Hi Bas,
It was never economical to ship the Flat-paks that were made here to Europe. I too was dissappointed that no-one in Europe picked up the flag.
By the time for a 2nd run FH Mk II was already on the horizon. Now that the FE126e is discontinued, time to start over...
(i hope this is not premature) syncronystically Scott & i have recently made some rapid progress on FH MK III. Tentatively official support for Fostex FE126En, Mark Audio CHR70 & Alpair 7, and CSS EL70. The insides are so radically different (simplier and less material), that we need to build one before letting too much out. Being more versatile & simplier should hopefully lead to more flat-pak suppliers.
dave
I just posted link to this thread in our local ex-Yu DiyA forum ;
Spor oko Hrvatskog Frugel Horna - DIYAudio.rs
Spor oko Hrvatskog Frugel Horna - DIYAudio.rs
Obviously, the principals involved in this project for the past 5 years have been in private communication on this matter, and forwarded their concerns to Srajan at 6moons. Considering how many matters he must juggle on a daily basis, his attentive response has been very encouraging.
The next week or so shall be very interesting awaiting Goran and Margarita's own response to Srajan's inquiry for "clarification".
The next week or so shall be very interesting awaiting Goran and Margarita's own response to Srajan's inquiry for "clarification".
Seems unlikely Srajan forgot:
6moons audio reviews: The Horn Shoppe The Horn
and
6moons.com - industry features: Ed Schilling on the loose
Maybe he didn't see anything wrong w/ multiple other people building something along the same lines, since the dimensions were published way back then?
dunno...
6moons audio reviews: The Horn Shoppe The Horn
and
6moons.com - industry features: Ed Schilling on the loose
Maybe he didn't see anything wrong w/ multiple other people building something along the same lines, since the dimensions were published way back then?
dunno...
Were they (as in the dimensions)? I didn't know Ed had published those. I know he employed the same folding scheme / configuration as the Bushorn Mk1, because he thought it an elegant layout, but the specific internal dimensions are private to the best of my knowledge, as is right and proper. It did provide the principle inspiration for the FH DIY project, in terms of a compact corner horn with a 4in - 4 1/2in driver of course.
I know Srajan certainly hasn't forgotten Ed's Horn -he mentions it in his preview / 1st page:
http://www.6moons.com/audioreviews/ringaudio/horn.html
Edit -looks like Srajan, Dave & I all posted at roughly the same time.
I know Srajan certainly hasn't forgotten Ed's Horn -he mentions it in his preview / 1st page:
http://www.6moons.com/audioreviews/ringaudio/horn.html
Edit -looks like Srajan, Dave & I all posted at roughly the same time.
Last edited:
well...
Does Ed Schilling have an exclusive on back-loaded Fostex driver floorstanders? I think not. I'm also quite certain he doesn't think so. That would be quite simply ridiculous.
The Ring Audio FGH 1.4 looks nothing like Ed's Hornshoppe speaker so you're perfectly correct assuming that I saw no reason for alarm when Ring Audio approached me. Just because I've reviewed one Scanspeak 2-way monitor doesn't raise any flags when I get approached to review another 2-way Scanspeak driver monitor.
I did not, however, know about the overt outward similarity of the Ring Audio speaker to the published Frugal-Horn design. As soon as it was pointed out to me, I took a look. Finding more overlap than I thought fair without proper accreditation, I incorporated this into my narrative and also called Ring Audio directly to learn how they would explain this. However, they are at the Munich show as of today so my follow-up will have to wait until they return.
As my preview states, I will update it as I learn more.
Does Ed Schilling have an exclusive on back-loaded Fostex driver floorstanders? I think not. I'm also quite certain he doesn't think so. That would be quite simply ridiculous.
The Ring Audio FGH 1.4 looks nothing like Ed's Hornshoppe speaker so you're perfectly correct assuming that I saw no reason for alarm when Ring Audio approached me. Just because I've reviewed one Scanspeak 2-way monitor doesn't raise any flags when I get approached to review another 2-way Scanspeak driver monitor.
I did not, however, know about the overt outward similarity of the Ring Audio speaker to the published Frugal-Horn design. As soon as it was pointed out to me, I took a look. Finding more overlap than I thought fair without proper accreditation, I incorporated this into my narrative and also called Ring Audio directly to learn how they would explain this. However, they are at the Munich show as of today so my follow-up will have to wait until they return.
As my preview states, I will update it as I learn more.
Serenechaos,
The difference between the Hornshoppe vrs Frugel-Horn being that the inspiration for the latter is clearly stated, and that the FH ended up quite different. If one goes back one more level, one also needs to site the original Buscshhorn.
I applaud RingAudio's efforts, part of the purpose of the Frugal-Horn site was to encourage commercial development, the only issue being to comply with the Terms of Use (ie send Martin a PayPal, and add a link back to the FH site)
The only benefit that the FH site gets is that at least one vendor thinks that a design based on one of the FH boxes can command 1000s of Euros, a compliment indeed.
dave
The difference between the Hornshoppe vrs Frugel-Horn being that the inspiration for the latter is clearly stated, and that the FH ended up quite different. If one goes back one more level, one also needs to site the original Buscshhorn.
I applaud RingAudio's efforts, part of the purpose of the Frugal-Horn site was to encourage commercial development, the only issue being to comply with the Terms of Use (ie send Martin a PayPal, and add a link back to the FH site)
The only benefit that the FH site gets is that at least one vendor thinks that a design based on one of the FH boxes can command 1000s of Euros, a compliment indeed.
dave
What the above post does not detail is the flurry of international e-mails, and Srajan's revision to preview of this product that transpired within a period of approx 24hrs since this matter first came to light.
Considering the number of tasks that he must juggle during on a daily basis, this degree of attention must be publicly commended.
Thanks, "Sir John"
Our reportage now updated
Margareta just replied from an Internet café in München and I have updated our preview accordingly.
I believe this will settle any disputes or concerns over copyright infringements and now serve both communities - the DIY Frugal-Horn folks and those not handy with a saw but sufficiently liquid to acquire a very expensive similar concept in a 3-piece commercial offering.
The key points are this: Ring Audio's implementation won't work properly without their separate bass horn. This puts very different demands on their Fostex back horn. Ring Audio also claims a unique throat area, different and fully curved rather than angled line bends for a unique internal geometry, albeit of similar line length. Margareta also promised to update their website upon return with open source credits where due.
Margareta just replied from an Internet café in München and I have updated our preview accordingly.
I believe this will settle any disputes or concerns over copyright infringements and now serve both communities - the DIY Frugal-Horn folks and those not handy with a saw but sufficiently liquid to acquire a very expensive similar concept in a 3-piece commercial offering.
The key points are this: Ring Audio's implementation won't work properly without their separate bass horn. This puts very different demands on their Fostex back horn. Ring Audio also claims a unique throat area, different and fully curved rather than angled line bends for a unique internal geometry, albeit of similar line length. Margareta also promised to update their website upon return with open source credits where due.
Many thanks Srajan -we we would never have gotten to the bottom of all this without your help.
I think they're playing with sematics a trifle here -if the length involved is basically the same, as they state, then the tuning frequency will be very similar to the FH (& even Ed Schilling's excellent Horn) unless the differences in throat CSA and flare profile are extremely dramatic. The same also applies to the respective gain bandwidths of the enclosures owing to the similarity in raw cabinet size. The FH too requires support in the lower registers if you need low-down grunt, ~100Hz being in fact quite a good XO point, especially if they are not fully corner-loaded. It was certainly never claimed to be full-range (quite the reverse actually); if you want to do without the woofers, & need LF output, a bigger horn will be required. Can't beat the laws of physics.
The throat certainly appears to depart in configuration with that driver mounting sphere! Fully curved internal panels sounds like translam or similar construction; bit like the defunct Gemme Audio Concerti smoothed out the Fostex Factory FE108ESigma horn; should give slightly greater efficiency at the top end of the horn's gain BW.
That's a real result. I trust Martin will be getting his license fee too as they've accepted it's based on the FH.
Thanks again Srajan -it's much appreciated.
Best
Scott
I think they're playing with sematics a trifle here -if the length involved is basically the same, as they state, then the tuning frequency will be very similar to the FH (& even Ed Schilling's excellent Horn) unless the differences in throat CSA and flare profile are extremely dramatic. The same also applies to the respective gain bandwidths of the enclosures owing to the similarity in raw cabinet size. The FH too requires support in the lower registers if you need low-down grunt, ~100Hz being in fact quite a good XO point, especially if they are not fully corner-loaded. It was certainly never claimed to be full-range (quite the reverse actually); if you want to do without the woofers, & need LF output, a bigger horn will be required. Can't beat the laws of physics.
The throat certainly appears to depart in configuration with that driver mounting sphere! Fully curved internal panels sounds like translam or similar construction; bit like the defunct Gemme Audio Concerti smoothed out the Fostex Factory FE108ESigma horn; should give slightly greater efficiency at the top end of the horn's gain BW.
That's a real result.
I trust Martin will be getting his license fee too as they've accepted it's based on the FH. Thanks again Srajan -it's much appreciated.
Best
Scott
Last edited:
It's just part of reviewing when disputes on intellectual property rights come up. I'm sure Frugal-Horn would have settled this dispute on their own just fine. It simply occurred involving 6moons due to the timing of their review solicitation vs. when knowledge of their product's existence was more widely spread.
At this juncture, any further disputes or conflicts will be settled between the parties involved. I consider my job done and will proceed with the review as planned once a review loaner becomes available.
At this juncture, any further disputes or conflicts will be settled between the parties involved. I consider my job done and will proceed with the review as planned once a review loaner becomes available.
Your help is still appreciated Srajan; frankly, I'm not sure how many other reviewers would have bothered to investigate things to such an extent, let alone post feedback etc. on this forum. It says a lot about your standards, and those you set for 6moons, that you did.
(as an aside, some of their statements published more extensively on the review page are in fact incorrect, but that's a matter for discussion later & I suspect not something you'll want to get involved with)
Despite the inclusion of a sub in the asking price, I can't say I disagree with you on that score. Still, they're only worth what people are willing to pay for them, and if some are, QED. Shows what different worlds commercial & DIY can inhabit, even if the speaker involved is inherently the same (or very similar).
I've been reading through RA's lengthier comments in Srajan's review in a little more detail, and I think we can now say weve got a partial result, but not yet a complete one. Essentially, we have an acknowledgement that the FGH 1.4 is in fact a modification of the Frugel-horn, but this has been presented by RA in a somewhat disingenuous fashion; sufficiently so as to cloud some of the issues. So I'll try to go through things in order, as far as possible.
Fair enough, good to know this has now been resolved, and thanks to Ring Audio for stating they shall address these points.
I would hope so: a Buschorn Mk1, widened to accept 4in - 4 1/2in drivers formed the performance baseline for the FH project, which is acknowledged to be the basis for their cabinet in the quote below. This enclosure is to be found at the end of the FH plans pdf, as a reference. No startling revelations here.
So the flare path length and expansion profile is the same in the FH and the FGH. As is the general size, use of a triangular deflector, and the curved terminus designed by Ron Clarke. I find it a little concerning that they call it exponential considering the FH & therefore their own cabinet is actually based on a hypex profile though.
What 'empirical work' is RA refering to I wonder? The FH wasn't an empirical design, so perhaps he means his own. To the best of my knowledge, Goran never had any input into the FH, although he may have asked Dave or Chris for advice / suggestions on his DIY build. As for 'not an extension', given all of the above, do they think we came down in the last rain-shower?
Right, so it's an FH with the driver in a sphere, the folding around the throat altered because of this, and the path smoothed out (a little like Gemme Audio smoothed out the Fostex Factor FE108ESigma freebie plan).
This would be true if the rest of the enclosure were not heavily based upon the FH by their own admission.
Fair enough on the first part, the second part is arrant nonsense. I completed the latest draft of the FH Mk3 a couple of days ago, just before I started feeling lousy. It has precisely nothing to do with the Buschorn, having completely a different internal length, layout and flare profile.
Ring Audio might wish to be informed that Martin King's software does not calculate a line length for you. It 'just' models what is put into it (with remarkable accuracy). As the FGH is based on the FH, with the same expansion profile & length (which were modelled in Martin's worksheets), then wriggle however they will, his license terms remain in effect. QED. They owe him $250 a year. Not exactly a heartbreaking sum, given that they're selling the systems for 9,500 Euros.
Refolding the throat-end does not fundamentally cause a change in a design, unless it happens to be using the folding actively for a specific purpose, as I use in some of my own designs, or completely changes the majority of the internal layout.
Very true. What is interesting about the FH deflector is of course that while it provides a substantial advantage if the enclosures are not corner-loaded as they were intended from the off, Ron did in fact intend them (as in the deflectors) to be used in corners. The same will of course apply here. Perhaps Goran was not aware of this.
No-one involved in the FH claimed it was. The pioneers of audio beat us all to everything back in the 1920s - '40s. However; see above: when taken with form factor, flare profile & length, size, curved terminus developed by Ron Clark in his propriety wave-modelling software using multiple industrial mainframes...
Fair enough, good to know this has now been resolved, and thanks to Ring Audio for stating they shall address these points.
I would hope so: a Buschorn Mk1, widened to accept 4in - 4 1/2in drivers formed the performance baseline for the FH project, which is acknowledged to be the basis for their cabinet in the quote below. This enclosure is to be found at the end of the FH plans pdf, as a reference. No startling revelations here.
So the flare path length and expansion profile is the same in the FH and the FGH. As is the general size, use of a triangular deflector, and the curved terminus designed by Ron Clarke. I find it a little concerning that they call it exponential considering the FH & therefore their own cabinet is actually based on a hypex profile though.
What 'empirical work' is RA refering to I wonder? The FH wasn't an empirical design, so perhaps he means his own. To the best of my knowledge, Goran never had any input into the FH, although he may have asked Dave or Chris for advice / suggestions on his DIY build. As for 'not an extension', given all of the above, do they think we came down in the last rain-shower?
Right, so it's an FH with the driver in a sphere, the folding around the throat altered because of this, and the path smoothed out (a little like Gemme Audio smoothed out the Fostex Factor FE108ESigma freebie plan).
This would be true if the rest of the enclosure were not heavily based upon the FH by their own admission.
Fair enough on the first part, the second part is arrant nonsense. I completed the latest draft of the FH Mk3 a couple of days ago, just before I started feeling lousy. It has precisely nothing to do with the Buschorn, having completely a different internal length, layout and flare profile.
Ring Audio might wish to be informed that Martin King's software does not calculate a line length for you. It 'just' models what is put into it (with remarkable accuracy). As the FGH is based on the FH, with the same expansion profile & length (which were modelled in Martin's worksheets), then wriggle however they will, his license terms remain in effect. QED. They owe him $250 a year. Not exactly a heartbreaking sum, given that they're selling the systems for 9,500 Euros.
Refolding the throat-end does not fundamentally cause a change in a design, unless it happens to be using the folding actively for a specific purpose, as I use in some of my own designs, or completely changes the majority of the internal layout.
Very true. What is interesting about the FH deflector is of course that while it provides a substantial advantage if the enclosures are not corner-loaded as they were intended from the off, Ron did in fact intend them (as in the deflectors) to be used in corners. The same will of course apply here. Perhaps Goran was not aware of this.
No-one involved in the FH claimed it was. The pioneers of audio beat us all to everything back in the 1920s - '40s. However; see above: when taken with form factor, flare profile & length, size, curved terminus developed by Ron Clark in his propriety wave-modelling software using multiple industrial mainframes...
Last edited:
The other question is what does Ed think of all this?
He didn't seem that happy about the "frugal horn" being that close to his existing commercial product did he?
(While having no problems with it being a modified diy Buscshhorn).
And here's yet another...
As Srajan put forth (more or less), it's hard to call a BLH intellectual property,
and apparently hard for some to "draw the line" at what is modifying an existing design enough to call it ones own, or blatant plagiarism...
Man it would be hard not to be copying Olsen, etc...
But on the other hand...
Sticky business...
Good to not be in it sometimes!
He didn't seem that happy about the "frugal horn" being that close to his existing commercial product did he?
(While having no problems with it being a modified diy Buscshhorn).
And here's yet another...
As Srajan put forth (more or less), it's hard to call a BLH intellectual property,
and apparently hard for some to "draw the line" at what is modifying an existing design enough to call it ones own, or blatant plagiarism...
Man it would be hard not to be copying Olsen, etc...
But on the other hand...
Sticky business...
Good to not be in it sometimes!
I've no idea what Ed would think, although I'll ask him when we're next on the 'phone.
The FH, as noted, is not actually a Buschorn. The internal folding scheme draws from elements of both the Buschorn Mk1 (which is the folding scheme Ed's horn uses), and the Buschorn Mk2 (which has a very different internal layout), with a few elements drawn from neither. The dimensions and flare profiles are different from both, although a widened Mk1 is found at the end of the FH's plans pdf, and I believe was constructed to form a baseline in sonic terms from which to work. Just to confirm, Ed's Hornshoppe product is not the same as this widened Mk1.
Yeah, it's a fine line. A few of us raised eyebrows at the defunct Gemme Audio Concerti, which was just the Fostex Factory 108 cabinet smoothed out. Does that make it an original design? In fact, that box was the main impetus for starting the FH project itself. How close is too close? There's never going to be an easy answer to that one.
The FH, as noted, is not actually a Buschorn. The internal folding scheme draws from elements of both the Buschorn Mk1 (which is the folding scheme Ed's horn uses), and the Buschorn Mk2 (which has a very different internal layout), with a few elements drawn from neither. The dimensions and flare profiles are different from both, although a widened Mk1 is found at the end of the FH's plans pdf, and I believe was constructed to form a baseline in sonic terms from which to work. Just to confirm, Ed's Hornshoppe product is not the same as this widened Mk1.
Yeah, it's a fine line. A few of us raised eyebrows at the defunct Gemme Audio Concerti, which was just the Fostex Factory 108 cabinet smoothed out. Does that make it an original design? In fact, that box was the main impetus for starting the FH project itself. How close is too close? There's never going to be an easy answer to that one.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.