Curvy chang, fonken, pencil, BLH, BIB....etc

[aptquark]

Howdie,

I can't seem to grasp the pro's and con's of all these different designs. I only have experience with AN cast 8's in 2.8 cabinet with additional speaker on top. I love how these sound, but could you guys compare and contrast what I may be missing with all these other designs AND additional driver choices?

I have been reading about these other designs, but just cant seem to build a simple protocol about performance/driver/cabinet choices into a simple schema for choosing one over the other.

I know that each has it's own criteria...but a simple explanation might help me out.

So for example:

curvy changs - why all the different options for cabinets, is it aesthetics mostly?

Fonkens - are they mostly applicable for space limitations?

etc....

Also, I understand that some of the drivers are exceptional with mid-range performance...so vocals, strings, piano etc is where they excel. But I like to listen to a variety of music. Granted, I know its not practical to expect these to perform well throughout the entire freq. response spectrum...but THROW ME A BONE HERE WILL YA"!

Spiro

[aptquark]

<bump>

[chrisb]

Originally Posted by aptquark

Howdie,

I can't seem to grasp the pro's and con's of all these different designs. I only have experience with AN cast 8's in 2.8 cabinet with additional speaker on top. I love how these sound, but could you guys compare and contrast what I may be missing with all these other designs AND additional driver choices?

I have been reading about these other designs, but just cant seem to build a simple protocol about performance/driver/cabinet choices into a simple schema for choosing one over the other.

I know that each has it's own criteria...but a simple explanation might help me out.

So for example:

curvy changs - why all the different options for cabinets, is it aesthetics mostly?

Fonkens - are they mostly applicable for space limitations?

etc....

Also, I understand that some of the drivers are exceptional with mid-range performance...so vocals, strings, piano etc is where they excel. But I like to listen to a variety of music. Granted, I know its not practical to expect these to perform well throughout the entire freq. response spectrum...but THROW ME A BONE HERE WILL YA"!

Spiro

let's start with:

although it's been said many times, many ways, it always bears repeating:

in audio as in life, there is no "best"

period

1) what exactly are your goals, and the venue (i.e. room / listening position/size of "audience") in which this system would be operating?

2) is there a constraint or overwhelming preference as to amplifier type/power level?


the wide range of enclosure design types are attempts to:

- accommodate variety of these conditions;
- exercise designer's attempts at reasonable compromises and/or builder's aesthetic interpretations (much to some designer's dismay some of the serendipity involved in the latter has propelled the former )
- satisfy the never to be overlooked "domestic acceptance" factor

Fonkens - which particular one had you in mind? Having been involved with this series from its conception, there are at least half a dozen specific enclosure designs encompassing the range of (now defunct) Fostex full-range drivers from FF85K to the FE167E. We had even contemplated a 207E model, but just never got around to proofing same. While the FF85K and FE103E will unquestionably have SPL and LF limitations in any enclosure, I think it's safe to say the floorstander FE167E doesn't so much.

I'm running a pair of them in my personal 2-channel video system in an approx 320 sq ft room, presently with a 50WPC Rotel power amp, and have never had problems with inadequate playing levels. There are some pretty damned fine live music events available on HD Net concert series - I particularly enjoyed the Esperanza Spalding and Madeline Peyroux.


Granted for some folks, this driver might possibly benefit from a softly rolled in helper tweeter ( let's say above 12-15K)


And of course, while the "F" in the family name was originally a casual, internal nickname representing the combination of Fostex drivers and the mini-onken (inspired) multiple resistive slot port configuration, the architecture of enclosure design itself has been quite successfully implemented with other driver types. Currently, we're enjoying the heck out of various Mark Audio models.



(PS) 3:40 AM time stamp is a bit early in the morning to expect cogent, intelligible replies to your original post

OK, so intelligent replies alongside which you can get yourself are not guaranteed at any hour of the day, so good luck

[Cal Weldon]

Hmm...

The pros and cons of these designs is they sound different. Some are more appealing than others depending on your tastes. Some are compromises.

It's very difficult to describe the sonic differences without it being overly subjective.

Space and footprint are two criteria. So is the environment, the music type, the anticipated loudness...it goes on.

I believe Curvy Changs were an aesthetic option to the standards Changs.

I thought a guy who knows wires so well would have an understanding of the needs/desires of the owner/builder when it came to cabinets. It's like "why are there different cars out there? They all seem to have four wheels" kind of thing.

EDIT: Typing while Chris posted.

[chrisb]

Originally Posted by Cal Weldon

Hmm...

The pros and cons of these designs is they sound different. Some are more appealing than others depending on your tastes. Some are compromises.

It's very difficult to describe the sonic differences without it being overly subjective.

Space and footprint are two criteria. So is the environment, the music type, the anticipated loudness...it goes on.

I believe Curvy Changs were an aesthetic option to the standards Changs.

I thought a guy who knows wires so well would have an understanding of the needs/desires of the owner/builder when it came to cabinets. It's like "why are there different cars out there? They all seem to have four wheels" kind of thing.

EDIT: Typing while Chris posted.

Spiro:

As Cal noted above, and I neglected to include in my diatribe - they don't all sound the same, and in ways that can't be "objectified".

A Nobel Prize awaits the person who can devise such a universally accepted and educable lexicon.

but don't hold your breath

[Godzilla]

Each of these designs is an attempt to maximize performance in some way. They all work well and they all have their fans. As much as I would like, I have not been able to hear and compare many of these designs to understand how they uniquely contribute to the overall sound.

From my experience BIBs add a bass boost that continues up into the midrange unless tamed with stuffing. They also add a ‘jump’ to the sound I do not hear compared to sealed and ported designs. The back horn I built using the same drivers (bk161) had a similar jump but with less added bass. That doesn’t mean a larger back horn won’t deliver deeper bass but they both shared that similar jump factor quality that many enjoy. These designs fill a room with sound more fully than ported and sealed speakers I’ve heard in my listening room. They present a larger ‘image’ and ‘feel’ more lifelike in their presentation to me. I can only imagine and predict similar results for the double mouth horns like Curvy Changs.

Never had the pleasure of hearing Fonkens but believe the designer is making genuine efforts to maximize sound quality but perhaps without squeezing out maximum bass response. Maximum bass response does not necessarily equate to best sound. I think about this all the time when considering a project. I think many of us get wrapped up in maximum flat bass response at the expense of midrange, power handling and overall ‘best compromises’ for musical enjoyment.

But over the years it’s clear there are many ways to enjoy music thru many different types of speaker designs. As DIYers we have the luxury of building something at much lower cost (but at the expense of our time and effort) and enjoying the benefits of that design for a while until trying something else over and over until we find something we like most. What I use at home is totally different to what I use at the office in a completely different space. I’d love big back horns or open baffle speakers at work but can’t and so enjoy variations of small sealed and ported speakers that provide good sound. I can say overall I prefer the sound of ported speakers better than sealed if only for that little extra ‘bounce’ they provide… tho I respect others who prefer the drier, tighter sound of sealed boxes. Regardless, I am glad I’m not stuck with B&W, Polk or some other name brand speaker that has its own set of compromises and characteristics. I also prefer full and wide range drivers to two and three way speakers using crossovers that muck up and suck up the life of the music.

Your current speakers are equally unusual in that they use two drivers facing different directions. I’m sure many feel this type of speaker design provides qualities unmatched by others. If you are willing to experiment and remove the top drivers (covering up the tops and using them like that in the meantime) you can build something else and compare.

Godzilla

[doorman]

As noted above, ALL ARE COMPROMISES!!
ah, then there's "THE ROOM"
(currently enjoying the heck out of a pair of Fonken 167 floorstanders)
Don

[Bigun]

I can sympathise with aptquark, I find it's hard to separate out the different options. There are many people with opinions, some of them with great experience, but in the end each has their favourites or some kind of commercial interest behind their preferences. It takes a bit of effort to sift through it all.

I know that the needs and preferences of whomever will be using the speakers is a good starting point, but paradoxically this isn't always easy to define because it partly depends on the choices available. It gets worse when there's so much subjectivity - especially when expensive items are involved because these seem to attract the most hyperbole.

In my own newbie simple way of thinking I try to categorize things. It seems there are some basic categories where tradeoffs can be explored. So here's my take...

Speaker drivers are imperfect. There seems to me to be only 3 options -

i) you accept the limitations and go with open baffle, eshewing anything that might compromise the natural qualities of the driver. These designs are eminently suitable for DIY because of the construction simplicity, not so popular with kit builders because they can't add much value, not so popular commercially because of small market size. I believe the tradeoff is not suited to small rooms and requires some heoric design effort to get powerful bass.

ii) you use several drivers in a multi-way using a cross-over (& maybe multi-amping) to stitch them together to achieve maximum frequency coverage whilst operating each driver in it's sweet spot. Popular for commercial speakers - produces superb measured results, not so popular with DIY because of complexity and expense. Generally requires significant R&D effort to develop so not popular with commercial kit builders.

iii) you build a single full range speaker enclosure that tries to support and extend the performance of the driver in the bass region through one of many bass loading methods. I allow that some augmentation at the frequency extremes is best included in this category even though additional drivers are employed. Great for DIY because it can be simple and can deliver the perception of bass that many demand. Also popular commercially because the price point addresses a large market. Also popular with commercial kit builders because they can afford the development effort and offer something of medium complexity that will make it easier for DIY. With so many different bass loading methods (horns, BR, onken, TL, spiral TL etc.) it's hard to choose as they each have strengths and weaknesses. But I see them all as a compromise ("box colourations") and I tend to view them as varying from single resonance loading (classic BR) to multiple resonance loading (TL's - logs of wiggles in the freq. response) with everything else in between including heavily damped resonance designs (e.g. Onken, mass loaded TLs etc.). I don't know, but I suspect that there is no real difference between these different bass loading approaches that isn't swamped by the differences in how well they are executed. This means it's better to pick a method you can implement well, within your skills, knowledge, budget and size/power constraints.

[chrisb]

So, Spiro:

now that some of us have had our Monday morning wake-up beverages, are you starting to get enough to start chewin on?

you do understand that any consensus you might find in these fora on such an open question will be rare and short-lived

coke or pepsi?


edit: to be clear, all my own perambulations on this subject are meant in good humor - after 40+ yrs listening to /purchasing audio and over 10yrs almost exclusively doing the DIY thing, I've been frequently underwhelmed or even severely disappointed after taking "expert" advice as gospel, only to find "that it ain't necessarily so..."

sometimes you just need to invest the time and treasure in a leap of faith - if you're lucky it'll only take a couple of those to reconcile yourself to the relevance of what others say or write about - you'll know it when you feel it


BTW: Garth - some excellent points in previous post

[Godzilla]

>>> now that some of us have had our Monday morning wake-up beverages

LOL chrisb, i was swigging down my last few sips of coffee as i wrote my response.

Bigun makes an interesting comment imo.

"I don't know, but I suspect that there is no real difference between these different bass loading approaches that isn't swamped by the differences in how well they are executed. This means it's better to pick a method you can implement well, within your skills, knowledge, budget and size/power constraints."