Frugel-Horn Mk3

Mammal

Member
Paid Member
2021-05-25 4:33 am
Joan is the big one, then FHXL, FH Mk3, FH-Lite.

Holey basket Corals would go into FH3. These are almong the best of the FE103A class 4” FRs.

View attachment 1039322

Found in Sony TC500 Tapecorder, and Monarch had a model with 2x16Ω versions. Tapecorder has good oarts for making EL84 class SE amps.

Unfortunately often come with SSS (Stiff Surround Syndrome).

dave
That's pretty cool. I've never heard of these, but FHmk3 are my first journey into DIYaudio projects.
 
That's pretty cool. I've never heard of these, but FHmk3 are my first journey into DIYaudio projects.
Hi there,

You'll find that the MA CHP-70s are at the very least equivalent to the Holey Baskets and probably much better with the lower frequencies.
I've been listening to mine for 11 years now and am still very satisfied indeed.

Cheers
 
Last edited by a moderator:
We have only done such woofers with the SDX7. But there is no reason any other woofr that works in the available volume will work.

I’d hsve to dig out the drawings and figure out what that volume range is. An ML-TL will be limited to the height of the FH. SilverFlute we use in Tysen V2 nmight work.

Other shapes, perhaps, are not as easy to place, but aren’t fixed in place like the stealthWoofers are.

dave
 

zman01

Member
Paid Member
2011-02-04 11:35 am
Dhaka
Hi sarathssca,

The Tang Band subwoofers that you listed both can be housed in compact cabinets. I once experimented with a bi-amp FAST with a W6-1139SF in a 15 liter BR box with an Alpair 7.3 in Dave's Mar-Ken enclosure on top, and recall that 110-150 Hz was a workable XO range with the gear we were using. The TB W6-1139SF is quite power hungry though. :)

Higher up might also work, but we ran out time to experiment. I think Dave prefers "woofers" vs subwoofer type drivers as woofers tend to have higher bandwidth making higher XO possible, and they usually have higher sensitivity vs subwoofers.
 
Last edited:
Hi sarathssca,

The Tang Band subwoofers that you listed both can be housed in compact cabinets. I once experimented with a bi-amp FAST with a W6-1139SF in a 15 liter BR box with an Alpair 7.3 in Dave's Mar-Ken enclosure on top, and recall that 110-150 Hz was a workable XO range with the gear we were using. The TB W6-1139SF is quite power hungry though. :)

Higher up might also work, but we ran out time to experiment. I think Dave prefers "woofers" vs subwoofer type drivers as woofers tend to have higher bandwidth making higher XO possible, and they usually have higher sensitivity vs subwoofers.
How much power do they need compared to alpair 7.3 .. What amps did we used .. How is the sound of the combo and r there any better alternatives ..
 

zman01

Member
Paid Member
2011-02-04 11:35 am
Dhaka
sarathssca,

IIRC we use a lower power Class D amp for the Alpair 7.3 and a 90 watt per channel Class D for the TB W6-1139, and it felt that a powerful amp would have helped. Nowadays watts are cheap and you can get decent Class D amps for little money. XO was digitally implemented.

The combo sounded good, but of course there are many alternatives... better will depend on what you are looking for.

From your earlier question it looks like you already have a FH3 and would like to get some additional low frequency performance by adding helper woofer/subwoofers?
 
sarathssca,

IIRC we use a lower power Class D amp for the Alpair 7.3 and a 90 watt per channel Class D for the TB W6-1139, and it felt that a powerful amp would have helped. Nowadays watts are cheap and you can get decent Class D amps for little money. XO was digitally implemented.

The combo sounded good, but of course there are many alternatives... better will depend on what you are looking for.

From your earlier question it looks like you already have a FH3 and would like to get some additional low frequency performance by adding helper woofer/subwoofers?
My FH3 is pending for quite sometime, have alpair 7p and initial cutting of mdf panels r done for sometime .. Also planning for a simple DML panel speaker .. So thinking of a subwoofer which can help in both these cases (FH3 and DML panels) to get full sound including good low end also ..
 

Lotus – Double Mouth MBVR for Mark Audio CHR-70 or frugal horn mk 3 for Mark Audio 7 XXX​

Hello folks,

Does anyone have any experience or a clue in a comparison between the Frugel-Horn Mk3 for Mark Audio Series 7 and the Lotus – Double Mouth MBVR for Mark Audio CHR-70 by Wooden Design/ Scott Lindgren regarding to the LF performance? Thank you very much!

Cheers Steve
 
Dunno about Lotus but I built a Coniston and an FH3, both with original Pluvia 7. There is no doubt that the FH3 goes lower there. You get some very deep stuff with that. Unfortunately, the room is not great and doesn’t allow corner placement (sloping back wall!). Anyhow, with the Coniston out into the room you get a very nice crisp sound, deep stereo image and nice on classical with the wick up. But I admit I found the lack of depth compared to the FH3 a little lacking.
Cyril
 
Hi, Cyril.

thx for your quick and detailed answer – well I think the Coniston is hard to compare with the FH 3 due to its internal volume. That was about the trend I had sensed. The Lotus BVR design by Scott has about 23 liters internal base volume – I’ve packed the plan times in the appendix.

Cheers Steve
 

Attachments

  • English-Auto-Series-061109.pdf
    637.4 KB · Views: 36
Steve,
Yes, hopefully that will give you more. If you were near Bristol, UK I would say borrow the Conistons and modify/experiment and you are free to take them if you like them. I don’t know if they are any good for EL70 though. But I see you might be in Germany. It is a fair bit if work to make such a speaker and finish it nicely in my view.
cyril
 

zman01

Member
Paid Member
2011-02-04 11:35 am
Dhaka

Lotus – Double Mouth MBVR for Mark Audio CHR-70 or frugal horn mk 3 for Mark Audio 7 XXX​

Hello folks,

Does anyone have any experience or a clue in a comparison between the Frugel-Horn Mk3 for Mark Audio Series 7 and the Lotus – Double Mouth MBVR for Mark Audio CHR-70 by Wooden Design/ Scott Lindgren regarding to the LF performance? Thank you very much!

Cheers Steve

fullrangepointsource,

I built both speakers long time back. From memory, the FH3 had a deeper sound stage and better imaging. The Lotus had a more diffused presentation.