Frugel-Horn Mk3

Jump to Latest
mikemac

mikemac

Member
Joined 2010
I have read the entire post! At work! I have still not got a really accurate picture of what the FH3 sounds like. I have heard all the descriptions and am just about to order a flat pack.
How does the bass perform. I wont be listening to hip hop ALL the time, but i wonder about how much LF is going to come from a small box and speaker. Can any one who has built one let me know,
 
chris661

chris661

Member
Joined 2008
We did a direct comparison to some much larger (12") speakers.

Using the CHP-70, they sound like they go low. It's only when you sit them next to said bigger speakers that their LF output is shown up - if we hadn't compared, I'd've guessed bass down to below 50Hz. They will impress.

Chris
 
mikemac

mikemac

Member
Joined 2010
I have created the wrong impression, listening to Wagners Tannhauser at the moment, but i like a "bit" of LF. I will give it a go, its not a huge investment, the flat pack and drivers, and will post my Bass impresions for any potential "Hip Hop" er's who happen to be tuning in,
 
B

Bob Brines

Member
Joined 2003
Slightly off topic, but....

I demo'd the attached speakers at the Lone Star Audio Fest in May The small speaker is Alpair 7 in a 36" transmission line, the large speaker is Tang Band W8-1772 in a 45L BR. Both have F3 in the 40's. Both produce outstanding bass in the Embassy Suites room. Those who prefer jazz and girl-and-a-guitar generally chose the A7. Those who prefer rock generally chose the TB. Why? The A7 is a bit more lively and has better presence. The TB has more oomph in the upper bass. I prefer the A7 for baroque and classical (in the strict sense).

The A7's are now flanking my wide-screen where they replaced Fostex FE166En's in a 40" MLTL. The receiver crosses them to a sub at 120Hz. The A7's are hands down a better, more balanced sound than the 166's. The receiver XO works great for movies with the internal EQ set to EQ the room as flat as possible. For music, I generally run the receiver direct (2-channel, no possessing) and EQ from my computer.

Bob
 

Attachments

  • Shane's Picture.jpg
    Shane's Picture.jpg
    84 KB · Views: 865
C

chrisb

Member
Joined 2002
Bob Brines said:
Slightly off topic, but....

I demo'd the attached speakers at the Lone Star Audio Fest in May The small speaker is Alpair 7 in a 36" transmission line, the large speaker is Tang Band W8-1772 in a 45L BR. Both have F3 in the 40's. Both produce outstanding bass in the Embassy Suites room. Those who prefer jazz and girl-and-a-guitar generally chose the A7. Those who prefer rock generally chose the TB. Why? The A7 is a bit more lively and has better presence. The TB has more oomph in the upper bass. I prefer the A7 for baroque and classical (in the strict sense).

The A7's are now flanking my wide-screen where they replaced Fostex FE166En's in a 40" MLTL. The receiver crosses them to a sub at 120Hz. The A7's are hands down a better, more balanced sound than the 166's. The receiver XO works great for movies with the internal EQ set to EQ the room as flat as possible. For music, I generally run the receiver direct (2-channel, no possessing) and EQ from my computer.

Bob
Click to expand...


Bob; I found pretty much the same thing when switching from FE167E/FE127E combo to Alpair 7 for the front row 3 (IIRC crossed many 10Hz lower to the LFE channel) . The forward presentation that I don't find at all obtrusive on most music can definitely be a bit overbearing on HT in my smallish (320sq ft) room.




How much computer EQ do you find they want for music only?.
 
planet10

planet10

frugal-phile™
Joined 2001
planet10-hifi.com
Paid Member
For those interested in deep bass and a bit of kick & a set of frugel-Horns, do keep in mind the optional deflector. Besides providing a slight improvement in bass extention & finese (the choke point in this design makes the gains much smaller than the original), it provides the ideal opportunity for a pair of powered stealth woofers. I'd suggest XO 60-100 Hz with a 1st order PLLXO on the FH3.

dave
 
B

Bob Brines

Member
Joined 2003
chrisb said:
How much computer EQ do you find they want for music only?.
Click to expand...

I did an RTA with the mic at my head position, then EQ'd it flat to ~900Hz. Then I took a few dB's off of the 1-2kHZ peak, but this has to be done very carefully or all of the magic (presence) is lost. Finally, I took 5dB's off 10-15kHz. That top edge bothers me.

I am contemplating another profile with a 5dB notch 6-7kHz to soften sibilance. This would be for pop voice only. I wouldn't want that for instrumentals.

I did try a completely flat EQ and it sounded horrible. Flat, lifeless. THIS is the sound that I heard from most every setup at LSAF, including some very expensive speakers. All of these builders/vendors are so shot with a ruler flat FR that they don't realize that that is not what our ears hear. We full-rangers get this peaked, lively response by default since so many (is that better Dave?) of the drivers we use are peaked in the presence range.

Bob
 
B

Bob Brines

Member
Joined 2003
Ultralight said:
Bob,

May I ask why you crossed over your A7 at 120hz? Why not lower - say 80 hz - since your A7 can easily go below that?

Thanks,
UL
Click to expand...

I chose the XO for the best in-room response. There was a null that filled best with the higher XO. Besides, once the A7 is crossed well above the max excursion point, it can be played crazy loud with little distortion.

Bob
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom