Very interesting, other then asthetics and a little efficiency probably not worth the bother. First full range project might as well not over complicate things, just build it it an enjoy. Drivers arrived today must leave town on business tomorrow, but will start cutting wood next week. This is a forage in a new direction, I am pretty jazzed. I will dig out my set amps maybe convert 300b to DC (proper regulated supply) I always despised the hum.
Bill
Bill
not worth the bother
Unfortunately, both 166 Austins I made got the turns smoothed out. If one had not been done, I could report if there were an audible change. Ron's description of the travels of the sound wave bubble around the turn does not look good . Seems like it comes out a bit battered. Wave front distortion does not have much appeal either. Is this audible? I don't know.......I do know to do a good job, past say 70%, takes twice as long......Anyone have the correct number on this?
Bob
Unfortunately, both 166 Austins I made got the turns smoothed out. If one had not been done, I could report if there were an audible change. Ron's description of the travels of the sound wave bubble around the turn does not look good . Seems like it comes out a bit battered. Wave front distortion does not have much appeal either. Is this audible? I don't know.......I do know to do a good job, past say 70%, takes twice as long......Anyone have the correct number on this?
Bob
Is this audible? I don't know
Yes it is. I had been building multi ways for around 30 years. I encountered the FRD forum( i dont go their anymore, there appears to be a virus attached) and was interested. I built around 10 different horns and placed pressure sensors along the wave travel so i coukld monitor the wave as it passed a point. I accumulated data and modified a hydrodynamic program to work with the lower density of air. Its clunky, but it works.
Now it wont make any difference in a TL action(lowest frequency) as far as smooth bends, but in the A166 as the horn action begins, it does. The difference (audible) is the articulation of the LF notes, it will defind position and a bass drum sounds like a bass drum with the proper decay of the note. With un smoothed bends the same sound (bass drum) is abrupt and does not sound natural. Subjective opinion here ( i hate those) but in a comparision between an OB bass and a BR bass response the smooth turns sound much closer to the OB sound.
My suggestion is to build it as designed with the rear deflector and the suprabaffle (name coined by Dave) as i studied the wave formation and front during the entire trip and designed the system to operate as a unit to extract as much as i could from the Fe166. And the 166 is a hard driver to work with, but bridges the response between the Fe126 and the 208, which was my goal, (A comprimise)
ron
Yes it is. I had been building multi ways for around 30 years. I encountered the FRD forum( i dont go their anymore, there appears to be a virus attached) and was interested. I built around 10 different horns and placed pressure sensors along the wave travel so i coukld monitor the wave as it passed a point. I accumulated data and modified a hydrodynamic program to work with the lower density of air. Its clunky, but it works.
Now it wont make any difference in a TL action(lowest frequency) as far as smooth bends, but in the A166 as the horn action begins, it does. The difference (audible) is the articulation of the LF notes, it will defind position and a bass drum sounds like a bass drum with the proper decay of the note. With un smoothed bends the same sound (bass drum) is abrupt and does not sound natural. Subjective opinion here ( i hate those) but in a comparision between an OB bass and a BR bass response the smooth turns sound much closer to the OB sound.
My suggestion is to build it as designed with the rear deflector and the suprabaffle (name coined by Dave) as i studied the wave formation and front during the entire trip and designed the system to operate as a unit to extract as much as i could from the Fe166. And the 166 is a hard driver to work with, but bridges the response between the Fe126 and the 208, which was my goal, (A comprimise)
ron
makes sense to me. i've an idea, if you have the time and can do a detailed plan with c.c. measurements corrected for a 166es-r and utilizing curved bends where you think it'll matter i'll build it. will be interesting to compare it to the standard design. i'm actually interested to see how much further we can push this design to greatness and don't want to chance getting it wrong with my own measurements.
166es-r
There is a reduced volume that is an adaptation for the es-r. I reduced mine using three 2.5" dia. wooden balls, glued in at the deepest point of the c.c. The balls disperse the reflected sound away from the speaker.
I think the design is locked up, the only areas of change in my opinion are in the turns and the super baffle. The ideal shape of the SB would be a tear drop shape. I don't know how it would fit and it would move the speaker out of the c.c. which doesn't seem good.
I am saying all of this with great sounding authority, but it is placed here to be shot down (like WW ll aviation target practice) by those who know better.
Bob
There is a reduced volume that is an adaptation for the es-r. I reduced mine using three 2.5" dia. wooden balls, glued in at the deepest point of the c.c. The balls disperse the reflected sound away from the speaker.
I think the design is locked up, the only areas of change in my opinion are in the turns and the super baffle. The ideal shape of the SB would be a tear drop shape. I don't know how it would fit and it would move the speaker out of the c.c. which doesn't seem good.
I am saying all of this with great sounding authority, but it is placed here to be shot down (like WW ll aviation target practice) by those who know better.
Bob
166 greatness
I say "locked up" as in GREAT already.....I am only repeating what I have heard the designer say and I hope I got it right.
Bob
I say "locked up" as in GREAT already.....I am only repeating what I have heard the designer say and I hope I got it right.
Bob
yea thats the thing, Ron told me that it needs a 2.74 liter c.c. / 12.7"x12.7" square or 12.7" round baffle. between that and changing the angled bends to constantly expanding curves leaves chances of error on my end so i'd like to have a corrected plan. with that i'd make a template and route groves into the side panels to lock in the innards which i'll do in sections of b.b and glued up b.b. cut to the curvature of the bends. if i'm going to go thru that i want everything to be spot on.
btw out of curiosity were you ever able to compare your austins to the fostex rec. blh? (i havent but i suspect ron's austin takes the 166es-r to another level).
btw out of curiosity were you ever able to compare your austins to the fostex rec. blh? (i havent but i suspect ron's austin takes the 166es-r to another level).
Hello
I'm going to chime in if I may;
I've been out of the forums for a long while. My father has been fighting C and passed away about a month ago. He was a very fine old fashion carpenter, woodworker & was my teacher as well as a big inspiration for all my work.
Been working on some signs & a wooden clock...
I have, with no doubt that the first curved / layered Austin II, designed by ronc & first built by... me are the most amazing pair of horns / speakers I have heard. It is absolutely intoxicating to experience! They would have probably sound better to another level had I would used BB instead of MDF, but this was just a prototype test.
Smooth bends just make sense in any transitions; mandrel exhausts or dust collection / plumbing. Imagine the Indianapolis 500 formed as a rectangle shaped track.
I do still have the Austin II drawings (a big mess) & will work with Dave (planet10) to do his magic for a final as per ronc approval.
I'm going to chime in if I may;
I've been out of the forums for a long while. My father has been fighting C and passed away about a month ago. He was a very fine old fashion carpenter, woodworker & was my teacher as well as a big inspiration for all my work.
Been working on some signs & a wooden clock...
I have, with no doubt that the first curved / layered Austin II, designed by ronc & first built by... me are the most amazing pair of horns / speakers I have heard. It is absolutely intoxicating to experience! They would have probably sound better to another level had I would used BB instead of MDF, but this was just a prototype test.
Smooth bends just make sense in any transitions; mandrel exhausts or dust collection / plumbing. Imagine the Indianapolis 500 formed as a rectangle shaped track.
I do still have the Austin II drawings (a big mess) & will work with Dave (planet10) to do his magic for a final as per ronc approval.
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
that would be great! especially so if he can optimize it for a 166es-r. if i don't cut the curves of glue up b.b. on a band saw i'm thinking i may have to have to start asking around about a cnc to do it right. if i can't find one, i'll need to check but i may be able to cnc it at the local high school if i enroll in their cabinet making class. i sure hope ron o.k.'s it.
layertone, i'm verry sorry to hear of your fathers passing. i wish you and your family well thru this difficult time and in years to come.
layertone, i'm verry sorry to hear of your fathers passing. i wish you and your family well thru this difficult time and in years to come.
Austin ll
Hi Layertone,
That was a 168E sigma and dimensions were never given. I've overlayed the 166 profile with the Austin ll and its a bit different in the upper turn, I can't figure if its taller. I would imagine it conforms to a 48" hight. I'm curious.
Bob
Hi Layertone,
That was a 168E sigma and dimensions were never given. I've overlayed the 166 profile with the Austin ll and its a bit different in the upper turn, I can't figure if its taller. I would imagine it conforms to a 48" hight. I'm curious.
Bob
Tony,
Sorry to hear about your dad, I see his passion for wood working lives on through you. Each of my projects use different construction Techniques. I would like to build the Austins with rounded sections however for the first ones I may not. If I like them well enough and want a second pair maybe you will have the plans worked out with Dave, and I will upgrade to a better driver for a second set.
Bill
Sorry to hear about your dad, I see his passion for wood working lives on through you. Each of my projects use different construction Techniques. I would like to build the Austins with rounded sections however for the first ones I may not. If I like them well enough and want a second pair maybe you will have the plans worked out with Dave, and I will upgrade to a better driver for a second set.
Bill
rounding the turns
Bill,
Having read Ron's opinion, I'd take the time to round the turns. The out come will be worth the time. You could use epoxy if that will save time. You can make a template and glue it in on the closed side and then make a temporary on the open side and drag the stuff with a straight edge. I'll be back in 24hrs.
Bob
Bill,
Having read Ron's opinion, I'd take the time to round the turns. The out come will be worth the time. You could use epoxy if that will save time. You can make a template and glue it in on the closed side and then make a temporary on the open side and drag the stuff with a straight edge. I'll be back in 24hrs.
Bob
I wonder if bondo combided with someother dead (sonicly) material would by a good choice. Or cutting and stacking plywood would not be that dificult if it was just the shape of the fillits.
Hey Ron,
I have a question about the FE126 Austin. In the second to last page of the pdf it shows a version with the bass deflector monted on the bottom (deflecting torward the floor rather than the wall). Is this still a viable option? I really like the aesthetics of that particular design. 🙂
I have a question about the FE126 Austin. In the second to last page of the pdf it shows a version with the bass deflector monted on the bottom (deflecting torward the floor rather than the wall). Is this still a viable option? I really like the aesthetics of that particular design. 🙂
rounding the turns
Bill'
Go your own way, it might be better than what I did, but looking back and re-thinking, I would use the epoxy with the templates. The wood should be ground O and the epoxy only needs to fill each valley as you go from one to the next. Both epoxy and bondo has a limit to thickness application ( 1/4" lifts ?) That is why I used epoxy mixed with sand. If you start small and learn how to handle it you may get off easy. Back tracking with a file and sandpaper is no fun. I did epoxy followed by bondo, but finally just epoxy. I was not the expert and it was quite a mess at times depending on my approach.
The epoxy goes smoothly when fresh, if you take issue with chattered surface or imperfections you may find a new imperfection, etc.
Plastic tape the temporary exterior template so it does not stick!
Bob
Bill'
Go your own way, it might be better than what I did, but looking back and re-thinking, I would use the epoxy with the templates. The wood should be ground O and the epoxy only needs to fill each valley as you go from one to the next. Both epoxy and bondo has a limit to thickness application ( 1/4" lifts ?) That is why I used epoxy mixed with sand. If you start small and learn how to handle it you may get off easy. Back tracking with a file and sandpaper is no fun. I did epoxy followed by bondo, but finally just epoxy. I was not the expert and it was quite a mess at times depending on my approach.
The epoxy goes smoothly when fresh, if you take issue with chattered surface or imperfections you may find a new imperfection, etc.
Plastic tape the temporary exterior template so it does not stick!
Bob
Re: 166es-r
I'm also using the ESR driver.
I've tried different compression chamber reduction mods, best so far is 2.5" dia. solid core piece of foam, full width across back of chamber. (A cut up pool "water toy."
I tried several supra baffle configurations, and like mounting the driver to a baffle flush to the rest of the front of the speaker.
The "supra baffle" just extends to the sides and top.
(12.7" wide, or ~6.35" radius sides & top from center of driver).
This does not move the speaker out and increase the c.c. volume.
I tried a Heil AMT sitting on top, as a super tweeter, crossed in many different places, and while it does increase high frequency extension, I never was happy with it.
I do sometimes use a sub, comes in ~ 40 Hz.
This is with the square deflector, not triangular, and corner loaded, not against a wall (helps a LOT).
Robert 🙂
Just someone else reporting on what they've tried...bobmar said:
I'm also using the ESR driver.
I've tried different compression chamber reduction mods, best so far is 2.5" dia. solid core piece of foam, full width across back of chamber. (A cut up pool "water toy."
I tried several supra baffle configurations, and like mounting the driver to a baffle flush to the rest of the front of the speaker.
The "supra baffle" just extends to the sides and top.
(12.7" wide, or ~6.35" radius sides & top from center of driver).
This does not move the speaker out and increase the c.c. volume.
I tried a Heil AMT sitting on top, as a super tweeter, crossed in many different places, and while it does increase high frequency extension, I never was happy with it.
I do sometimes use a sub, comes in ~ 40 Hz.
This is with the square deflector, not triangular, and corner loaded, not against a wall (helps a LOT).
Robert 🙂
well i don't think anything is as elegant and advanced as layertones, the iris or gordan rankin's wallawalla wall spiral (but he won't release the plans), are the only other i'd consider building. have you or will you try other designs with your 166es-r's?
i agree that the wallawalla spirals look advanced and elegant, but they didn't impress me, sound wise.mp9 said:
I haven't heard the iris, but the 166 looks so much better on paper (FR & smoothness), that I can't see building iris.
I'm looking to try something else though, as good as the 166s are, the group delay is audible, and can be bothersome.
Ron likes OBs now, but I find them much worse.
I tried the 166esrs that way, (kinda like Nelson Pass's Lowther OB design).
I've yet to hear an OB I could live with, and I listened to quite a few...
Probably try a front horn of some type.
The front horns with lowthers across the hall from the lowthers in OBs @ RMAF sounded so much better it amazed me.
I kept going back and forth comparing...
FLHs sound a world different from BLHs to me, but the 166 is still the best BLH I've ever heard.
Robert 🙂
layertone enclosures
Well, I wonder how different the layertone box configuration is to the 166A design. I tried overlaying the two with back lighting and they seem very similar. It seems that it is very important to have the turns as Ron points out with his example of the sound of the drum and its length of sound decay. This would apply to the general sound of the music. ... I made the 166A design because I had bought the es-r speakers. ( I was surprised when I finally heard the 166E speakers, how pleasant and "broken in" they sounded immediately upon playing.) Seems to me the Turns would give you a much improved design......There are some obvious differences in the layertone box, for instance in the c.c. and how it flows through the throat, but if the dimensions are the same, you could achieve this by adding the turns to the original design. You know, Ron's talking about a more correct tonal color when he gives the example of the drum sound. Seems like, if you want to try a new project,"the turns" might be a good one.
I am not aware of the "group delay", that is, I can't hear it. Yes, I think The Austin is pretty great, the outlay in dollars is very low and the labor is huge, but it gives one perspective. Its interesting and the out come sounds great. I am impressed with the lower register of sound. The base area, how well defined it is. I should mention the instruments sound correct as well.
Bob
Well, I wonder how different the layertone box configuration is to the 166A design. I tried overlaying the two with back lighting and they seem very similar. It seems that it is very important to have the turns as Ron points out with his example of the sound of the drum and its length of sound decay. This would apply to the general sound of the music. ... I made the 166A design because I had bought the es-r speakers. ( I was surprised when I finally heard the 166E speakers, how pleasant and "broken in" they sounded immediately upon playing.) Seems to me the Turns would give you a much improved design......There are some obvious differences in the layertone box, for instance in the c.c. and how it flows through the throat, but if the dimensions are the same, you could achieve this by adding the turns to the original design. You know, Ron's talking about a more correct tonal color when he gives the example of the drum sound. Seems like, if you want to try a new project,"the turns" might be a good one.
I am not aware of the "group delay", that is, I can't hear it. Yes, I think The Austin is pretty great, the outlay in dollars is very low and the labor is huge, but it gives one perspective. Its interesting and the out come sounds great. I am impressed with the lower register of sound. The base area, how well defined it is. I should mention the instruments sound correct as well.
Bob
- Status
- Not open for further replies.