Re: Thanks the trips
Note that there are 2 distinct branches of the Scott-moose / Spawn family tree that tend to work best with drivers with different T/S parameters.
The author of those designs could elaborate more on the reasons
More than a few builders have tried to second guess Scott in this regard, with mixed results, and much to his chagrin.
Could you be more specific as to which one you're considering (i.e. by model "nick-name")?
It sounds like you might be referring to the "Harvey" design, in which case see my comments in earlier post. (i.e. sounds much better with the FE127E)
From personal experience, I can relate that the BVR style designs are a far easier build than the Nagaoka folded horn style.
Pohyen said:
Note that there are 2 distinct branches of the Scott-moose / Spawn family tree that tend to work best with drivers with different T/S parameters.
The author of those designs could elaborate more on the reasons
More than a few builders have tried to second guess Scott in this regard, with mixed results, and much to his chagrin.
Could you be more specific as to which one you're considering (i.e. by model "nick-name")?
It sounds like you might be referring to the "Harvey" design, in which case see my comments in earlier post. (i.e. sounds much better with the FE127E)
From personal experience, I can relate that the BVR style designs are a far easier build than the Nagaoka folded horn style.
It's partly my fault. Entirely actually. I design for a specific driver, but afterward, I used to check, if there was an alternative in the range, what would be needed to force it to work, which sometimes gives the impression that the latter is recommended (which it usually isn't).
I suspect from the description that it might be Venom, which has yet to be uploaded; currently the superceeded Olivia is still on the plans page. If so, the 127 is the design driver.
I suspect from the description that it might be Venom, which has yet to be uploaded; currently the superceeded Olivia is still on the plans page. If so, the 127 is the design driver.
Re: Thanks the trips
There are no Moose BVRs for the FE126 (Moose BVR refers to Scott's extension of the Nagaoka-style build to BVRs, exemplified by the Chang family).
FE126 can be used in the 3 FE127 mBVR but the required series R kills anything the 126 does better than the 127 and doesn't give them any of the characteristics that the 127 has over the 126.
dave
Pohyen said:
There are no Moose BVRs for the FE126 (Moose BVR refers to Scott's extension of the Nagaoka-style build to BVRs, exemplified by the Chang family).
FE126 can be used in the 3 FE127 mBVR but the required series R kills anything the 126 does better than the 127 and doesn't give them any of the characteristics that the 127 has over the 126.
dave
note to whom it may concern:
As you can imagine, Dave / Scott are constantly juggling priorities between paying and non-paying work load. Included on their list are revised & new enclosure designs, as well as updating notes on the SPAWN web page.
In the interim, it's probably safe to generalize that the mBVR family (i.e. Chang et al) would best be suited to the "xx7" series of Fostex drivers (or others with similar T/S parameters), while the recommended drivers for Nagaoka series would be the "xx6" or Sigma series (or, again other makes with similar parameters)
As alluded to earlier in this thread, and noted elsewhere, I've had direct experience with the Brynn (Chang) design. The first pair was built as a test bed for the 3 most likely candidates from the Fostex line ( i.e. FF125K, FE126E & FE127E). Dual binding post terminals were installed in the cabinet to allow for quick experiment & bypassing of series R that modeling suggested as correction for the 125 & 126. The bottom line is that, as Dave noted above, the FE127E worked better in this box than the others - regardless of amplifier type / power . FWIW, so does our particular pair of Hemp Acoustics FR4.5 - a great sounding driver, but for a lot of reasons that needn't be repeated, one that's hard to recommend basing a design around.
As you can imagine, Dave / Scott are constantly juggling priorities between paying and non-paying work load. Included on their list are revised & new enclosure designs, as well as updating notes on the SPAWN web page.
In the interim, it's probably safe to generalize that the mBVR family (i.e. Chang et al) would best be suited to the "xx7" series of Fostex drivers (or others with similar T/S parameters), while the recommended drivers for Nagaoka series would be the "xx6" or Sigma series (or, again other makes with similar parameters)
As alluded to earlier in this thread, and noted elsewhere, I've had direct experience with the Brynn (Chang) design. The first pair was built as a test bed for the 3 most likely candidates from the Fostex line ( i.e. FF125K, FE126E & FE127E). Dual binding post terminals were installed in the cabinet to allow for quick experiment & bypassing of series R that modeling suggested as correction for the 125 & 126. The bottom line is that, as Dave noted above, the FE127E worked better in this box than the others - regardless of amplifier type / power . FWIW, so does our particular pair of Hemp Acoustics FR4.5 - a great sounding driver, but for a lot of reasons that needn't be repeated, one that's hard to recommend basing a design around.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.