Yes, (if I can find them) ARTA and a DIY measurement mic based on a panasonic electret capsule
Once again , sorry for the delay, life gets in the way . I'll post my impressions as soon as I hook them up, for better or worse
Gotta agree..
Having recently completed a pair of Half Chili Changs with FE167 I am very interested in hearing more about the K-Slot RLHs subjective and objective performance as I would be building these as a step up from the HCC..The one you show looks great btw. How did you cut the slot?
Well , I got one cab hooked up
It sounds balanced down to about 45 Hz and drops below that. I don't heat any knock you off your feet bass ( could use a sub for the first octave)
I'll report after hooking up the other one ( may even put in a karlson 12 to compare)
I'll also try to run some FR curves
The driver itself is pleasant to listen to. it won't take your head off even thought the treble is nicely extended
It sounds balanced down to about 45 Hz and drops below that. I don't heat any knock you off your feet bass ( could use a sub for the first octave)
I'll report after hooking up the other one ( may even put in a karlson 12 to compare)
I'll also try to run some FR curves
The driver itself is pleasant to listen to. it won't take your head off even thought the treble is nicely extended
I expect these will take some considerable time to break in, suspension compliance will improve forcing Fs down as they break in. The FE167 in my HCC are still not fully broken in after many hours of playing pink noise and music. MY HCC are done at 70Hz so all of that additional extension with the TB in your box is good news IMHO.. I look forward to hearing more..
45Hz is pretty deep - BK20 at half RCA Fan's bulk probably goes to ~65 or so.
I'd assume Zobsky's 1772 are broke-in (?) - here's one of mine from Duke and not yet run by me.
I'd assume Zobsky's 1772 are broke-in (?) - here's one of mine from Duke and not yet run by me.
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
I've had a few PM's asking for updates. Firstly, sorry I haven't had the time to do much with this project (or for that matter, anything else apart from work) over the week.
I did get both channels hooked up last night. I couldn't find my mic cable , thus haven't been able to measure the response.
There si something worrying about the bass though, it doesn't hit as hard as I've heard with other horns, even though I've verified response down to the 40's . Now, I seem to be the only person with this issue with this design so something doesn't compute. Even though the driver doesn't shriek, It does seem to sound more balanced with a bit of midrange dip EQ'd in.
Plans (in no particular order):
1. measure the response
2. Rig up an adapter plate for my 6.5" fostex FE 166E (a driver purpose built for horn loading) and try it in this design. If there's someone local who could loan me a suitable 8" fostex driver (206E, 208 EZ), that would be awesome
3. Try the 1772 in my other rear loaded horn (a 45 Hz horn design somewhat related to the BIB with a tractrix flare) and / or my karlson 12
4. build a simple MLTL or ported enclosure for the 1772
5. evaluate with tube amplification (my little DIY 1.5W single ended 12B4 amp should be the easiest to try out with, since I know it sounds good and does bass, within its power band)
More to come.
I did get both channels hooked up last night. I couldn't find my mic cable , thus haven't been able to measure the response.
There si something worrying about the bass though, it doesn't hit as hard as I've heard with other horns, even though I've verified response down to the 40's . Now, I seem to be the only person with this issue with this design so something doesn't compute. Even though the driver doesn't shriek, It does seem to sound more balanced with a bit of midrange dip EQ'd in.
Plans (in no particular order):
1. measure the response
2. Rig up an adapter plate for my 6.5" fostex FE 166E (a driver purpose built for horn loading) and try it in this design. If there's someone local who could loan me a suitable 8" fostex driver (206E, 208 EZ), that would be awesome
3. Try the 1772 in my other rear loaded horn (a 45 Hz horn design somewhat related to the BIB with a tractrix flare) and / or my karlson 12
4. build a simple MLTL or ported enclosure for the 1772
5. evaluate with tube amplification (my little DIY 1.5W single ended 12B4 amp should be the easiest to try out with, since I know it sounds good and does bass, within its power band)
More to come.
Attachments
Last edited:
fwiw IIRC, 166E sims in blh pretty much like 206E but with a price of excursion vs the larger driver - -hope you eventually find 1772 and the Fulmer-slot blh ok - some folks said it had a lot of slam (?) - one had FF225K. MLTL like Bob's would be a good reference. For now I've one 1772 in BK20 and other in the ridiculously tiny Karlson 8 - - no lower bass in latter but its better on vocals than my Khorn or my direct radiator "head" YouTube - 1954 Karlson 8 coupler with Tangband 1772 - sound on H2
This morning, I replaced one of my TB-1772 with my 6.5" fostex FE 166E.
Running test tones,
1. Generally speaking, this fostex isn't as efficient above 100 Hz or so.
2. At some point around or below 100 Hz, the fostex is significantly more efficient (I really need to get some measurements going).
3. Additionally with the fostex, low frequency response was extended down to the mid - late 30 Hz area.
In short, the tangband has more midbass, but the fostex seems to have lower bass and better bass definition and extension. I'd bet this is because the stronger magnet is better able to drive the horn air mass.
Sonically, the tangband has better high frequency extention, no doubt. It still sounds a little brittle, but hopefully break in will cure this (my fostex is about 5 - 6 years old).
Midrange wise, I think the tangband is more detailed .
Basswise, I find it easier to follow drum and bass lines and detail with the fostex (no surprise, considering my test tone experiments).
More experiments to come. For starters, swap the speakers to ensure that my observations are not merely room mode artifacts
Running test tones,
1. Generally speaking, this fostex isn't as efficient above 100 Hz or so.
2. At some point around or below 100 Hz, the fostex is significantly more efficient (I really need to get some measurements going).
3. Additionally with the fostex, low frequency response was extended down to the mid - late 30 Hz area.
In short, the tangband has more midbass, but the fostex seems to have lower bass and better bass definition and extension. I'd bet this is because the stronger magnet is better able to drive the horn air mass.
Sonically, the tangband has better high frequency extention, no doubt. It still sounds a little brittle, but hopefully break in will cure this (my fostex is about 5 - 6 years old).
Midrange wise, I think the tangband is more detailed .
Basswise, I find it easier to follow drum and bass lines and detail with the fostex (no surprise, considering my test tone experiments).
More experiments to come. For starters, swap the speakers to ensure that my observations are not merely room mode artifacts
Last edited:
if Bill's AJ-horn input window is appropriate and AJ does a good prediction then 1772 (using Bob Brines' TS) may not be the best for that horn. Ask Bill how he derived that mouth spec and ask around for home measured 206E specs
http://img682.imageshack.us/img682/3769/kslot1772.gif
http://img682.imageshack.us/img682/3769/kslot1772.gif
and if AJ-Horn sim and specs are on the ball then FE206EN looks somewhat better than 1772. You're right - the horn is looking for a higher BL product
FE206EN published spec vs Bob's 1772
http://img594.imageshack.us/img594/7214/kslotfe206envs1772.gif
FE206EN published spec vs Bob's 1772
http://img594.imageshack.us/img594/7214/kslotfe206envs1772.gif
Last edited:
Hi freddi, AJ Horn is a really cool tool. As you suggested, the mouth in the model doesn't relate well to the mouth of the build, i.e., the inputs are off.
AJ Horn is seeing a 2.5m long conical horn that opens to a 41cm^2 mouth (very gradual expansion), but the RCA-Fan design has a much faster expansion to a much larger mouth that is mass-loaded / constricted by a k-slot.
So I don't think this model represents the build (speaking as a newb).
AJ Horn is seeing a 2.5m long conical horn that opens to a 41cm^2 mouth (very gradual expansion), but the RCA-Fan design has a much faster expansion to a much larger mouth that is mass-loaded / constricted by a k-slot.
So I don't think this model represents the build (speaking as a newb).
Sounds like the Tang Bands are seriously not broken in, I am still amazed at the amount of break in my Fostex FE-167 seem to require and I have been running them for several hours at a time with pink noise, and each time they seem just a little better. The Iconic woofers I chose for my Onkens took over 100hrs to break in, and I would not be surprised if the TB take as long..
A computer based source of pink noise and a solid state amp could get you on your way - running them in all day while you are at work. A week doing that and listening each night should be revealing.
What leads you to the conclusion that the Fostex has a more powerful magnet than the TB? Do you have the data for both drivers? From what I have seen of the way most of these manufacturers measure their FR drivers and market them I would be really hesitant to base this supposition on the published data sheets. (I'll go out on a limb and say beyond pretty pictures, nice words, and some representative TS parameters, they're basically rubbish.
)
Last edited:
I think I understand his mouth a bit better. His AJ Horn inputs have a square mouth (41 cm for mouth height "h" x 41 cm mouth depth "b") for an area of 1681 cm^2 or ~260 in^2.
The design is 11.75" deep, so to maintain the area of 260 in^2 would need a height of ~22.12" and it looks like that's what the mouth is, roughly, before subtracting the k-slot.
I'll take the liberty to post this recent note from Bill Woods:
"Hi Freddyi,
Conical basshorns do not work the same way as an exponential, or hypex horn.
It acts more like an organ pipe--but with a wider bandwidth.
the mouth size has to be just right- not too big, and not too small.
You can fiddle with AJ horn or other programs and see for your self.
the Karlson slot modifies the air match load so the horn has an added reflex
port to the air load.
I learned this from the tests I did for you changing the shape of the slot
to a rectangle.
The slot at the mouth also acts a "muffler" if you will, to suppress
information above 150Hz.
I will try to find the test I did-- on a lift....... which show the
interference of the front and rear waves.
All rearload horns have some cancellation around 150Hz. The trick is to
suppress it.
this can be done by adding a tuned rear chamber as well.
I tested the Fostex fe208 es, ff225, JBL LE8th and a number of other 8"
fostex which I do not remember now.
The K-slot horn has the nicest "hit" around 100 200hz I have come across
with a rearload horn.
My computer with the curves is down just now, but I will have it back in a
week or so.
In a normal rearload horn there is considerable suck out at 150Hz. This has
been minimized in the K-Slot horn as far as I could punch it.
Listing to a male voice or explosion movie sounds is what the K-slot horn
was designed for.
room placement is an issue. You do not want to get too close to a
wall/corner as this has the effect of making the mouth bigger, which is a
detriment.
I appreciate you showing you test curves, as it gives some analysis of what
the device might be doing.
Of all the rearload horns I have heard or built the K-slot horn is the only
one I have kept over the years.
The Olsen corner horn does the best job of correcting midbass cancellation.
Stuffing behind the driver...no place else..helps.
The stock Karlson excels in the 150hz range, matched,a true only by a true ,
compression load full size basshorn.
Best, Bill"
"Hi Freddyi,
Conical basshorns do not work the same way as an exponential, or hypex horn.
It acts more like an organ pipe--but with a wider bandwidth.
the mouth size has to be just right- not too big, and not too small.
You can fiddle with AJ horn or other programs and see for your self.
the Karlson slot modifies the air match load so the horn has an added reflex
port to the air load.
I learned this from the tests I did for you changing the shape of the slot
to a rectangle.
The slot at the mouth also acts a "muffler" if you will, to suppress
information above 150Hz.
I will try to find the test I did-- on a lift....... which show the
interference of the front and rear waves.
All rearload horns have some cancellation around 150Hz. The trick is to
suppress it.
this can be done by adding a tuned rear chamber as well.
I tested the Fostex fe208 es, ff225, JBL LE8th and a number of other 8"
fostex which I do not remember now.
The K-slot horn has the nicest "hit" around 100 200hz I have come across
with a rearload horn.
My computer with the curves is down just now, but I will have it back in a
week or so.
In a normal rearload horn there is considerable suck out at 150Hz. This has
been minimized in the K-Slot horn as far as I could punch it.
Listing to a male voice or explosion movie sounds is what the K-slot horn
was designed for.
room placement is an issue. You do not want to get too close to a
wall/corner as this has the effect of making the mouth bigger, which is a
detriment.
I appreciate you showing you test curves, as it gives some analysis of what
the device might be doing.
Of all the rearload horns I have heard or built the K-slot horn is the only
one I have kept over the years.
The Olsen corner horn does the best job of correcting midbass cancellation.
Stuffing behind the driver...no place else..helps.
The stock Karlson excels in the 150hz range, matched,a true only by a true ,
compression load full size basshorn.
Best, Bill"
Last edited:
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.