rjbond3rd,
At face value I have no argument with that, although that was not the main point I was making. Learning experiences are indeed important; however, my thinking is that learning (as a project outcome) and other possible project outcomes are not mutually exclusive. This is especially important to remember when folks expect sonic returns, not just knowledge, for their investment. (BTW, I am NOT suggesting that FH 2.0 would have no sonic returns!)
Chris,
So, the plans are still incorrect but the changes have been reported in a thread? Once it is worked out what changes need to be made and the available drawings are amended by the builder, the build is only moderately difficult? I think I will give it a swerve (for a few reasons) and try a different design. Harvey? Aiko with bass support? These may better fit my criteria...
At this point I feel it may be best to step aside from this and many other threads that I have been following and/or contributing to. Thing is, I lack the knowledge to significantly contribute here and I have other areas of my life in which I would like to invest my time - improve my clinical research skills, broaden my biotech knowledge, preparatory studies for a Masters in Mathematics (Statistics), Zen practice, real R&R... Seems I have been using audio forums as a (potentially harmful) distraction for a while now. I would like to build and voice established designs, but learning and contributing to design is beyond me at this point. So, I will leave it to those who know better to do better.
Apologies for any bandwidth and others’ time I may have wasted recently.
Cheers
At face value I have no argument with that, although that was not the main point I was making. Learning experiences are indeed important; however, my thinking is that learning (as a project outcome) and other possible project outcomes are not mutually exclusive. This is especially important to remember when folks expect sonic returns, not just knowledge, for their investment. (BTW, I am NOT suggesting that FH 2.0 would have no sonic returns!)
Chris,
So, the plans are still incorrect but the changes have been reported in a thread? Once it is worked out what changes need to be made and the available drawings are amended by the builder, the build is only moderately difficult? I think I will give it a swerve (for a few reasons) and try a different design. Harvey? Aiko with bass support? These may better fit my criteria...
At this point I feel it may be best to step aside from this and many other threads that I have been following and/or contributing to. Thing is, I lack the knowledge to significantly contribute here and I have other areas of my life in which I would like to invest my time - improve my clinical research skills, broaden my biotech knowledge, preparatory studies for a Masters in Mathematics (Statistics), Zen practice, real R&R... Seems I have been using audio forums as a (potentially harmful) distraction for a while now. I would like to build and voice established designs, but learning and contributing to design is beyond me at this point. So, I will leave it to those who know better to do better.
Apologies for any bandwidth and others’ time I may have wasted recently.
Cheers
rcdaniel said:
I wouldn't at all say that it is arbitrarily compromised. If you consider that all the niches for a larger, less compromised design are already filled with very competent designs, it is not arbitrary at all.
And as with all diyA reference designs, the reference is intended in the sense that it is a fairly modestly costly design with widely available drivers that people can build as a reference to compare other designs to (hence the choice of something like the FE126 instead of say a Feastrex D5NF or a small Lowther).
dave
The problem with that is that I am not convinced there really is a separate niche (from the builder/user/customer POV), and therefore it appears that one has been arbitrarily created. From a potential builder's perspective, why would I want a little less height, when it offers few benefits and may compromise the design (driver height); does a short cabinet really define a niche? From a technical person's 'product offering' perspective it may; however, this is perhaps more relevant more to the designer than the end user.
Now, if it had been stated that you wanted to design a cabinet that did a certain set of things that folks desired (performance, ease-of-build, aesthetics, cost…) and were willing to compromise x,y and z, and then decided that a petit cabinet was the most appropriate I would be stoked. I guess that is what I have been trying (poorly) to get across. As stated earlier, that is my issue (my beliefs, values, etc.) not yours, though I did contribute in that it may help development of the design outcomes.
That said, you guys give your time for zilch and have produced some amazing designs and helped a whole lotta folks. I am sure that your new design will be a ripper and will bring well reproduced music into many folks’ lives. I am not meaning to criticise what in the greater scheme of things is no big deal… perhaps this is an ideological discussion that has grown larger than it deserves. After all, this is about sharing, experimentation, and – dare I say it – fun.
Cheers
rcdaniel said:
Because you might not have space for a larger box, or be able to use one for aesthetic-driven considerations. Given the huge success of Ed's commerical Horn over the past few years, I think it's safe to say that the niche exists. Everything is a compromise in some manner or other; no free lunches in audio. It just depends which the individual is willing to accept.
Again, overall size is not the issue; it was the height - specifically that it was defined so it could be an "ode." Yeah, someone out there may want a short cabinet they can place under a low shelf etc... Not sure what that would do for sonics tho.
The point of my initial post regarded how the need for petit was arrived at that did not sit comfy with me – as originally expressed, it was not based on user need. That was my issue. If you guys are now saying that users specifically want petit, then I defer to your greater technical knowledge – no problems with that here.
That said, I am (today) comfortable with an “ode” or homage etc. – it provides an interesting artistic and technical challenge in which lies some beauty. I would prefer it not grossly affect performance and that people are made aware of the speaker’s intended purpose and associated limitations. I guess that is what this thread is for, so have at it.
I agree, though would add that his horn may have been just as successful if it were slightly taller. The niche is defined by the performance, overall size, aesthetics, ease-of-placement... rather than simply petit.
Again, I accept whole-heartedly that a niche for an unobtrusive, corner-loaded, easy(ish) to position, fine-sounding BLH(ish) speaker for a Fostex FE126e exists.
I get that - I have mentioned it a couple of times in this thread. I ask that when folks are reading posts they consider the bigger picture (as well as the detail) and please don't take individual sentences out of context. That goes for me as well.
Again, I think this began as an ideological issue I had with the way “petit” as a design criterion was arrived at, especially as I had read some people’s frustration with the driver height of the original FH. This has probably grown to warrant more attention that it deserves.
Cheers
rcdaniel said:
To be honest, it's been at least several years since I closely reviewed the documents that Dave had compiled on his website:
http://www.frugal-horn.com/ronhorns.html
Nor am I up to date only any further official revisions.
"Incorrect" in what way, I wonder? As mentioned previously, I tend to redraw all plans to accommodate revisions as necessary for several reasons;
1) differences in material thickness - without wading into the debate, I've long ago made the decision to use exclusively Baltic Birch plywood, which in my jurisdiction is marketed in metric dimensions. Not only are the sheet sizes different from North American standard (i.e. 5x5ft vs 4x8ft) but the thicknesses as well (i.e. in 3mm as opposed to 1/8" increments, so the commonly used sizes are 12mm, 15mm & 18mm). So when dealing with a design with the number of foldings the accumulation of the difference between .75" and 18mm can be significant, in that parts could be mis-sized, and critical internal dimensions such as throat apertures, etc could be wrong.
2) Joinery techniques - I might prefer to try different joinery methods than drawn, which generally requires the re-dimensioning of parts.
3) Aesthetics, I may be inclined to revise some aspects of overall enclosure shape than my intuition suggests won't affect the acoustic performance. This was certainly the case with the A126 Austin, as seen in the photo on Page 7 and drawing on Page 10 of the above linked document. It turned out this was serendipitous, as we found the CC needed reworking as noted below.
4) Cut-planning and CNC machining. In some cases I may be able to take advantage of access to the CNC router at work, and need to produce a DXF for generation of machine code.
As also mentioned previously, after our first build of the A126, we discerned a midrange coloration similar to what we had heard in the Buschhorn MKI. Our initial inclination was to increase the volume of the CC, which was relatively easy to accomplish due to the revised shape with the top of the side panels extending further back.
This was discussed in forum threads at the time, and our findings led Ron to revisit some of his math.
It's certainly understandable if life, work and other pursuits require a juggling of your time, don't step aside from this conversation for the wrong reasons. Many fine contributions to the evolving community art of DIY Audio have resulted from observations and insights of "inexperienced" or "uncredentialed" enthusiasts. ( I certainly include myself in the latter category )
even the greybeards are never to old to learn something new .
rcdaniel said:
Heck, even the Buschhorn MK I (not II !) when modified to fit the FE126 could meet that criteria - although it's been my experience that the FH and A126 are better performers
I certainly agree with your last sentence - at a petite 5'6" myself, I don't find driver height to be a problem with the FH, nor can I recall owners of Ed's Horns (publicly) discussing frustration over that issue.
Certainly with the suprabaffle, the vertical dispersion aspect of soundstage/imaging of the FH is "good enough" for a lot of folks, and as Dave had noted a few posts above, it would only require a few degrees of tilt to the front of any of these "petites" to redirect the drivers' direct axis as "needed"
Chris,
Thanks for providing that detail regarding the A126.
No, I won't. It is the available time thing plus a few other personal concerns. I also agree regarding folks contributions - I very much applaud the contributions of the folks here. Hell, Einstein was comparatively inexperienced and uncredentialed when he wrote his four papers in 1905...
Cheers
Thanks for providing that detail regarding the A126.
No, I won't. It is the available time thing plus a few other personal concerns. I also agree regarding folks contributions - I very much applaud the contributions of the folks here. Hell, Einstein was comparatively inexperienced and uncredentialed when he wrote his four papers in 1905...
Cheers
Hi Scott, may I ask if this is is fair to say?
1. In the case of original Olson designs, a single "pure" expansion is used (i.e. the folding generally could be unfolded).
2. In the case of more modern designs, the expansion sometimes changes from fold to fold, and since TL action within each section is accouned for, a re-folding is not practical.
Thank you in advance.
Regarding size, or height specifically.
I am enjoying my Frugelhorns very much but the height does become a factor from most average seating positions, and that does seem to be the consensus among forum members. I've taken to propping them up on things or at least angling them back with books (not very appealing but it does help the sound from my listing position).
The A126, at 40-42" tall (vs 30" FH) however appears to be significantly larger and obviously falls outside of the "small horn" niche.
Perhaps a compromise would be to develop something in between, say 36" max height, and keep the width relatively the same. Remember Goldielox? Give people 3 to choose from and they'll pick the design that best suits their needs.
I am enjoying my Frugelhorns very much but the height does become a factor from most average seating positions, and that does seem to be the consensus among forum members. I've taken to propping them up on things or at least angling them back with books (not very appealing but it does help the sound from my listing position).
The A126, at 40-42" tall (vs 30" FH) however appears to be significantly larger and obviously falls outside of the "small horn" niche.
Perhaps a compromise would be to develop something in between, say 36" max height, and keep the width relatively the same. Remember Goldielox? Give people 3 to choose from and they'll pick the design that best suits their needs.
These are the types of comments/needs I would not want to see left unexpressed due to pre-defining project outcomes (e.g. petit). Perhaps the ‘market’ niche (not product-line niche), would prefer a slightly taller cabinet?
I am not saying the cabinet 'should' be taller - more that some folks would perhaps like it taller, which would therefore warrant some conscious discussion and consideration... IIRC, design is partly about identifying and meeting the end-user needs. Qualification: you guys have created heaps of designs that do just that; it would be great to see it continued – with group involvement – for this project.
Can't help myself at the moment. Must stop!
Best of fortune
chuyler1 said:
That may be within the realm of the design brief. Scott threw me a really early cut. Next is to see if it can be fit into the available space to see if we are even in the city the ballpark is in. If making it taller helps make it fit easier, then we won't quibble about 5". Folded horn design is a very iterative process
dave
PS: yes we'll go over how we got there.
I agree with prefering a higher driver height. I am fully aware that it is totally mental, but when I listen to speakers that are too close to the floor, there is something "wrong" with it. Even if the front is propped up, like I did with the Harveys, the sound is still not coming from the correct place, for me.
About 40" is best for me. I am one of the lucky guys, when I replaced half changs with Pioneer B20s with Austin 126 speakers, my wife complained that they are too small
Ed Robinson
About 40" is best for me. I am one of the lucky guys, when I replaced half changs with Pioneer B20s with Austin 126 speakers, my wife complained that they are too small
Ed Robinson
>>> when I replaced half changs with Pioneer B20s with Austin 126 speakers, my wife complained that they are too small...
LOL!
Half Changs and Austin's are two great examples of speaker technology priced reasonably. They wouldn't exist without this wonderful website!
Did you move the Half Changs or sell them?
Godzilla
LOL!
Half Changs and Austin's are two great examples of speaker technology priced reasonably. They wouldn't exist without this wonderful website!
Did you move the Half Changs or sell them?
Godzilla
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.