166es-r in a austin a166 & construction ?

Status
This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.
any folks out there using the 166es-r in a austin ? where any desgine changes required ? do you know how they sound with the es-r's in comparison to the fostex rec. nagaoka blh cabs. ? i haven't built the rec. blh and an would like to know which of the two designs would be better for a small room of 13.5'x9.5'x8' ? i considered the frugal and prob. still will build them but i like the higher sens. of the 166es-r driver . also looked at the spawn family hiro/iris but and correct me if i'm wrong ( they are not as deep and would fit better than the fostex rec, cab. ) but i think that they would have too much bass output to couple with a room of this size.
if i decide to build an austin for my 166es-r , the cnc'ed version looks best but not the use of mdf . can anybody tell me how deluded i am to think of utilizing a template and router to cut the lengthwise x side cross-sections from @3/4" b.birch ? would the sonic advantage if any vs. the standard construction version be worth the trouble ?
 
thanks for the reply . happy to know that you think they'll be a good combination . do you think the austin 166 would be a better choice than the fostex rec. blh for the es-r in my small room ? can you or ron post plans detailing the austin's c.c. mods for 166es-r here or on the frugal-horns site ?
 
frugal-phile™
Joined 2001
Paid Member
mp9 said:
do you think the austin 166 would be a better choice than the fostex rec. blh for the es-r in my small room ? can you or ron post plans detailing the austin's c.c. mods for 166es-r here or on the frugal-horns site ?

I'd guess A166 is the better. We'll have to wair for Ron to weigh in (or find his post -- here or on the Full Range Forum)

IIRC he didn't specify anything specific, but i seem to remember him saying it would probably need to be smaller. You might build the CC a little big and add blocks to fill it until tight.

dave
 
Are there any plans in the works for a 166 frugal ? If you could do a cad model for a wedgie version frugal to use with the 166es-r I'd build it . The a166 make sense as i will be putting them in the corner's of the room . I especially like that the a166 would not weight as much as the fostex rec. blh . The more i think about doing the layertone version of b.b. the less sense it makes (because of the orientation of plys ) . Would like to hear from Ron or anyone who has built a a166 for use with the fe166es-r . I read a few post about the a166/es-r but they all lacked details or results .
 
I built a pair.
Highly recommended.
Absolutely the best speakers I’ve ever heard.
I’ve tried various OBs, ML TLs, HDTs, Nagaoka Super Swans, & other horns, and personally like these better than anything else.
Excellent imaging and solid bass doesn’t start rolling off ‘til 40hz.
– e.g. My wife was noting how you can hear just WHERE the timpani’s are in the orchestra.

I ask Ron about mods for the es-r driver & he said the compression chamber may have to be adjusted "by ear," it would take a "buncha" sims to account for everything (exact room, amps, etc.), but it may have to be made smaller.

Make the rear deflector as a square (looking from the top) instead of a triangle, and the right distance from the corner is built in.
I built the speaker & deflector in two seperate pieces; the sand filled deflector is REALLY heavy, the speaker is pretty easy to carry from the back panel.
Robert
 
Time to revive this old thread!

Well, it only took a year, but I finally got 'round to re-drawing the Austin A166 plans in AutoCAD.

I had a difficult time reconciling the dimensions spread across the four pages of the rev G PDF plans from planet10's site. So I don't think it's quite correct, per the original drawing. But, I tried to account for all the dimensions that were shown, plus the correction noted on the front page, in some cases compromising or splitting the difference from what was shown and what came up in CAD when I actually drew it out. So far, just a 2D side view plan, and not dimensioned yet... I'll add dimensions shortly (tomorrow, if I get time).
 

Attachments

  • picture 10.png
    picture 10.png
    8.1 KB · Views: 1,665
I took the time to accurately draw the FE166ES-R as well, so I could model how it would fit in the baffle.

And as you can see, I also made the side profile more rectangular, instead of truncating the 45-degree bend at the upper rear. Two reasons... I prefer the look of it this way (less "hunchback"), but also because I may eventually want to experiment with a rear-facing tweeter, so the extra chamber would be useful for that. If not, it can be filled with damping material, which hopefully won't make the whole thing too top heavy.

I intend for the suprabaffle to be removable via 4 large bolts, which will double as magnetic attachment points for a fabric grille. I like magnetic-attach grilles, since they can be left in place for protection / dust cover most of the time, and easily popped off for listening.

With the suprabaffle unbolted and moved forward, the top panel will also unbolt, to provide direct access to the CC and rear chamber... this should be a big aid when tweaking, and then I won't worry about gluing up both sides straight away.
 
Thanks! I look forward to the measurements and will build a pair based on them. I'll use ~3/4" baltic birch ply so i may wait till it's finalized but I'm really feeling like building something now.
If it helps any a while back Ron Clarke ran the numbers for me and came up with, "CC volume=2.74 liters when a 12.7"x12.7"baffle is used for that driver. Either that or a 12.7 "round baffle."
Would be interesting and great if Ron C. were to give us his opinion of the new es-r revision.
 
I am planning to use 3/4" baltic birch ply as well. I used 0.7" as the plywood thickness for the CAD drawings, which I hope is accurate (same as the original plans called for) since I don't have a physical sample of 3/4" birch ply to measure.

Thanks for the CC volume info. I'll see if I can calculate what results in the current drawing... do note, the magnet on the back of the es-r is so big, it really blocks off a lot of the entrance, necessitating a large cone / cutout on the inside of the suprabaffle. If you look closely, you'll see that the innermost cutout actually drops down past the top of the horn throat! Hope that's OK.
 
hifiZen said:

If you look closely, you'll see that the innermost cutout actually drops down past the top of the horn throat!
Only if you space the driver out from the front of the cab.
If you mount the driver flush with the cab, and build the supra baffle back around the sides and top that won't happen.

Also you won't have to stuff the compression chamber so much.
The first thing I noticed was how much clearance there was in the compression chamber; I had to stuff mine a lot to make it sound right with 166es-rs (even with the round foam in back, and damped basket, felt covered magnet, etc.).
Robert :)
 
More like this you mean... with the suprabaffle flush instead of proud of the front panel? I had to move the driver centerline up to prevent the magnet crashing into the back of the CC, but with a single layer of ply, the inside cone diameter is indeed a lot less.

Hmm, I'll have to think about how to build this. It complicates construction of the front panel and also the removable top panel I am planning.
 

Attachments

  • picture 11.png
    picture 11.png
    7.2 KB · Views: 1,305
...but it makes more sense to me with it flush to the cabinet. only prob. is that i didn't know how to calculate for space occupied by the driver/magnet when figuring out volume of the compression chamber for a revision of the org. plans (of which i found no usable version). i don't see the need for a removable front/plate baffle unless you're planing on different driver options. i'm thinking there will be plenty of room to reach into it as is. glad you're going to incorporate Ron C's c.c. numbers. hope we get a good set of workable plans soon, looking forward to building something with the promise of taking the 166es-r to another level beyond the fostex rec. blh.
 
serenechaos said:

The first thing I noticed was how much clearance there was in the compression chamber; I had to stuff mine a lot to make it sound right with 166es-rs (even with the round foam in back, and damped basket, felt covered magnet, etc.).
Robert :)
how do you rate the austin/166es-r combo and did you also build the fostex rec. blh (or any of the spawn's) and which do you like best with your 166es-r's?
 
Would be interesting and great if Ron C. were to give us his opinion of the new es-r revision.

I dont approve of opinions. Like A-holes, everybody has one.
Cant really comment as i have never heard that version. I did some trials with the Fe-166e (Enable) from Dave and i can state that on an OB the driver appears to be much smoother sounding, but again thats just an opinion.

ron

(gotta get some $ off ta Dave fer these drivers)
 
mp9 said:

how do you rate the austin/166es-r combo and did you also build the fostex rec. blh (or any of the spawn's) and which do you like best with your 166es-r's?
No I didn't build the fostex rec blh.

I only compared it with the Open Baffles I broke them in on for a few months.

I didn't like the OBs at all, but that's just MY opinion...
No control, have to cross to a woofer much higher, back wave bouncing around, combines with front wave and other reflections after delay, comb filtering,...
Not for me at all.
Robert
 
REC1 said:
Would be interesting and great if Ron C. were to give us his opinion of the new es-r revision.

I dont approve of opinions. Like A-holes, everybody has one.
Cant really comment as i have never heard that version. ...

Umm... FYI, mp9 was referring to the ES-R revision of the Austin A166 cabinet design, not the driver. Ron C. is the man who did the computer simulations and design of the original A166 horn. So in this case, Ron would not be giving an 'opinion', so much as an authoritative answer regarding a) whether the plans I'm reconstructing match his original design parameters, and b) whether the modifications proposed are correct for the FE166ES-R (he has already provided some information on this - the A166 will work with the ES-R, just need to get the details right).

Since most all of that context is missing from this particular thread (scattered around other threads / forums), I can understand your remark, but others may take offense at the apparent (though unintentional, I'm sure) insult to Ron.

In any case, as soon as I've got the design worked up to a point where I have integrated all the available information, and is in a presentable form (dimensions shown, etc), I certainly intend to ask Ron for his input.

I had the ES-R's on temporary open baffles for a little while too, and I agree with serenechaos - they don't work so well OB, and are really better suited to a BLH which can properly load the cone and get some useful LF extension out of them.
 
After much correspondence with REC1/ronc/ Ron Clarke on other threads and forums, I built the A166s as drawn, with "12.7 minimum supra baffles, and adjust the compression chamber to the changed magnet size (and room size)."
Also; (looking from the top), the rear deflector was made square, not triangular, and the speakers were corner loaded.
This sets the proper distance to the corner/rear walls, and the rear walls become the last part of the flair, extending the lower frequency response.
It is smooth to ~40Hz then rolls of smoothly.
After a lot of experimentation, I now have everything setting on a pair of 18" bag end subs, down firing, built like end tables.
(So the A166s & rear deflectors are ~24" off the ground).
Integration is good this way, and you can't tell the subs are there unless you unplug them.
You can tell they're there anywhere else in the room I've tried (everywhere) even with phase adjustments.
I've also tried using a super tweeter, had best results with a Heil AMT crossed in ~15 kHz, but still not happy with it.
Other problems with this system; namely that of long path BLHs...
But regardless, it remains the best BLH, and by itself the best single driver "fullrange" speaker I've ever heard
Robert
 
Status
This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.