Frugel-Horn Mk3

A minor point here.

With a pair of drivers, both seeing 1w, with a starting efficiency of 93dB per side, you'll get 99dB from the system, both channels driven to a watt.
Next up, I give you exhibit A...
ESP - The Linkwitz Transform Circuit
So the speakers will be moving much less than otherwise thought. Sure, if you ran some sweeps, they'd move a lot, but with much of the bass energy in music ~12dB down, that's a lot of excursion saved.

Chris

PS - Dave, those excursion charts backed up what we heard of Colin's FH3s - they don't go all the way down, but go far enough for it to be difficult to tell they don't. Until they were pitted against much larger (12" co-ax, ~80L tuned <40Hz), you wouldn't've known anything was missing.
 
Hi all,

I went round to Colin's [Toppsy] yesterday and listened to his FH3's with the Mark Audio CHR70 drivers. I expected that they would sound better than my Needles, what I didn't expect was by how much.

No point in breaking into flowery prose about them I'll just say that I'm going to make a pair.

Thanks Colin - Jim
 
I've never really gotten all this fuss over loudness capabilities etc.. I've been using the fe108ez in bib cabs unfiltered for years now.. I listen to everything pretty much, and they can still get loud while being less efficient than the 126.. In the long term I think enjoying ones music and passion while respecting your hearing is the best rule of thumb..

The FH3 looks like a nice option with as simple of a build as a BIB cab.. A great first project option I think both are, and possibly the last ones someone may want to build once they've settled in with them etc..

I think Hm sometimes gets misunderstood do to language barriers etc .. You should just build it Horst and listen, especially now.. I think if you build them and set them up properly, spend some time listening you may find they are quite a good option for a easier DIY project :cool:
 
With a pair of drivers, both seeing 1w, with a starting efficiency of 93dB per side, you'll get 99dB from the system, both channels driven to a watt.
Next up, I give you exhibit A...
ESP - The Linkwitz Transform Circuit
So the speakers will be moving much less than otherwise thought. Sure, if you ran some sweeps, they'd move a lot, but with much of the bass energy in music ~12dB down, that's a lot of excursion saved.

I am not sure how you arrived at a reduction in driver displacement, a Linkwitz Transform Circuit is going to increase the driver deflection significantly at lower frequencies. The article referenced specifically recommends a driver with a large Xmax.

Second point, the plots Dave posted are RMS deflection and not peak deflection. Multiply the results by 1.414 to see peak values.

I can understand where hm is coming from, maybe his message is not delivered as smoothly as others would like. The FH Mk3 is an interesting design and seems to be a good performer by all reports. Clearly the design was generated by computer models and not by trial and error. If somebody is asking for a peak at the results from the models, why not show them some of the predictions? It is easy to model if you have the tools and want to reverse engineer the design and expected performance (I did it a few weeks ago in about 15 minutes). If hm wants to claim his designs are better or different, he should be able to provide the same information about his predicted performance.

Way too much talking and not enough engineering.

Martin
 
AJ Horn v.5 makes it easy to focus on impedance and excursion as the main factors.

Like Horst, the Replikon designers focused largely on impedance and excursion. AJ Horn is great (!) and makes it incredibly easy to design a "classical" BLH.

But v.5 does not do the finer details of the geometry, baffle step, room dimensions, position of the listener's ears, etc. (I haven't checked out v.6 yet.)

So the MJK software is just a much bigger package, more factors modeled, different tradeoffs possible.

Horst, don't worry about your English, I never had trouble understanding you :)
 
look my Kornett, real measurement and single simulation,
i never see a real measurement of FH Mk3, make it and show us,
93 dB at 50 Hz from a 126 what a dream.

So why not post your simulated displacement curve here? Is the Kornett a competitive design to the FH Mk3 - same size enclosure, driver diameter, and approximate cost. I am not going to go fishing through other sites looking for data. If your measured electrical impedance matches the calculated electrical impedance, then we can assumed the calculated displacement curve is accurate.

If you are asking for the FH Mk3 designers to post data you have to be willing to post your own data in return. If you don't then you are no better than what you accuse them of being.

Martin
 
>>> I've been using the fe108ez in bib cabs unfiltered for years now...

DaveCan, i bet they sound good too! Even tho we discuss new drivers and folks get excited about them, truth is, many of the older drivers offer amazing qualities. The 108ez is a truly impressive driver. When something is built to that standard with the intent of providing oodles of musicality it's worth owning. I wish i had a pair and remember when Ed was selling them off cheap years ago... i missed the chance to buy unfortunately. I do wonder how the FH3 sounds compared to a BIB but figure they both will have their sonic virtues. Either will provide musical enjoyment.

Zilla
 
Howdo Martin, hope all is well at your end?

Way too much talking and not enough engineering.

Seconded. So: FH3 with the FE126En, as this seems to be the cause of all the fuss (despite the fact that it is only an optional unit). This from Martin's excellent worksheets (speaking of which Martin -any chance that anechoic polar response plot that used to be in some of the sheets could be reinstated?)

Horst -a couple of questions if I may?

Firstly, you mention to 93dB at 50Hz. Where exactly did that come from, and what are you refering to? You seem to be suggesting that this has been claimed for FH3: if so, that is not the case. FH3 is tuned about 15Hz higher actually. In fact (and Dave & Chris will bear me out in this) I made quite a point of this, because I always thought the original Frugel Horn was tuned too low for the available volume / dimensions, and that this one should be tuned higher to obtain a better balanced response. Moreover, the 93dB claimed for the FE126En is a trifle optimistic in practice, although with about +/- 10% sample variability, YMMV.

Secondly, was your Kornett designed for the same purpose as FH3? If it is, then a comparison is useful. If it wasn't, then it all becomes a little meaningless really. Speaking purely for myself, I tend to only regard comparisons as useful if you are comparing items (whatever they may be) which have the same design remit. The basic design goals for FH3 were these:

-Physically to be as simple as possible. Minimum part count.
-Single drive unit.
-To be able to accept a reasonably wide range of drive units to allow people to experiment and / or choose a driver that best suits their requirements
-To improve on the original Frugel-Horn in terms of basic FR balance.
 

Attachments

  • Frugel-Horn 3 plots with FE126En.GIF
    Frugel-Horn 3 plots with FE126En.GIF
    66.3 KB · Views: 778
I am not sure how you arrived at a reduction in driver displacement, a Linkwitz Transform Circuit is going to increase the driver deflection significantly at lower frequencies. The article referenced specifically recommends a driver with a large Xmax.
.........

Martin

Martin, I was merely using that article as citation for my point that the low frequency energy in music is much reduced relative to rest of the range. I don't think a Linkwitz Transform would be a wise idea for a small BLH.

Chris
 
Hello,
chriss 661, post 381:
"With a pair of drivers, both seeing 1w, with a starting efficiency of 93dB per side,"

Kornett made 2007

MJK post 399
"So why not post your simulated displacement curve here? Is the Kornett a competitive design to the FH Mk3 - same size enclosure, driver diameter, and approximate cost."

i gave only the info.

BTW thanks for your impedanz simu, real measurement is left only.
 
. This from Martin's excellent worksheets (speaking of which Martin -any chance that anechoic polar response plot that used to be in some of the sheets could be reinstated?)

Hi Scott,

At the moment I am not planning on changing the currently available worksheets anytime soon. I am busy working on BLH theory/design and worksheet improvements to model the geometries in my own concepts. I believe the next step for designing what we commonly refer to as BLHs is to better account for the room boundaries, this includes the impact on the mouth acoustic impedance and the in-room mouth SPL output.

Martin
 
Here is a translation of Horst's Kornett measurements page:

Horst's Kornett measurements page

No doubt Horst's posts and attitude can easily be misinterpreted (who among us hasn't felt that?)

For us laymen / simple DIY builders who concentrate mostly on listening, can someone re-translate the above cited page intelligibly?

We're given to assume that these are actual measurements, but the few times I've visited the site, I've had trouble navigating, and certainly haven't deciphered details of test conditions.

With all due respect to the author writing natively in another language, translations that read such as the following remind me of Lewis Carroll at his most Jabberwockian:

My haptic checks show a rather linear membrane motion, similar a mean education. Resulting in less large "change-Out", press which again the mechanical Membrane stress minimized, thus Sound and SPL maximized.
or

Test trap unnecessary for me, as well as the area reserved by 250Hz certainly be optimized may, at Listening to music these Bodies but not conspicuous, so that I without blocking or acceptor circuit prefer.
Perhaps in the spirit of community where plans are freely shared among DIY builders, he'd consider privately donating a set of detailed measured drawings of his recommended enclosure for driver with comparable dimensions to FE126E.

I'd be happy to build a pair for audition at our next DIY fest, if Horst agrees to building a pair of FH3 with his personal favorite driver of appropriate size, as well as the FE126E that has become the unintended focus of this thread. I have my own reasons for always considering this driver in any BLH family of enclosures, but it's certainly not the only driver that works in the FH3.

Of course it's assumed that he'd measure any such enclosure thoroughly, but I'd hope he'd listen to them first.
 
Last edited:
translation is made by goo.. not by myself, that why i gave the link about what.
chrisb:
at :about what you can read!!
"Membran movement
interlacing:

My haptic verifications
show a rather linear
membrane movement,
similar to a normal
distribution curve.
Which means a reduction
of "pressure changes",
and hence less mechanical
membrane stress and
maximized sound and SPL.

Test trap unnecessary for me, as well as the area reserved by 250Hz certainly be optimized may, at Listening to music these Bodies but not conspicuous, so that I without blocking or acceptor circuit prefer.
translated "right":
LCR filter unnecessary for me, as well as the area by 250Hz certainly can be optimized at Listening to music these "peaks" are not conspicuous, so that I listen without LCR´s.

i gave all information, where is your real measurement ?

sorry, my Kornet is sold to the first listener, jan.2008
i want only show, by my experience that ~1mm stroke is a must for small "horn"
and we see now that is a fact.

"We're given to assume that these are actual measurements, but the few times I've visited the site, I've had trouble navigating, and certainly haven't deciphered details of test conditions."
are you blind? every side right at top are the links!
 
Last edited:
Hi Martin,

At the moment I am not planning on changing the currently available worksheets anytime soon.

Fair enough, & certainly no complaints with them as-is from this end -I figured it wouldn't hurt to ask though. ;)

If / when you do get around to a new edition of the sheets at some point in the future though, can I tentatively suggest two possible additions? Firstly -a return of the FLH sheet. And secondly -a compound horn sheet. I suspect both of these would get a big welcome, and they'd certainly be extremely useful.

I am busy working on BLH theory/design and worksheet improvements to model the geometries in my own concepts. I believe the next step for designing what we commonly refer to as BLHs is to better account for the room boundaries, this includes the impact on the mouth acoustic impedance and the in-room mouth SPL output.

Agreed. I certainly don't pretend to have anything like your math / physics knowledge, but as the room is pretty much the largest variable in the entire reproduction chain, I've long thought that the more accurately you can assess the interaction of the box with the environment, the more accurate the modelled representation will be, and the better a box can be optimised for a given set of circumstances. IIRC, Ron did some work on this a while back, along with what he did on the effects of curved termini, but how far he took it I don't know.

Scott
 
If / when you do get around to a new edition of the sheets at some point in the future though, can I tentatively suggest two possible additions? Firstly -a return of the FLH sheet. And secondly -a compound horn sheet. I suspect both of these would get a big welcome, and they'd certainly be extremely useful.

I hear you, all of those configurations are possible. I have almost lost interest in OB and dipoles, taken things as far as I want to at this time. Horns are the new focus until I get distracted again. I am not sure where the worksheets will end up or at what price, there are more and more people making money without paying for licenses.

Martin