GM, if you apply your analysis to the FE126E, does it look better from a theroretical point of view, or is it just producing nice sound by "sheer luck"?
I assume that the suprabaffles that Dave added as an option is supposed to help fill out some of the upper mids, although many of us are happy without this. I guess this may also depend on room conditions, amplification etc.
SveinB.
I assume that the suprabaffles that Dave added as an option is supposed to help fill out some of the upper mids, although many of us are happy without this. I guess this may also depend on room conditions, amplification etc.
SveinB.
Mike:
Ed Schilling is definitely a guy not be be misquoted, but I think he has modified his position on break-in of FE126E. While they definitely sound impressive out of the box, a few hundred hours improves them substantially.
Furthermore, cone and basket damping treatment a la Planet10 dramatically mitigates some of the midrange grain, harshness or aggresively forward presentation that some (myself included) find in comparison to the 108 E Sigma. The improvement is not subtle.
Based on own experience with several models of Fostex FR series, I'd heartily recommend an accelerated e break-in program as suggested by Moray, et al.
Build a pair of cheap, small, sealed enclosures - wire them out of phase, and run them at between 90-96dB for at least 200 hrs ( a soundproof booth would help ). The Hagerman fry-klean would be a great, Toccata & Fugue in D, or Histoire De Soldat - something with lots of dynamics and LF content, and that you'll likely not want to listen to anytime soon.
Svein:
If I may offer my POV re the chamfered "supra baffles" as implemented in the FrugelHorn and Ron Clark Austin series ( A126 at least). They serve 2 purposes:
(1) to lower the baffle step frequency of the direct radiation to reduce any dip in the area were the rear horn "lift" in driver's trailing LF response takes affect
(2) to reduce diffraction artifacts and provide a closer to spherical wave launch
Whatever the technical explanation(s), they've certainly worked well for me - improving the weight of upper midbass-lower midrange without blurring the articulation or transient response, as well as increasing soundstage width /depth and vertical imaging
of course it's very driver / room / system synergy dependant.
Ed Schilling is definitely a guy not be be misquoted, but I think he has modified his position on break-in of FE126E. While they definitely sound impressive out of the box, a few hundred hours improves them substantially.
Furthermore, cone and basket damping treatment a la Planet10 dramatically mitigates some of the midrange grain, harshness or aggresively forward presentation that some (myself included) find in comparison to the 108 E Sigma. The improvement is not subtle.
Based on own experience with several models of Fostex FR series, I'd heartily recommend an accelerated e break-in program as suggested by Moray, et al.
Build a pair of cheap, small, sealed enclosures - wire them out of phase, and run them at between 90-96dB for at least 200 hrs ( a soundproof booth would help ). The Hagerman fry-klean would be a great, Toccata & Fugue in D, or Histoire De Soldat - something with lots of dynamics and LF content, and that you'll likely not want to listen to anytime soon.
Svein:
If I may offer my POV re the chamfered "supra baffles" as implemented in the FrugelHorn and Ron Clark Austin series ( A126 at least). They serve 2 purposes:
(1) to lower the baffle step frequency of the direct radiation to reduce any dip in the area were the rear horn "lift" in driver's trailing LF response takes affect
(2) to reduce diffraction artifacts and provide a closer to spherical wave launch
Whatever the technical explanation(s), they've certainly worked well for me - improving the weight of upper midbass-lower midrange without blurring the articulation or transient response, as well as increasing soundstage width /depth and vertical imaging
of course it's very driver / room / system synergy dependant.
Dennis Hui said:
The corner with the window won't be quite as effective as a solid wall but it is better then not having it. How close to the floor does the window get?
dave
PS: flat-paks are coming. They are now in their 3rd revision, and time to do them is opening up as we are close to finishing all the customer builds that landed on us in Sep/Oct.
dave
Greets!
'Luck' has absolutely nothing to do with a driver's base performance. This driver has the most basic of all proven wide BW profiles, so can be made to perform acceptably with minimal 'voicing' and how much it 'breaks' in will be a function of its diaphragm material properties and its doping parameters, ditto for the suspension.
Correct, suprabaffles can only support the driver's response, so even if it was big enough to 'square' the corner enough to make it a near I.B. horn, distortion and/or suckout will increase with increasing power if the horn's gain can't fill the void, so while the average SPL may be fine and go loud enough to please, any low/mid-bass/lower mids fundamental transients that make it sound more realistic will be increasingly depressed. In this respect, the 126 is actually slightly worse in theory, so if it sounds more balanced in the same horn, then its lower Fs/higher compliance explains it if the filter chamber/throat more closely matches it.
GM
'Luck' has absolutely nothing to do with a driver's base performance. This driver has the most basic of all proven wide BW profiles, so can be made to perform acceptably with minimal 'voicing' and how much it 'breaks' in will be a function of its diaphragm material properties and its doping parameters, ditto for the suspension.
Correct, suprabaffles can only support the driver's response, so even if it was big enough to 'square' the corner enough to make it a near I.B. horn, distortion and/or suckout will increase with increasing power if the horn's gain can't fill the void, so while the average SPL may be fine and go loud enough to please, any low/mid-bass/lower mids fundamental transients that make it sound more realistic will be increasingly depressed. In this respect, the 126 is actually slightly worse in theory, so if it sounds more balanced in the same horn, then its lower Fs/higher compliance explains it if the filter chamber/throat more closely matches it.
GM
Hello all!
sorry for quoting ed wrong. a few month ago (okay, it's more than a year...) ed said that the 126e does not need break-in time. look here http://www.6moons.com/industryfeatures/edschilling/edschilling.html
my mistake.
i already did this with my 108es for 250 hours. i will do it for another 750 hours. but to be honest, i do not think that it will improve things enough.
i already did this -- with my EQ. did not help at all.
have a nice day
mike
chrisb said:
sorry for quoting ed wrong. a few month ago (okay, it's more than a year...) ed said that the 126e does not need break-in time. look here http://www.6moons.com/industryfeatures/edschilling/edschilling.html
my mistake.
chrisb said:
i already did this with my 108es for 250 hours. i will do it for another 750 hours. but to be honest, i do not think that it will improve things enough.
i already did this -- with my EQ. did not help at all.
have a nice day
mike
Mike - my bad as well, I meant that I didn't want to "mis-quote" Ed* re the break-in on the 126 - i.e. I seem to recall he's more recently acknowledged that there could be some marked improvement in the performance over time.
He was characteristically very enthusiastic when he first "discovered" the 126, and with good reason - in his speaker it certainly has been overwhelmingly accepted by all who've tried it. Indeed, he singlehandedly precipitated a temporary shortage in supply last year when Madisound's estimated inventory turns were overtaken by demand.
(*that's been known to happen)
Sounds like your 108's are well on their way - but even at their ultimate best, they could well be less satisfying at the bottom end than any of the FE16N series drivers in appropriately designed enclosures.
In case this hasn't been discussed yet, what amp(s) are you using?
He was characteristically very enthusiastic when he first "discovered" the 126, and with good reason - in his speaker it certainly has been overwhelmingly accepted by all who've tried it. Indeed, he singlehandedly precipitated a temporary shortage in supply last year when Madisound's estimated inventory turns were overtaken by demand.
(*that's been known to happen)
Sounds like your 108's are well on their way - but even at their ultimate best, they could well be less satisfying at the bottom end than any of the FE16N series drivers in appropriately designed enclosures.
In case this hasn't been discussed yet, what amp(s) are you using?
Mike,
What kind of baffle are you running on your FH's? I went directly to an appropriately sized supra-baffle and I have a nice balanced response with surprizing bass response in my room with good corners. I did a quick test with some side additions on my Metronomes, and I can easily see how the FH supra-baffle must significantly change overall response.
What kind of baffle are you running on your FH's? I went directly to an appropriately sized supra-baffle and I have a nice balanced response with surprizing bass response in my room with good corners. I did a quick test with some side additions on my Metronomes, and I can easily see how the FH supra-baffle must significantly change overall response.
johninCR said:
what John said; I definitely would recommend trying them on any narrow baffle cabinet attempting to run these 4" drivers full range - the improvement in upperbass/low mids was quite marked for my ears.
Even the initial "look-see" with single layer cardboard squares masking taped on the front of the cabinet made a noticable difference, but for full effect, I went for 3 x3/4" layers with a 45 degree chamfer.
If you're really adventurous, try rear mounting the driver, and bevelling the opening to create a short wave guide in front.
The strange thing is that with the Metronomes (mine are 6.5" wide at the driver due to the 35mm material used), they need to be kept narrow. The comb filtering of edge diffraction with that cab works to create a smooth response because it is happening at such a high frequency. When I added 35mm to the sides at driver level, the response became very top heavy and BSC would definitely be required. With the very narrow cab and a sharp edged 90 angle to the sides, you can easily live without any filter even with placement well into the room.
This opposite of what is typically expected result is a primary reason I want to explore edge diffraction in some depth.
This opposite of what is typically expected result is a primary reason I want to explore edge diffraction in some depth.
chrisb said:
that's cool :-D
chrisb said:
i tried my zen-amp, my aleph3, my gc's, my fathers einstein amp and avm amp and my crown pa-amp with 2*300 watt or so. always the same 'weightless' sound.
johninCR said:
i tried diffrent shapes and sizes; no problem, it's a test box, look does not matter. i circular 33cm baffle is the best.
i already tried to lift the response belwo 600hz or so with my EQ, but it did not help at all. i think the frequency response is pretty flat with a supra baffle. the 'weigthless' sound has nothing to do with baffle step loss imho.
regards
mike
Mike,
Now you've got me stumped. I have multiple pairs of 108EZ's. All were well used before I got them, although I do have one brand new pair that I haven't tried yet. I saw a measurement somewhere that showed a large dip in response around 1khz, but all of mine exhibit only a narrow dip of 2db or so. Maybe that's a break-in difference. I know I wouldn't like the broad dip.
Changes inside the compression chamber give you a very effective way to taylor the sound to your own taste. Not only does the net volume make a difference, but the material you use for fill and how it is arranged inside the chamber has a significant influence on tone.
Although I don't understand, I've read discussions about needing a proper coupling of horns to a room, and the volume of a room determines how large a horn it can support.
On the otherhand, I do find that small drivers sound different than large ones. I've posed that question a few times, but no answer. I think it is more than just polar response, and I'm pretty sure it's not just psycho-acoustic.
Now you've got me stumped. I have multiple pairs of 108EZ's. All were well used before I got them, although I do have one brand new pair that I haven't tried yet. I saw a measurement somewhere that showed a large dip in response around 1khz, but all of mine exhibit only a narrow dip of 2db or so. Maybe that's a break-in difference. I know I wouldn't like the broad dip.
Changes inside the compression chamber give you a very effective way to taylor the sound to your own taste. Not only does the net volume make a difference, but the material you use for fill and how it is arranged inside the chamber has a significant influence on tone.
Although I don't understand, I've read discussions about needing a proper coupling of horns to a room, and the volume of a room determines how large a horn it can support.
On the otherhand, I do find that small drivers sound different than large ones. I've posed that question a few times, but no answer. I think it is more than just polar response, and I'm pretty sure it's not just psycho-acoustic.
My favorite so far with my FH 108EZ is using cans of vegetables to get the volume down to about 1850 cc's, with just enough open cell foam to keep them from rattling. I tried filling with plywood and mdf triangles resulting in a shape behind the driver like an anechoic chamber, but the sound is muffled. Maybe some varnish on the triangles to make their surface more reflective would be better, but I've pretty much decided to use concrete and imbed some of the triangles to break up reflections within the CC.
Chrisb:
talking about the dip, i think it is there. i did not measure my 108es, don’t have a mic, but i can hear it. the dip does not sound as bad as it looks like on paper, but i can hear it. vintage saba fullrangerdrivers have a 10db dip in this range too, and many people say that sabas sound very good. i can confirm this.
interesting that your drivers don't have a dip. i do not think that 2db is something to worry about. i only saw two measurements that did not show a suckout. one is from a dealer and the other measurement is from fostex. maybe things change after a few thousand hours “burn-in-time”. if so, that good.
do you still have your own measurement? could you post them?
looking carefully at fostex measurement in the "recommended enclosure" pdf, you can see a broad dip as well from 600Hz to 1200Hz, exactly where the measurement from the german magazin Hobby Hifi shows a dip. if you consider that: a) fostex is using heavy smoothing and b) the backhorn does have significant output up to 1000Hz, i think fostex own measurement indicates that the dip, if you measure the fostex in an infinity baffle without support from the backhorn, is deeper than the 5db you can see in the “recommended enclosure” pdf. just a guess.
for everyone how wants to read more about “the dip”, here is a link for you: http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=72673&perpage=10&pagenumber=1
especially look at post 58: http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=1064170#post1064170
in germany, a few guys use a fronthorn that, if the dimensions are correctly, manages to fill up the gap. they are using a circular 45cm expo-fronthorn that is 6cm to 10cm deep. look at the picture. never tried it. actually, if I use my EQ to fill up the gap, the sound is not as good as before. stange. but it’s a cheap EQ, so…
thx. i already played with stuffing. i can hear a difference, but whatever i did, the sound was always kind of ‘thin’.
quinn:
initially, i had a kind of a “hollow sound” or a “hollow midrange coloration” with my frugels i could hear with some male voices. not much, but it was there. especially with my zen-amp. after lining the last 50% or so of the horn path with thin cork, it was gone. it has no influence on the bass. the hint with the cork comes from audio-resolution. look here http://www.audio-resolution.com/zhorn/herukamain.html
so far i am the only one who did this with his frugels.
imho it is very impotant to play a bit with the frugels until you get what you want. same is true with ron's austins.
Regards
Mike
johninCR said:
talking about the dip, i think it is there. i did not measure my 108es, don’t have a mic, but i can hear it. the dip does not sound as bad as it looks like on paper, but i can hear it. vintage saba fullrangerdrivers have a 10db dip in this range too, and many people say that sabas sound very good. i can confirm this.
interesting that your drivers don't have a dip. i do not think that 2db is something to worry about. i only saw two measurements that did not show a suckout. one is from a dealer and the other measurement is from fostex. maybe things change after a few thousand hours “burn-in-time”. if so, that good
. do you still have your own measurement? could you post them?
looking carefully at fostex measurement in the "recommended enclosure" pdf, you can see a broad dip as well from 600Hz to 1200Hz, exactly where the measurement from the german magazin Hobby Hifi shows a dip. if you consider that: a) fostex is using heavy smoothing and b) the backhorn does have significant output up to 1000Hz, i think fostex own measurement indicates that the dip, if you measure the fostex in an infinity baffle without support from the backhorn, is deeper than the 5db you can see in the “recommended enclosure” pdf. just a guess.
for everyone how wants to read more about “the dip”, here is a link for you: http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=72673&perpage=10&pagenumber=1
especially look at post 58: http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=1064170#post1064170
in germany, a few guys use a fronthorn that, if the dimensions are correctly, manages to fill up the gap. they are using a circular 45cm expo-fronthorn that is 6cm to 10cm deep. look at the picture. never tried it. actually, if I use my EQ to fill up the gap, the sound is not as good as before. stange. but it’s a cheap EQ, so…
johninCR said:
thx. i already played with stuffing. i can hear a difference, but whatever i did, the sound was always kind of ‘thin’.
quinn:
Quinn said:
initially, i had a kind of a “hollow sound” or a “hollow midrange coloration” with my frugels i could hear with some male voices. not much, but it was there. especially with my zen-amp. after lining the last 50% or so of the horn path with thin cork, it was gone. it has no influence on the bass. the hint with the cork comes from audio-resolution. look here http://www.audio-resolution.com/zhorn/herukamain.html
so far i am the only one who did this with his frugels.
imho it is very impotant to play a bit with the frugels until you get what you want. same is true with ron's austins.
Regards
Mike
Attachments
Mike,
I've been in a construction frenzy for a few months, but will start a measurement phase quite soon and I'll measure everything I can think of.
My Frugels haven't shown any hint of hollow sound, but I used 15mm for the horn panels and a center spine/brace through the first few segments. I also filled in the square corners at the bends and used a combination of laminated MDF and plywood. Before putting the sides on I applied 1 coat of natural varnish to the interior of the horn. I took these extra steps to improve the width/height ratio of the horn segments and reduce losses within the horn, since I planned to use 108's. I have no damping at all in the horn, so maybe my construction variations make mine a little more lively and less colored. To me they sound worlds better than my Fostex horns, which are very forward and shouty in the upper mids (I attribute to the flat CC rear wall so close behind the driver), boomy in the bass, and don't image as well (I believe due to the front mouth).
Thanks for that cork tip, because my own rework of the FH horn into a different layout (see the Tombstone thread) has some kind of resonance in the 200hz range that I need to cure. I'm not sure if it's caused by my undamped V-shape CC or the one long 70cm+ conical segment. The closer to square mouth did pay dividends with more bass even without stuffing them in a corner or using a deflector. We'll see how they measure in comparison. They were easier to build (no angles except to create the final segments) and don't need a supra-baffle. Although they look interesting, they aren't nearly as elegant as my FH's.
I've been in a construction frenzy for a few months, but will start a measurement phase quite soon and I'll measure everything I can think of.
My Frugels haven't shown any hint of hollow sound, but I used 15mm for the horn panels and a center spine/brace through the first few segments. I also filled in the square corners at the bends and used a combination of laminated MDF and plywood. Before putting the sides on I applied 1 coat of natural varnish to the interior of the horn. I took these extra steps to improve the width/height ratio of the horn segments and reduce losses within the horn, since I planned to use 108's. I have no damping at all in the horn, so maybe my construction variations make mine a little more lively and less colored. To me they sound worlds better than my Fostex horns, which are very forward and shouty in the upper mids (I attribute to the flat CC rear wall so close behind the driver), boomy in the bass, and don't image as well (I believe due to the front mouth).
Thanks for that cork tip, because my own rework of the FH horn into a different layout (see the Tombstone thread) has some kind of resonance in the 200hz range that I need to cure. I'm not sure if it's caused by my undamped V-shape CC or the one long 70cm+ conical segment. The closer to square mouth did pay dividends with more bass even without stuffing them in a corner or using a deflector. We'll see how they measure in comparison. They were easier to build (no angles except to create the final segments) and don't need a supra-baffle. Although they look interesting, they aren't nearly as elegant as my FH's.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.