Hello
I am looking at some options for the FE126 in a BLH. I would like to try a front BLH as opposed to the Fruegal rear horn and was wondering if anyone has thought about using the Fostex recommended 108EZ cabinet. The chamber can be enlarged by about 15% by leaving the no. 29 pieces out.
Thanks
Dave
I am looking at some options for the FE126 in a BLH. I would like to try a front BLH as opposed to the Fruegal rear horn and was wondering if anyone has thought about using the Fostex recommended 108EZ cabinet. The chamber can be enlarged by about 15% by leaving the no. 29 pieces out.
Thanks
Dave
Might work. I've done a couple of double horns for this driver recently, a BVR, and, more recently, a long-path Nagaoka style version. I believe Berndt has done a scaled down version of his big chamberless Viech horn as well.
Scottmoose (as usual!) is right -- there is a scaled down version of the Viech horn for the FE126E. See http://www.hifi-forum.de/viewthread-104-8258.html. Unfortunately I haven't found an English version of this design and the Google translated version of this page is hard to understand. Is there an English version out there?
I could swear I've seen an English version of that design. Here is the first section translated using babelfish:
Tja, it goes to impact on impact. At least which concerns the conception of my new projects here in the forum, these crescents stand actually already since at the end of of May with me in the living room, I were a little defaulting, seem for me. Well: The idea to this project is already much older, because the problem pursues me already for a long time. It is often relatively easy to design for a certain driver a horn which has a responding low clay/tone behavior, particularly with as powerful Tools as AJHorn. Often it is not more a yes/no decision after the slogan goes or goes. If it goes, then one can model the horn so for a long time, until the best compromise from size and depth comes out. That it can then still hapern, however an effect, my opinion is after much too few is brought up for discussion, i.e.: Does this modelled low clay/tone range fit also the central/high clay/tone? In frightening many cases the bass from the horn is beautifully deep and linear, but much too loud in relation to the upper situations. If happens, it becomes close. Because why: This bass surplus is oppressively resistant to each kind of Entzerrung. One can plug the horn, then the low bass suffers. A helmholtz-Resonator is too narrow-band. Also passive Entzerrung is critical due to the wild impedance process. By the fact that the often quite fuelligen Eumel is then located usually still wind near or in the corner, it is only intensified the problem, because horns react sooo gratefully to wall support. Active Entzerrung would be naturally ideal, since thereby also the driver in the stroke was relieved, but who has that already. But if the mountain does not come to the prophet, the prophet must to the mountain. We take the Fostex FE126E: It has actually a bad Frequenzganghoehung in the central/high clay/tone, which should be filtered in conventional constructions such as BR or CL in any case. If it would succeed however to up-tighten the typical horn increased height in the bass up to the beginning of the rise with approximately 1500 cycles per second and to under-feed the under-lowest bass of the driver thereby, one would have a loudspeaker, which receives the enormous efficiency of the driver into the bass down. This would promise an efficiency of 92dB/W/m away from the bass. Sounds geil and also at the end functioned. Here a photo of the angel trumpet prototypes. As with the Cyburgs monitor my apology for the Spanplattengewastel, beautiful pictures become already sometime once to follow, finally come now eh the dark winter, where one builds gladly beautiful versions of the boxes.
Let me know if this is better than google.
Jeff
Tja, it goes to impact on impact. At least which concerns the conception of my new projects here in the forum, these crescents stand actually already since at the end of of May with me in the living room, I were a little defaulting, seem for me. Well: The idea to this project is already much older, because the problem pursues me already for a long time. It is often relatively easy to design for a certain driver a horn which has a responding low clay/tone behavior, particularly with as powerful Tools as AJHorn. Often it is not more a yes/no decision after the slogan goes or goes. If it goes, then one can model the horn so for a long time, until the best compromise from size and depth comes out. That it can then still hapern, however an effect, my opinion is after much too few is brought up for discussion, i.e.: Does this modelled low clay/tone range fit also the central/high clay/tone? In frightening many cases the bass from the horn is beautifully deep and linear, but much too loud in relation to the upper situations. If happens, it becomes close. Because why: This bass surplus is oppressively resistant to each kind of Entzerrung. One can plug the horn, then the low bass suffers. A helmholtz-Resonator is too narrow-band. Also passive Entzerrung is critical due to the wild impedance process. By the fact that the often quite fuelligen Eumel is then located usually still wind near or in the corner, it is only intensified the problem, because horns react sooo gratefully to wall support. Active Entzerrung would be naturally ideal, since thereby also the driver in the stroke was relieved, but who has that already. But if the mountain does not come to the prophet, the prophet must to the mountain. We take the Fostex FE126E: It has actually a bad Frequenzganghoehung in the central/high clay/tone, which should be filtered in conventional constructions such as BR or CL in any case. If it would succeed however to up-tighten the typical horn increased height in the bass up to the beginning of the rise with approximately 1500 cycles per second and to under-feed the under-lowest bass of the driver thereby, one would have a loudspeaker, which receives the enormous efficiency of the driver into the bass down. This would promise an efficiency of 92dB/W/m away from the bass. Sounds geil and also at the end functioned. Here a photo of the angel trumpet prototypes. As with the Cyburgs monitor my apology for the Spanplattengewastel, beautiful pictures become already sometime once to follow, finally come now eh the dark winter, where one builds gladly beautiful versions of the boxes.
Let me know if this is better than google.
Jeff
There was a brief description of the Cyburgs design over at the FullRangeDriver Forum, this thread: new FE126E horn design
SB
SB
No one mentions the BIB for the 126?
I'm building a pair for my friend Jack the mad scientist...
I will report as to my findings. I plan on trying these before graduating to bigger and better things (FE206ES-R's)
🙂
I'm building a pair for my friend Jack the mad scientist...
I will report as to my findings. I plan on trying these before graduating to bigger and better things (FE206ES-R's)
🙂
Probably because it works in a similar way to rearward-firing horns -it uses the reflection boundary conditions to boost apparant mouth-size, and Dave said he wanted a forward-firing mouth.
Has anyone found the plans in English for these speakers?
I am looking for plans to use one of the less expensive 4 or 4.5" Fostex drivers. Prefer a speaker that doesn't need to be in a corner. Also this will be my first attempt at veneering so I prefer something that would make this process fairly easy.
Any recommendations are appreciated.
I am looking for plans to use one of the less expensive 4 or 4.5" Fostex drivers. Prefer a speaker that doesn't need to be in a corner. Also this will be my first attempt at veneering so I prefer something that would make this process fairly easy.
Any recommendations are appreciated.
This Viech horn definitely looks a simple build. To me the horn pathways look very similar to a bib except for one more folding and the folding corners in different loacations, and the mouth exiting forward.
I am still wondering about the effect of this more open larger shorter blh like the "Viech"versus the constrained Nagoaka style what the ultimate sonic differences would be in a same external size enclosure? Build them both and see?
Here is a front horn that I just put together for fun. The driver is a 5" clarion coax 4r .It's an experiment, still otimizing.
I am still wondering about the effect of this more open larger shorter blh like the "Viech"versus the constrained Nagoaka style what the ultimate sonic differences would be in a same external size enclosure? Build them both and see?
Here is a front horn that I just put together for fun. The driver is a 5" clarion coax 4r .It's an experiment, still otimizing.
Attachments
Not sure I understand your question.
The BIB is a linear horn (variation on conical), Viech and variations are exponential. The former needs to be larger (longer, larger mouth which is why it's for corner loading) for a given frequency.
The stepped Nagaoka expansion is there for a few reasons, but primarily because it allows a longer horn to be packed into a given box size. Technically they're not horns at all, though the driver still 'sees' an expansion. In terms of sound, it's mostly an approach thing, so it's difficult to compare.
The BIB is a linear horn (variation on conical), Viech and variations are exponential. The former needs to be larger (longer, larger mouth which is why it's for corner loading) for a given frequency.
The stepped Nagaoka expansion is there for a few reasons, but primarily because it allows a longer horn to be packed into a given box size. Technically they're not horns at all, though the driver still 'sees' an expansion. In terms of sound, it's mostly an approach thing, so it's difficult to compare.
I've never understood why certain people seem to sneer at the Nagaoka designs as un-horns. They perform the exact same function as a smoothly expanding horn, or?Scottmoose said:
Let me add Ron Clarke's FE126E design to the table. It does exit to the rear, however. People seem to like putting an extra baffle on them, although I'm not quite sure it's necessary.
http://fullrangedriver.com/gallery/thumbnails.php?album=3
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
Even with no power i'm enjoying my RonHorn A126 (with treated drivers, suprabaffle & rear deflector)... iPod nano (early xmas present) with Apple Lossless into a stock Sonic Impact T-Amp (loaded with duracells).
dave
dave
Dumbass said:
Who's sneering? I certainly don't, as evidenced by the fact that I'm a big fan of the FE208ESigma cabinet, regularly recommend it, and the fact that I've just done a double, stepped expansion design with Dave for the FE126E. I've spoken with Martin (King) about this type of design a few times, and he too thinks there's a lot of potential in it. Ron Clarke also seems impressed with the 208 box, at least on paper, and coming from the man who designed A126, Austin and DallasII, that's no mean achievement. Nope, I like the idea. A lot.
Without going too far into the physics, suffice it to say that in the case of the Nagaoka boxes, the expansion is formed by a cascade of straight 1/2 wave resonators. Technically therefore, they are not horns in the strict sense of the word. But they're in good company -most other domestic 'horns' aren't really horns either. Whatever, the end results can often be very similar, and they're a perfectly valid design method that can yield some genuine rewards if done properly.
Bet that combination sounds blinding BTW Dave.
I wasn't referring to you but to other people who have posted on various forums.Scottmoose said:
"[T]hey are not horns in the strict sense of the word."
In which strict sense of the word, is my question I guess.
I know -I didn't take it that way. My terrible sense of humour coming out again I'm afraid. But I know what you mean -it irritates me too when I see that sort of thing blithered about. Usually by people who've never heard a good one.
The way they operate as an expanding series of 1/2 wave resonators rather than a constant expansion is the key. Each of these 1/2 wave resonators will resonate at a specific frequency, and loads the next (larger CSA) pipe in turn, and so forth. However, the end result sonically (assuming both types are designed properly and have the same tuning frequency etc), should be similar: it's just achieved in different ways.
Cheers
Scott
The way they operate as an expanding series of 1/2 wave resonators rather than a constant expansion is the key. Each of these 1/2 wave resonators will resonate at a specific frequency, and loads the next (larger CSA) pipe in turn, and so forth. However, the end result sonically (assuming both types are designed properly and have the same tuning frequency etc), should be similar: it's just achieved in different ways.
Cheers
Scott
- Status
- Not open for further replies.