I've used a Monacor SPH-60X in a FH3 and it works surprisingly well. Tight and clean bass down to 40-50Hz.
The Monacor is very close to RS (direct replacement ??). Yours should works equally well.
The magnet is very big, check before if you have enough space. My FH3 uses a 18mm suprabaffle.
Victor
I know the older SP60X was a near-replacement for the 1354. Not quite, but not far off and had some of the general presentation of the RS. About 15 years ago I advocated it as worth people looking at for that reason; unfortunately, Monacor's availablity in the US is minimal, and the driver appeared to change slightly. Not sure why, but it sounds from your description that it's back to as it used to be, which is good news.
This sounds like a fun project to try but I'm limited because my local wood supplier only has 1/2" birch ply in 30" lengths. I need to check around. The
FH is such a great design thanks to Planet 10 and others. I built FH Lite a few years ago and used GR Research LGK drivers because I had them. I just gave them away. Stupid me.
FH is such a great design thanks to Planet 10 and others. I built FH Lite a few years ago and used GR Research LGK drivers because I had them. I just gave them away. Stupid me.
Over the years I've spent a lot on audio projects so now I'm suffering from feelings of guilt over continuing to spend more. To combat that I'm trying to use what I have on hand thus asking about RS 40-1354. I've got a pair of Fostex ff85wk which right now are paired with SB Acoustics SB13PFCR25-8 in a 2 way BR. I'm liking what I'm hearing even without measuring/testing capability. I could try the Typhany TC9FD for cheap but PE backordered currently.
I suppose it depends on the point you are trying to make, but it's all part of the same reality?
As noted, this thread is about FH3 and not the place for a debate on this subject, so if people want that, the mods will need to move it elsewhere. It's been done before (to death) though.
However, briefly, in this sense: no, you can't mix and match them in these terms: they're fundamentally different systems, with different theoretical basis. It's akin to trying to use classical Newtonian physics to explain features of quantum and / or special relativity. As noted, it doesn't work that way. With EM / electrodynamics, you either use it, or you don't. What you can't do is invoke electrodynamics, and then suddenly decide to use traditional / classical electrical engineering to provide pseudo-explanations or interpretations of areas where you don't happen to like what it says. Or quietly omit aspects that are inconvenient.
However, briefly, in this sense: no, you can't mix and match them in these terms: they're fundamentally different systems, with different theoretical basis. It's akin to trying to use classical Newtonian physics to explain features of quantum and / or special relativity. As noted, it doesn't work that way. With EM / electrodynamics, you either use it, or you don't. What you can't do is invoke electrodynamics, and then suddenly decide to use traditional / classical electrical engineering to provide pseudo-explanations or interpretations of areas where you don't happen to like what it says. Or quietly omit aspects that are inconvenient.
Last edited:
I'm not trying to renegotiate the Hawksford decision here. I'm trying to understand your "one or the other" assertion. As the other Scott observed "it's all part of the same reality".
You don't mean incompatible like the heliocentric v. the geocentric. Or the schism Asimov described in "Reason"?
Again, I understand the flaws of cherry picking and theorizing that when you open up a radio to find out where the music is coming from, you'll find a miniature orchestra. But working the other way, a correct micro-explanation has to square with -- be compatible -- with the macro, no? What we see under the microscope has to help explain and be consistent with what we understand when we lift our eye from the eyepiece.
In any event... 'nuff said from the untutored cheap seats I guess.
You don't mean incompatible like the heliocentric v. the geocentric. Or the schism Asimov described in "Reason"?
Again, I understand the flaws of cherry picking and theorizing that when you open up a radio to find out where the music is coming from, you'll find a miniature orchestra. But working the other way, a correct micro-explanation has to square with -- be compatible -- with the macro, no? What we see under the microscope has to help explain and be consistent with what we understand when we lift our eye from the eyepiece.
In any event... 'nuff said from the untutored cheap seats I guess.
