Either the Fostex FE166E or FE206E in the factory horn enclosure designs (see the Fostex website for the designs in pdf format). Another alternative, and my top choice in your situation would be an old favourate of mine: Terry Cain's Bigger Is Better TQWT, which is open at the top, and has a real flavour of a cross between a horn and a TL. Predicted response is ragged, but they measure better than they simulate thanks to the way they interact with the room. The original design is here: http://melhuish.org/audio/DIYTQ8.html -use these cabinets with the Fostex FE167E driver.
This design shouldn't work, but does, especially if pushed back against a wall, or better, into room corners. They're cheap and simple to build, and as a bonus, they look elegant. OK, there's a fair bit of ripple, but they make up for it in having thunderous bass (forget subs -these'll go down to 30Hz in-room, no problem), high sensitivity (around 95db for 1w), and huge detail levels. And they're also simply great fun to listen to. Totally accurate? Nope. But then, neither are most horns for that matter, especially the afforadable ones, and they'll match your low-power Tamp well. If you go the low power route, you generally have to sacrifice a flat response for high sensitivity and dynamics, so these are no worse than anything else I can think of or have simulated / measured in this regard, and better than some. One modification: increase the area of So (the point above the driver) which will reduce the dip at circa 100Hz.
Best
Scott
This design shouldn't work, but does, especially if pushed back against a wall, or better, into room corners. They're cheap and simple to build, and as a bonus, they look elegant. OK, there's a fair bit of ripple, but they make up for it in having thunderous bass (forget subs -these'll go down to 30Hz in-room, no problem), high sensitivity (around 95db for 1w), and huge detail levels. And they're also simply great fun to listen to. Totally accurate? Nope. But then, neither are most horns for that matter, especially the afforadable ones, and they'll match your low-power Tamp well. If you go the low power route, you generally have to sacrifice a flat response for high sensitivity and dynamics, so these are no worse than anything else I can think of or have simulated / measured in this regard, and better than some. One modification: increase the area of So (the point above the driver) which will reduce the dip at circa 100Hz.
Best
Scott
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.