM   #3
diyAudio Member
 
speakrsrfun's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Toronto
Thanks Scott I appreciate the honesty, I actually like the thinner profile of the Saburo. Any comments on how the bottom end is of the 126 in the Saburo cabinet? I do intend on EnABLing the drivers as soon as I get some puzzle coat so I'm sure that will create a more solid bottom end, not more just more refined I would assume.

One question I do have for Dave at Planet_10 though is, how the resonance trifoil pattern is applied and what is used as the coating, if I can ask this, don't know if I can (copyright?), but I just did, so if I get an answer I know why, if I don't I also know why LOL.

On the question of if the XLS will work in the Shadow box, I answered my own question, looks like I may have to look elsewhere for bottom end.

Anyway another Saburo build looks to be shaping up, on to EnABL, and driver mods, YEHAW, take care all.
__________________
What was that?... I can't hear you I have a line array filling my ears.
  Reply With Quote
Old 11th June 2008, 07:37 PM   #4
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: central Pennsylvania, USA
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Scottmoose
[B]Hmmmm, well, the current version of Harvey is set up for the 127, not the 126, which prefers longer path designs like Saburo.

In the early posts, Harvey seemed to be mated with the 126e. Bass performance was reported to be very good with solid, usable response to about 40 Hz. Overall performance was described as well balanced with good imaging.

At some point the posts changed to Harvey with the 127e. Evidently, somebody tried the 127e and liked it better.

Could somebody describe the reasons for the change from the 126e to the 127e?

Honestly, the Moose BVR designs are easier to build, but the Harvey (BVR) family looks like a more ideal, but perhaps less compromised design. Could somebody comment on the merits of the two designs?

I have a pair of 126e's and am trying to decide between Harvey, Saburo, Gabriel and a BIB (possibly inverted - floor loaded). I want maximum efficiency (no series resistance) and do have adequate corners for BIB's. If the Harvey designed for the 126e is different than the currently posted design (optimised for the 127e) I would be very interested in seeing it. Any comments or suggestions greatly appreciated.

Regards,

Bob
  Reply With Quote
Old 11th June 2008, 08:17 PM   #5
diyAudio Member
 
Scottmoose's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: UK
Quote:
In the early posts, Harvey seemed to be mated with the 126e. Bass performance was reported to be very good with solid, usable response to about 40 Hz. Overall performance was described as well balanced with good imaging.

At some point the posts changed to Harvey with the 127e. Evidently, somebody tried the 127e and liked it better. Could somebody describe the reasons for the change from the 126e to the 127e?
Greater linear excursion, slightly flatter FR balance = less distortion.

Quote:
Honestly, the Moose BVR designs are easier to build, but the Harvey (BVR) family looks like a more ideal, but perhaps less compromised design. Could somebody comment on the merits of the two designs?
Everything's a compromise, but in reality, the simpler BVR cabinets should offer generally superior performance to the earlier designs like Harvey, Bruce et al, although these boxes still come into their own for those who like experimenting or the aesthetics.

Quote:
I have a pair of 126e's and am trying to decide between Harvey, Saburo, Gabriel and a BIB (possibly inverted - floor loaded). I want maximum efficiency (no series resistance) and do have adequate corners for BIB's. If the Harvey designed for the 126e is different than the currently posted design (optimised for the 127e) I would be very interested in seeing it. Any comments or suggestions greatly appreciated.
=Saburo of those cabinets if you want max efficiency & control over the 126.
__________________
Community sites www.frugal-horn.com http://frugal-phile.com/
  Reply With Quote
Old 11th June 2008, 11:45 PM   #6
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
'ROT: none of the MTM layout horns like being near sidewalls. They're very placement sensitive -move them an inch & you'll hear it, so you've got quite a lot of flexibility over tailoring the soundstage to your requirements.'

I do not recognise the term 'MTM layout horns' is this a play on the normal 'mid-tweeter-mid' layout for double mouth horns, if so are the single mouth versions also placement sensitive.
I am considering building a pair of Half Chili's but they will be pushed close to the corners. Should forget the Chili and build a BIB?
  Reply With Quote
Old 14th June 2008, 04:41 PM   #7
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: central Pennsylvania, USA
Quote:
Originally posted by Scottmoose


=Saburo of those cabinets if you want max efficiency & control over the 126.
Scott,

Saburo and the BIB are both horns, providing a resistive/horn load to the driver until the last octave or so, where pipe loading becomes dominant. Is Saburo significantly better (bass quality, control and overall balance) than a BIB or inverted BIB? I assume that neither the Saburo nor the BIB would need BSC, both being horns.

Is Saburo really all that much more sensitive about room placement than other narrow-front enclosure designs (which seem to need some 'breathing room' for optimum imaging)?

Are there any reports on the performance of the inverted BIB yet?

Regards,

Bob

gearing up for loudspeaker construction
  Reply With Quote
Old 14th June 2008, 10:13 PM   #8
diyAudio Member
 
Scottmoose's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: UK
Quote:
I do not recognise the term 'MTM layout horns' is this a play on the normal 'mid-tweeter-mid' layout for double mouth horns,
Yes

Quote:
...if so are the single mouth versions also placement sensitive.
99.999% are sensitive to placement. It just depends on the degree, which is a matter of room acoustics. All are different, so only the end user can really determine their requirements.

Quote:
I am considering building a pair of Half Chili's but they will be pushed close to the corners. Should forget the Chili and build a BIB?
They're completely different, so it's hard to answer. If you aren't worried about compact cabs & have corners the BIB is a sensible choice for those wanting a simple box.
__________________
Community sites www.frugal-horn.com http://frugal-phile.com/
  Reply With Quote
Old 14th June 2008, 10:35 PM   #9
diyAudio Member
 
Scottmoose's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: UK
Quote:
Saburo and the BIB are both horns, providing a resistive/horn load to the driver until the last octave or so, where pipe loading becomes dominant.
Yes, I seem to remember hearing something on those lines myself.

Quote:
Is Saburo significantly better (bass quality, control and overall balance) than a BIB or inverted BIB? I assume that neither the Saburo nor the BIB would need BSC, both being horns.
I've never liked the term 'better' as it depends on perspective. From a technical POV, they will have certain advantages over a simple pipe-horn.

Quote:
Is Saburo really all that much more sensitive about room placement than other narrow-front enclosure designs (which seem to need some 'breathing room' for optimum imaging)?
Nothing per se to do with them being narrow & everything to do with their MTM layout. Near a side-wall & without major toe-in, you'll get a huge reflection which is better left imagined than heard.
__________________
Community sites www.frugal-horn.com http://frugal-phile.com/
  Reply With Quote
Old 15th June 2008, 02:12 AM   #10
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: central Pennsylvania, USA
Scott,

Does Saburo load the driver higher in frequency than a BIB?

I guess that all of the M-T-M designs have this placement sensitivity. I know it's dependent on individual room characteristics, but has 3-5 feet from sidewalls generally proven to be adequate?

Regards,

Bob
  Reply With Quote

Reply


Hide this!Advertise here!
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Paul Harvey is gone... moray james Everything Else 1 2nd March 2009 02:10 AM
Free Harvey Bvr babgrip Full Range 23 17th February 2009 01:43 PM
Harvey Builder's Thread jrebman Full Range 82 26th November 2008 07:43 PM


New To Site? Need Help?

All times are GMT. The time now is 03:01 PM.


vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright 1999-2014 diyAudio

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2