Yes the TL with the drivers and a few of my own cab designs. Might build a 3 way using fe138esr. Just built a 3way with SEAS exotic might but a similar loudspeaker with fe138esr.
n.p. noted that prob. with his huge klien horns. i was thinking that the rsp of post #258 looked much better than fostex 138 plot. could a bi-radial horn mounted in front of the 138 be combined with sm's bvr and or would it require a blh to ballance the upperbass low midbass/mid uppermid & hf ??serenechaos said:
Hello,
a lot of posts,
but no measurements?
Fostex measurement is made on a IEC baffle,
this looks different to a enclosure,
KLOSS,
please make a near field measurement, one 1m 1 W,
and IMP of your TL and show us.
may be a sound impression is wischfull thinking
without measurements.
a lot of posts,
but no measurements?
Fostex measurement is made on a IEC baffle,
this looks different to a enclosure,
KLOSS,
please make a near field measurement, one 1m 1 W,
and IMP of your TL and show us.
may be a sound impression is wischfull thinking
without measurements.
Will measure if I get some extra time ,working on loudspeaker and transducer designs for medical and scientific research. This keeps me busy and paid the home audio stuffs just for fun.
Have you ever listened to a long-path blh?mp9 said:
It is something you can hear.
Really bugs on some music, my wife liked the Austins @ first, doesn't as much now because of that.
#258 is a sim, the 138 is measured.mp9 said:
#261 I believe is a measured FLH plot, but don't know of what horn...
I don't know exactally what you're asking here...mp9 said:
but...
1) I personally like round horns a lot better than bi-radials; I think they sound better...
2) Combining changes the balance. Big time. look at the numbers on the sims. FLHs raise the efficiency a lot. A BLH won't keep up.
I've tried putting a front horn on the front of my austins just to hear what it sounds like as ageneral idea, (knowing it sims like)
Yes, the horn loaded range is much increased/out of balance (like it was eq'ed). and clearer...
So no, a FLH stuck on front of a bvr or blh won't work without changing the balance of everything.
mp9 said:
maybe a better way of putting it:
sm's bvr or a blh raise the upperbass
(whatever you want to call the area) where the frequency curve starts falling off, so it remains closer to flat longer, ( to a lower frequency);
or compensates for the tilted/rising frequency response.
It will pretty much just brings the lows up to where the mids or wherever it's tuned to.
so you end up with a wide-band speaker.
in the case of the 138 somewhere around 91dB.
a flh, is a narrower band animal, but more efficient.
it will raise the efficiency in the band it is tuned to.
so putting one on the front of the 138, you may get around 105dB in the operating band.
or an almost 15 dB bump over what the rest of the system is putting out.
Then the bass shuts off @ 60 Hz & you need to find something to keep up with these 105 dB efficient mids...
Re: Fe 138 ES-r
but they made it REALLY well.
😀 😀 😀 😀 😀
Suggestion:
Why not pull this driver out of the exotic corner and use it for a warm sounding mid-sensitivity 2-way BR mini-speaker?
hm said:
but they made it REALLY well.
😀 😀 😀 😀 😀
Suggestion:
Why not pull this driver out of the exotic corner and use it for a warm sounding mid-sensitivity 2-way BR mini-speaker?
2-way BR in what general range?
I was actually thinking of a simple "golden ratio" sealed box for a couple hundred more hours break-in... F3 sims @ 130Hz.
Freq resp on the driver is kinda strange...
Real flat from 150 to about 1500 Hz.
Then a smooth (10db!) rise to ~3500 Hz.
Flat from 3500 -- 4500.
Then a 10 dB drop @ 5k...
Back up 10 db @ 10k;
Down 10 @ 15K, up @ 20...
http://www.madisound.com/catalog/PDF/FE138ES-R.pdf
Did you mean cutting it off above 1.5 - 2 Khz & using a tweeter?
(And some kind of woofer that would go up to wherever the BR came in @?)
I was actually thinking of a simple "golden ratio" sealed box for a couple hundred more hours break-in... F3 sims @ 130Hz.
Freq resp on the driver is kinda strange...
Real flat from 150 to about 1500 Hz.
Then a smooth (10db!) rise to ~3500 Hz.
Flat from 3500 -- 4500.
Then a 10 dB drop @ 5k...
Back up 10 db @ 10k;
Down 10 @ 15K, up @ 20...
http://www.madisound.com/catalog/PDF/FE138ES-R.pdf
Did you mean cutting it off above 1.5 - 2 Khz & using a tweeter?
(And some kind of woofer that would go up to wherever the BR came in @?)
serenechaos said:
I am not sure about the x-over frequency/topology. One would have to include the rise into the x-over. Maybe 2 kHz, maybe 3 kHz. Would be a sub/sat system, 87dB sensitivity with moderate BSC. Your wife will love you.
Post 261 is a nearfield mesurement of my littel Top at Post 185.
Beside of that, I dont kwow why , but the FE138, when it is broken in, sounds much better than I would have suggested seeing the mesurements.😎 😎 😎
Beside of that, I dont kwow why , but the FE138, when it is broken in, sounds much better than I would have suggested seeing the mesurements.😎 😎 😎
mp9,
sorry, i was wrong about the graph then...
the boost was from being measured @ more than one watt, or something...
Dr. ODD,
have you made any measurements since the drivers have broken in?
are you still using them in the same configurationn?
el`Ol,
"Your wife will love you."
To her WAF is all about sound quality, and man, she's not very impressed with these right now...
She don't care how big they are. When we were @ VSAC, she listened to Jeffery Jackson's five-way FLH system less than two minutes, and ask if I could build something like that.
But the other night, listening to Heart on the 138s, she summed up her thoughts (about the 138s) by saying "I didn't know Ann and Nancy could sound that bad" then got up and left...
Yeah, I gotta do something with these things...
I thought they'd make a nice, simple, second system for low-level, late night listening in a small room.
Maybe the design that came in the box they shipped with, Kloss seems happy with it.
r
sorry, i was wrong about the graph then...
the boost was from being measured @ more than one watt, or something...
Dr. ODD,
have you made any measurements since the drivers have broken in?
are you still using them in the same configurationn?
el`Ol,
"Your wife will love you."
To her WAF is all about sound quality, and man, she's not very impressed with these right now...
She don't care how big they are. When we were @ VSAC, she listened to Jeffery Jackson's five-way FLH system less than two minutes, and ask if I could build something like that.
But the other night, listening to Heart on the 138s, she summed up her thoughts (about the 138s) by saying "I didn't know Ann and Nancy could sound that bad" then got up and left...
Yeah, I gotta do something with these things...
I thought they'd make a nice, simple, second system for low-level, late night listening in a small room.
Maybe the design that came in the box they shipped with, Kloss seems happy with it.
r
i dont think so unless the classic audio repro hartsfield folded horn counts- didn't notice horn delay. nelson pass devoted two long paragraphs about horn delay in the jan '05 audioXp "the kleinhorn pt. 1"p.31. he mentioned ways to reduce it in the kleinhorn such as <length/>throat, digital delays & or placement... although subjective he didn't think the effect was much of a detriment to the sound. hope i didn't take that too far out of context. anyways, is it poss. that another prob is at fault for your austin/166esr dissatisfaction? this maybe a stupid question but would a dual horn such as a hiro/166esr reduce the effect due to the length being "halfed" or 2x of a single mouth blh? o.t. but any other plans and or suggestions for the 166esr (feel free to answer in my 166esr thread or here)?serenechaos said:
"austin/166esr dissatisfaction?"
hmmm.
that's a little different; stronger than i would have put it.
i still feel the austin/166esr is still as good as any, probably the best, blh i've ever heard, overall.
better than Maxxhorns even, or any of the blhs i heard @ rmaf.
the super swan 108es-rIIs are a little cleaner, more detailed, but the 166s are fuller, have better harmonic content, and go a little deeper.
the blh "delay" problem i have, isn't something everyone even notices.
most people don't seem to, actually.
but if/once you do it's there, and it can bug...
in a nice, treated, balanced room, good amp, etc, somethings playing nice, & then you notice some of the players are out of time...
I was talking to Bert D, the Oris guy @ rmaf about it, and he laughed, and said that was got him to quit building blhs and go to flhs too.
you never notice it, until you do one day.
then it's there...
flhs are harder to build around, but i like the sound better when they're right.
a 250Hz LeCleach or Tractrix works nice with a fe166es-r.
nice enough i might scrap the austins...
hmmm.
that's a little different; stronger than i would have put it.
i still feel the austin/166esr is still as good as any, probably the best, blh i've ever heard, overall.
better than Maxxhorns even, or any of the blhs i heard @ rmaf.
the super swan 108es-rIIs are a little cleaner, more detailed, but the 166s are fuller, have better harmonic content, and go a little deeper.
the blh "delay" problem i have, isn't something everyone even notices.
most people don't seem to, actually.
but if/once you do it's there, and it can bug...
in a nice, treated, balanced room, good amp, etc, somethings playing nice, & then you notice some of the players are out of time...
I was talking to Bert D, the Oris guy @ rmaf about it, and he laughed, and said that was got him to quit building blhs and go to flhs too.
you never notice it, until you do one day.
then it's there...
flhs are harder to build around, but i like the sound better when they're right.
a 250Hz LeCleach or Tractrix works nice with a fe166es-r.
nice enough i might scrap the austins...
...cool !!! what (active), L.F. driver(s) are you considering? a bit over the top but i wonder how diff to construct a horn of 3/8" acrylic similar to a ferguson hill 150hz-20k horn.
Hello,
be careful with a FL because the 138 has a superb 30°
range at top 16 kHz, this could be listenable.
Delay of horns:
waves below 100 Hz, 3,4 m, 40 Hz - 8,5 m, to large in
normal listening rooms. ear brain takes 4 waves to get it,
look the dimensions of your room, 40 Hz is than 34 m and
100 msec on the run before you get it.
Below 100 Hz 10 msec are not listenable, some musik
have a delay of 100 msec.
translate and read:
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gesetz_der_ersten_Wellenfront
be careful with a FL because the 138 has a superb 30°
range at top 16 kHz, this could be listenable.
Delay of horns:
waves below 100 Hz, 3,4 m, 40 Hz - 8,5 m, to large in
normal listening rooms. ear brain takes 4 waves to get it,
look the dimensions of your room, 40 Hz is than 34 m and
100 msec on the run before you get it.
Below 100 Hz 10 msec are not listenable, some musik
have a delay of 100 msec.
translate and read:
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gesetz_der_ersten_Wellenfront
mp9 said:
what LF drivers for which?
active?
not 138, don't plan to for any of the fostex stuff.
don't now.
plan to eventually for the five-way.
acrylic?
laminated or bent?
links?
sounds interesting.
but then i like different!
that's a little different; stronger than i would have put it.
i still feel the austin/166esr is still as good as any, probably the best, blh i've ever heard, overall.
better than Maxxhorns even, or any of the blhs i heard @ rmaf.
the super swan 108es-rIIs are a little cleaner, more detailed, but the 166s are fuller, have better harmonic content, and go a little deeper.
Thanks.
Its been around 2 years since the Austin programming. Things change.
I keep seeing a better balance and ease of construction with a dedicated LF driver and a seperate WB driver. OBs are nice and easy but still have some pitfalls.
At present i still am leaning towards, and doing some design work, towards a BVR with LF/WB drivers in which the drivers and vents will exit from the same mouth (conical horn/waveguide) and the rear wave of the WB driver is attenuated in a non vented TL. This type application should give the broad band image a boost as well as appearing to be a more point source.
Think a combo Unity/BVR/TL/ waveguide/conical horn.
ron
i still feel the austin/166esr is still as good as any, probably the best, blh i've ever heard, overall.
better than Maxxhorns even, or any of the blhs i heard @ rmaf.
the super swan 108es-rIIs are a little cleaner, more detailed, but the 166s are fuller, have better harmonic content, and go a little deeper.
Thanks.
Its been around 2 years since the Austin programming. Things change.
I keep seeing a better balance and ease of construction with a dedicated LF driver and a seperate WB driver. OBs are nice and easy but still have some pitfalls.
At present i still am leaning towards, and doing some design work, towards a BVR with LF/WB drivers in which the drivers and vents will exit from the same mouth (conical horn/waveguide) and the rear wave of the WB driver is attenuated in a non vented TL. This type application should give the broad band image a boost as well as appearing to be a more point source.
Think a combo Unity/BVR/TL/ waveguide/conical horn.
ron