I have a couple of questions. I finally had time to make some Frugel-horns. I decided to go with the XLs and got the plans from Dave. As I build my jigs, I'm wondering about details and what matters. For example, the plans are dimensioned to 1/10 of a mm. But I read some people recess the drivers, others mount them flush and others use a super baffle. If the driver can move forward and back that much, how much do the interior dimensions really matter? Are some dimensions more critical than others? Another place I'm looking at is the top-back. In the plans, it looks like the curve of the sides becomes flush with the back. But photos of other's builds show the back somewhat recessed. Is that a compromise for dadoing? Is there an ideal? Final question for now - can someone share a link for their preferred low mass terminals? The links I've dug up are obsolete. Perhaps something else that doesn't matter, but I'm curious to try.
Thanks.
Thanks.
Nearest mm is fine, most sheet materials are likely to have more deviation. Re the curve, as you can see from the plans, it's designed as flush at the top -a fractional recess (as in a mm or two) is acceptable. As far as interior dimensions go, they are what they are and should not be changed.
As far as driver mounting goes, those designed for flush mounting should be flush-mounted. Surface-mount units should be surface mounted. That does not affect the load, but it does affect diffraction. FHXL was not designed for a suprabaffle (neither is FH3 or FH-lite). Some people use them, presumably for aesthetic effect, but it is not part of the design, which already incorporates the baseline driver's response into the baffle dimensions & load characteristic.
As for terminals -I generally say 'use what you like'. Dave likes very cheap, lightweight terminal cups (take your pick), or at the expensive end, ETI / Eichmann bullet plugs. In an ideal world I like screw-lugs, which give better contact / connection than pretty much any regular binding post. Nobody ever believes it though, as they don't look pretty, don't have a brand-name and aren't as convenient. As far as conventional posts go, the Cardas gear is decent, although if you pick a copper post watch out for the mechanical integrity: given how soft copper is, some care & attention is necessary, both in installation & potentially over time if significant physical stress (weight) is placed on it.
As far as driver mounting goes, those designed for flush mounting should be flush-mounted. Surface-mount units should be surface mounted. That does not affect the load, but it does affect diffraction. FHXL was not designed for a suprabaffle (neither is FH3 or FH-lite). Some people use them, presumably for aesthetic effect, but it is not part of the design, which already incorporates the baseline driver's response into the baffle dimensions & load characteristic.
As for terminals -I generally say 'use what you like'. Dave likes very cheap, lightweight terminal cups (take your pick), or at the expensive end, ETI / Eichmann bullet plugs. In an ideal world I like screw-lugs, which give better contact / connection than pretty much any regular binding post. Nobody ever believes it though, as they don't look pretty, don't have a brand-name and aren't as convenient. As far as conventional posts go, the Cardas gear is decent, although if you pick a copper post watch out for the mechanical integrity: given how soft copper is, some care & attention is necessary, both in installation & potentially over time if significant physical stress (weight) is placed on it.
Typically one aims to put the xo in a series connection like this should be lower than the quarter-wave spacing and higher than the BS(-3).
dave
I guess i’ll need to look at that. The goal is to have all integer dimensions (metric), but on some of the angled bits that is not possible, to i will put tenths just to give an idea, i do not think naby will get tenth of a mm perfect.
dave
A tiny bit of extention at the back=top is acceptable and CHris introduced it so as to have a practical dado for the back panel to go in the flat-pak kits.
dave
How can I tell if a driver is intended for flush mounting? Is that a manufacturer recommendation? I've got Mark Audio 11MS gen 2. Judging by the tapering frame, I'm guessing that means surface mount? This just got easier. Now if the snow would just melt. I hate running the router inside.
I've only made a template so far. If everything comes together correctly, I should have about 4 mm overhang. Easy enough to redraw it and trim it back now. Might as well do it right.
Hi there I hope someone can help me out with some advice. I am looking for a high sensitivity speaker to be driven bij my 2 to 3 W/ch tube amp (Spud Kit). So sensitivity should be 90dB plus or preferably 92dB plus. The FH XL seems like interesting speaker to build. But I have some questions:
1) Which speaker unit gives the highest efficiency? I was thinking Fostex FE166NV or En.
2) Has anyone experimented with this unit?
3) I think I will like the sound quality of the paper cone construction because paper cones reputedly have better and faster response to transients and mid-bass. Can anyone confirm this characteristic?
4) What other units can you guys recommend with equal efficiency?
Finally I am living in the Netherlands and could someone recommend a supplier who makes the kits?
Thanks, Frederick Joan
1) Which speaker unit gives the highest efficiency? I was thinking Fostex FE166NV or En.
2) Has anyone experimented with this unit?
3) I think I will like the sound quality of the paper cone construction because paper cones reputedly have better and faster response to transients and mid-bass. Can anyone confirm this characteristic?
4) What other units can you guys recommend with equal efficiency?
Finally I am living in the Netherlands and could someone recommend a supplier who makes the kits?
Thanks, Frederick Joan
For the above, in order
- FF165wk and FE168ESigma are probably the highest in sensitivity terms of the units that work reasonably. The 166NV and older 166En aren't ideal for this load however
- Not as far as I know
- It has little direct to do with transients; this is more a question of driver design and response than the cone material alone
- There aren't many; the FE168ESigma should be a reasonable match, albeit a bit pricier than some others.
1. FF165wk works better than FE168e∑. They both benefit from some simple tweaks.
2. FE166En has been trialed, needs a corner and it is still, maybe, a bit iffy.
Do note that how sesitive you need depends on how loud you listen and how well your ampligfier recovers from clipping.
I had an interesting experience with 2A3Se and a set of 84 dB loudspeakers. I was surprised at how well it worked in my biggish room. You could not really crank it, but i was surprised and very pleased.
dave
2. FE166En has been trialed, needs a corner and it is still, maybe, a bit iffy.
Do note that how sesitive you need depends on how loud you listen and how well your ampligfier recovers from clipping.
I had an interesting experience with 2A3Se and a set of 84 dB loudspeakers. I was surprised at how well it worked in my biggish room. You could not really crank it, but i was surprised and very pleased.
dave
Thanks Scottmoose and Dave for your quick reply! So according to specs the FF 165WK is an SPL of 92dB. To what sensitivity would that translate when mounted inside the FH XL?
And what simple tweaks can be done to this driver?
Dave I noticed on your pictures that the units sit on top of the wooden face plate. Would it make a sonic difference if you would mount them flush e.g. recessed in a milled chamber? And are the panels glued straight on each other without slots in the side panels? Well I guess I will notice when ordering the plans for DIY audio...
And what simple tweaks can be done to this driver?
Dave I noticed on your pictures that the units sit on top of the wooden face plate. Would it make a sonic difference if you would mount them flush e.g. recessed in a milled chamber? And are the panels glued straight on each other without slots in the side panels? Well I guess I will notice when ordering the plans for DIY audio...
Last edited by a moderator:
Joan might be another option for you if size isn't an issue. https://www.diyaudio.com/community/threads/the-new-mark-audio-chn-110-6-driver.362273/page-2
jeff
I have covered the mods elsewhere, they are ZIG 2-way glue on the surround/cone interface on the back. And a thinned coat of mod-podge on the cone this is where the opportunity to change the colour comes). I am no longer able to EnABL them, but i do put the abbreviated pattern on the dustcap with a coat of acrylic gloss over top to minimize a minor dustcap resonance.
FF165wk can be flush mounted. Rebate would be shallow and mostly cosmetic.
dave
FF165wk can be flush mounted. Rebate would be shallow and mostly cosmetic.
dave
Bigger driver typcially bringing higher sensitivity. Some of them (FF225wk) typically require a tweeter. A12p is almost as sensitive as FF165wk.
dave
Hello, I used maop's 10.2 in fhxl on a 300B SET amp and the room they are placed in is 4mx7m, and they played much than loud enough, I never felt that I was missing any power and never went above 1/2 max power,... they also played on the same amp but with 2A3 tubes and really, even on "the pulse" from pink floyd I can tell you that "Sorrow" sounds like hell...even if I think they are more suited and totally mind blowing at lower volumes, playing a live concert at evening with a good wiskey in one hand. All in all, I don't think that sensitivity is all what's matter's to play loud, the ability of the speaker to play loud without any distortion is more important to me, and those maop's are just incredible in fhxl, they would be my sole keepers if I had to chosse between any of the many speakers I have...Now for a bigger room (6mx9m) I am myself thinking of using 2x maop's on each side to gain 3db and a bit more low end punch at higher volumes...