Scottmoose said:
Scott,
What do you mean exactly? Why is the design hammered by enthousiasts. Is it its sound, or what I somethime´s read the design with straight instead of curved corners. Also I heard they speak of it as not a real horn?
Myself I`am very happy with it. Espacially that you can put dampingmaterial in the last part of the horn without seeing it. In conventional back loaded horns you can only put damping in the first part of the horn to reduce standing waves, but because it´s very smal, you will lower the sound pressure level of the horn. AT the end the horn is much wider, so you won´t disturbe the airflow.
Alexander
Alexandertol said:
Hmm. I suspect it's nothing to do with the sound, as my bet would be the majority of people who dismiss the Fostex-Factory designs out of hand have never actually built one. Ah well, there loss, not ours.
Yes, the majority seem to complain about the right angles -'sound doesn't like sharp angles etc etc etc, waffle, waffle, waffle.' Sigh. They're there for a few reasons. 1) to ease construction, and these Fostex designs are very easy to build. All to the good, I say. 2) They act as diffusors. 3) They allow a longer horn-length for a given box-size.
There is some debate about whether these designs are 'genuine' horns, or just a series of expanding transmission-lines. Personally, I couldn't care less what they are so long as they sound good. And they do. They certainly aren't perfect -nothing is, but they're very good all the same. I'd take one over, say, a Buschorn any day.
Best
Scott
They are not "real" horns but they are damn good designs and they sound accordingly!
Anyway, the purpose of a (back loaded) horn is to load a driver on the 3 or 4 bottom octave at the same time as getting more efficiency in that region and this is exactly what the Fostex enclosures do.
If it looks like a chicken, sounds like a chicken, and acts like a chicken, it's probably a chicken. Same with horns.
Anyway, the purpose of a (back loaded) horn is to load a driver on the 3 or 4 bottom octave at the same time as getting more efficiency in that region and this is exactly what the Fostex enclosures do.
If it looks like a chicken, sounds like a chicken, and acts like a chicken, it's probably a chicken. Same with horns.
Scottmoose said:
The Fostex designs are a set of expanding stepped "cylinders". Like the majority of small "horns" it is really a Transmission-line/horn hybrid (TL used here in its greater sense)
I was one of those detracters. In the face of many positive reviews i have suspended that and actually have a pair in my living room. Currently unconnected because they are unlistenable for long. Have some mods in the queue for them, haven't given up on them.
(And IIRC AndrewB mentioned having to burn a pair)
dave
robertG said:
Then it is not a horn... the mouth is far to small. Take the circumference of the mouth, convert to a wavelength, adjust for loading (1 in the case f the FE108ES horn shown) and you have an approximation of its lower cutoff -- if it is a horn)
As a reference, the Klein-Horn has a 30 Hz cutoff IIRC (and reaches down to about 50 Hz)
dave
Some people argue that photography is not "real" art. My point is that if you feel that photography is an art form, then it is.
Fostex horns are, in my very own opinion, very competent sound reproducing devices, and I like the sound very much thank you.
Of course we could stop listening to them because they really are a succession of expanding resonators. At this point, I'm more interested in the music than in the definitions.
If they should not be called horns by your standard, it's very fine with me. If you think they are no good and sound like trash, it's OK with me, so why argue on definitions?
On the other hand, if the good people at Fostex think they should be called horns (what do they know anyway? they have been making extraordinary sound recording and reproducing devices for the past 31 years), perhaps they can.
Horns or not, they still achieve what a horn (or not) is supposed to do.
Fostex horns are, in my very own opinion, very competent sound reproducing devices, and I like the sound very much thank you.
Of course we could stop listening to them because they really are a succession of expanding resonators. At this point, I'm more interested in the music than in the definitions.
If they should not be called horns by your standard, it's very fine with me. If you think they are no good and sound like trash, it's OK with me, so why argue on definitions?
On the other hand, if the good people at Fostex think they should be called horns (what do they know anyway? they have been making extraordinary sound recording and reproducing devices for the past 31 years), perhaps they can.
Horns or not, they still achieve what a horn (or not) is supposed to do.
Gulp! Burning? A trifle extreme perhaps?
That said, I do understand that they aren't for everyone, just like any other speaker, and that technically, they cannot be classified as 'real' horns. Nice that audio's such a broad church though isn't it. Any tweaking suggestions for them to share so far Dave? (and no offence directed or intended BTW! I was refering purely to those odd types who insist that because something doesn't conform to their own prejudices it's not worth even thinking about) What have you been trying out with them -different compression chamber sizes, stuffing etc? I haven't built these cabinets myself, only the FE103E design (which I have a hankering to double, a la BEN -Terry Cain reckons the 166E box can be usefully doubled I believe, so I'm intrigued to see if the same holds true for the smaller driver. Not that I'm bored with the Zigmas...
Cheers
Scott
That said, I do understand that they aren't for everyone, just like any other speaker, and that technically, they cannot be classified as 'real' horns. Nice that audio's such a broad church though isn't it. Any tweaking suggestions for them to share so far Dave? (and no offence directed or intended BTW! I was refering purely to those odd types who insist that because something doesn't conform to their own prejudices it's not worth even thinking about) What have you been trying out with them -different compression chamber sizes, stuffing etc? I haven't built these cabinets myself, only the FE103E design (which I have a hankering to double, a la BEN -Terry Cain reckons the 166E box can be usefully doubled I believe, so I'm intrigued to see if the same holds true for the smaller driver. Not that I'm bored with the Zigmas...
Cheers
Scott
Hi,
Still I doesn't understand why the Fostex design isn't a back loaded horn. I did some calculation and a fond out that acourding to the demensions it's a proper part af an exponential horn. If you look at the following site: http://www.melhuish.org/audio/exphypcalc.html you will find a Exponential / Hyperbolic Contour Calculator. The following specs are from the fostex design:
- Throat area (cm2): 40
- Flare freqency (lower frequency cutoff) (Hz): 30
- Size factor (1 for mid or high frequency front horns, bass horns: 2 for center of room, 4 for against a back wall, 8 for corner placement): for example 4
- M (the degree of hyperbolic influence: 1,12
- Desired width of horn cabinet (cm): 17
When you do the calculation, the mouth area at the length of the Fostex design ( 210 cm) should be 443,8 cm2, it is 450,5 cm2. So (with a very small differance) by the calculation the Fostex design is a perfect exponential horn. It's only a part of it. At back wall placement it scould be 5,18 meter long with a mouth of 26.171,5 cm2. But I have never seen such back loaded horn design. I agree the horn is a bit short, at a quarter wave of the flare frequenty ( 30 Hz) it should be 2,7 m long and it is only 2,1 m long, but according to the calculation, it is stil a part of the exponential horn.
And if it's a hybrid of some kind, I have never seen another design with a pressure chamber ??????? I rest my case.
For the Back loaded horn fans a picture of the inside.
Alexander
Still I doesn't understand why the Fostex design isn't a back loaded horn. I did some calculation and a fond out that acourding to the demensions it's a proper part af an exponential horn. If you look at the following site: http://www.melhuish.org/audio/exphypcalc.html you will find a Exponential / Hyperbolic Contour Calculator. The following specs are from the fostex design:
- Throat area (cm2): 40
- Flare freqency (lower frequency cutoff) (Hz): 30
- Size factor (1 for mid or high frequency front horns, bass horns: 2 for center of room, 4 for against a back wall, 8 for corner placement): for example 4
- M (the degree of hyperbolic influence: 1,12
- Desired width of horn cabinet (cm): 17
When you do the calculation, the mouth area at the length of the Fostex design ( 210 cm) should be 443,8 cm2, it is 450,5 cm2. So (with a very small differance) by the calculation the Fostex design is a perfect exponential horn. It's only a part of it. At back wall placement it scould be 5,18 meter long with a mouth of 26.171,5 cm2. But I have never seen such back loaded horn design. I agree the horn is a bit short, at a quarter wave of the flare frequenty ( 30 Hz) it should be 2,7 m long and it is only 2,1 m long, but according to the calculation, it is stil a part of the exponential horn.
And if it's a hybrid of some kind, I have never seen another design with a pressure chamber ??????? I rest my case.
For the Back loaded horn fans a picture of the inside.
Alexander
Attachments
According to some, it would not qualify as a true expansion horn, since the expasion is created by means of a suite of expanding volumes put one at the end of the other. So the expansion is created with a series of steps as opposed to a continuous line.
Also according to some, all Horn designs of master designer-engineer-audiophile Nagaoka are not horns (same with Terry Cain designs).
But who cares if it's a horn or not? They could also be called expanding transmission lines, or even bass-reflex with a very small enclosure and a very big and long expanding vent...
It's all a matter of how radical you are.
By the way, some new Fostex designs combine (false) horn with (false) bass-reflex and end up with an hybrid enclosure that just WORKS.
Also according to some, all Horn designs of master designer-engineer-audiophile Nagaoka are not horns (same with Terry Cain designs).
But who cares if it's a horn or not? They could also be called expanding transmission lines, or even bass-reflex with a very small enclosure and a very big and long expanding vent...
It's all a matter of how radical you are.
By the way, some new Fostex designs combine (false) horn with (false) bass-reflex and end up with an hybrid enclosure that just WORKS.
No burning here Dave, its too hot for that but toss them I did into the large green skip behind my office
I have nothing against the Nagaoka style designs, I think my 101a and 168 Swans are great, am planning a 108EZ "ala Fostex" horn to compare with the 101a (and will admit with malice aforethought they will not be as good) but the horn for the fe103 does not work to my ears.
I do not think they are horns in the technical / traditional sense but as Dave says a series of ever expanding pipes. A horn carries a constant expansion rate these do not but they certainly function as horns, otherwise those low Qts drivers we stuff them with would not give any bass and as Robert says, who really cares, if they sound good then thats all that matters.
Presently listening to RH807 (using KT66) into homemade FVP5A with NAD seedee into Swan D-168 and loving it. I had to pull the speakers out from the back wall a bit, more bass from the RH amp than I usually get.
Next up, RH88
Andrew
I have nothing against the Nagaoka style designs, I think my 101a and 168 Swans are great, am planning a 108EZ "ala Fostex" horn to compare with the 101a (and will admit with malice aforethought they will not be as good) but the horn for the fe103 does not work to my ears.
I do not think they are horns in the technical / traditional sense but as Dave says a series of ever expanding pipes. A horn carries a constant expansion rate these do not but they certainly function as horns, otherwise those low Qts drivers we stuff them with would not give any bass and as Robert says, who really cares, if they sound good then thats all that matters.
Presently listening to RH807 (using KT66) into homemade FVP5A with NAD seedee into Swan D-168 and loving it. I had to pull the speakers out from the back wall a bit, more bass from the RH amp than I usually get.
Next up, RH88
Andrew
Scottmoose said:
Mine are FE103 horns but i'm using FE103A so my experience doesn't exactly parallel what others are doing. I have a set of spacer plates that will allow me to try 3 different, larger compression chambers to try next (damping didn't kill the problems). I'd really like to get these to sound at least listenable.
dave
robertG said:
Not me... and i'm not dissing them out-of-hand. Just relating my experience with them so far. The results others are reporting is stirring me to try to get mine working.
Martin King has coined some new terms to better describe these little "horns". He calls then TL-horn hybrids as opposed to a real horn which he would call a consistent horn. The Fostex designs, Buschorn, BK101 etc are really TL-horn hybrids. I know the last 2 can really sing with the FE103A.
dave
planet10 said:
Sounds a sensible designation to me. Interesting... I really should get going with that double FE103E horn, I've been thinking about it for a while...
Cheers
Scott
Alexandertol said:
For the horn you have pictures the size factor is 1, since the horn mouth is not flush with any boundaries.
dave
Well, I take a week off and stuff happens. All these theoretical discussions are very interesting, but let's put some rubber on the road: (Oh yeah, Alexander, nice job).
My drivers now have about 180 hours on them, and I absolutely love them. They are perfect for my listening habits.
Last Monday, I built these two prototypes, a Buschhorn MKII and the "X-Baffle." This was the most fun I have had in many months. It took me eight hours to build both these enclosures. I used my test baffles for the driver mounts.
I bought two sheets of 1/2 inch (14mm) foil-backed rigid foam insulation and a couple rolls of masking tape. Total cost was about $22 U.S. I already had a hot glue gun.
The buschhorn I won't go into. It sounds exactly as described here and in other places. I think I have a pretty good idea of what to expect, so I would like to concentrate on the X-Baffle for now.
I wanted to think way outside the box. I wanted to get the spaciousness of an open baffle with the bass-reinforcement of a horn. This is what I came up with. No hard science here; this is the biggest enclosure I could get out of one sheet of foam. I searched the Internet for similar designs but came up with nothing. I'm sure somebody has tried this before, but where?
I built it and put in The Cowboy Junkies' Trinity Session. My first reaction was "whoa!, we have bass." There was some shrillness in the high end, so I put some stuffing in the tube behind the driver. That cured that, but I could now tell the upper end was lacking clarity.
The sound of the X-Baffle:
Pluses: Warm sounding Ton's of bass, maybe too much. I'm sure the foam resonates considerably, but there is a warmth that is totally lacking in the Buschhorn and the open baffles. Vocals have great weight and presence. Great slam is what I'm thinking. The sweet spot is at least 3 feet (1m) wide. It is perceptably louder than the Buschhorn.
Minuses: The mid and upper range is more muted than the Buschhorn. My wife said it sounds kind of "boomy", plus it's big. She asked "can you make it a little smaller?" Cymbals are not as clear. It's butt ugly. No WAF here, although my wife is tolerating it for now.
Overall, I think this is a design worth pursing further. I need to find a way to get the mid and high clarity back. Plenty of bass, though. If anyone has any specific experience in putting mid and upper range clarity back into a design, I would love to hear it. I want to try at least one more foam prototype before cutting some wood. I think plywood is required, due to the large surfaces. Any reasoned input?
Doug
First Photo: Buschhorn and X-Baffle
My drivers now have about 180 hours on them, and I absolutely love them. They are perfect for my listening habits.
Last Monday, I built these two prototypes, a Buschhorn MKII and the "X-Baffle." This was the most fun I have had in many months. It took me eight hours to build both these enclosures. I used my test baffles for the driver mounts.
I bought two sheets of 1/2 inch (14mm) foil-backed rigid foam insulation and a couple rolls of masking tape. Total cost was about $22 U.S. I already had a hot glue gun.
The buschhorn I won't go into. It sounds exactly as described here and in other places. I think I have a pretty good idea of what to expect, so I would like to concentrate on the X-Baffle for now.
I wanted to think way outside the box. I wanted to get the spaciousness of an open baffle with the bass-reinforcement of a horn. This is what I came up with. No hard science here; this is the biggest enclosure I could get out of one sheet of foam. I searched the Internet for similar designs but came up with nothing. I'm sure somebody has tried this before, but where?
I built it and put in The Cowboy Junkies' Trinity Session. My first reaction was "whoa!, we have bass." There was some shrillness in the high end, so I put some stuffing in the tube behind the driver. That cured that, but I could now tell the upper end was lacking clarity.
The sound of the X-Baffle:
Pluses: Warm sounding Ton's of bass, maybe too much. I'm sure the foam resonates considerably, but there is a warmth that is totally lacking in the Buschhorn and the open baffles. Vocals have great weight and presence. Great slam is what I'm thinking. The sweet spot is at least 3 feet (1m) wide. It is perceptably louder than the Buschhorn.
Minuses: The mid and upper range is more muted than the Buschhorn. My wife said it sounds kind of "boomy", plus it's big. She asked "can you make it a little smaller?" Cymbals are not as clear. It's butt ugly. No WAF here, although my wife is tolerating it for now.
Overall, I think this is a design worth pursing further. I need to find a way to get the mid and high clarity back. Plenty of bass, though. If anyone has any specific experience in putting mid and upper range clarity back into a design, I would love to hear it. I want to try at least one more foam prototype before cutting some wood. I think plywood is required, due to the large surfaces. Any reasoned input?
Doug
First Photo: Buschhorn and X-Baffle
Attachments
The inside of the X-Baffle.
It's a pretty simple design.
The X panels are 24 inches wide by 48 inches tall. The back panel is about 24 inches wide.
The front wings, where the driver mounts, are 6 inches long. The rear portion is 18 inches long.
The internal divider that forms the tube is 4 inches wide at the top and 16 inches wide at the bottom. There is a 7 inch gap between the bottom of the divider and the base of the enclosure. I had to put a brace halfway down because the stuffing kept popping the tape loose.
I used hot melt glue and masking tape to hold everything together. Hot melt glue works great. You can do at least a 36 inch bead without problem.
It's a pretty simple design.
The X panels are 24 inches wide by 48 inches tall. The back panel is about 24 inches wide.
The front wings, where the driver mounts, are 6 inches long. The rear portion is 18 inches long.
The internal divider that forms the tube is 4 inches wide at the top and 16 inches wide at the bottom. There is a 7 inch gap between the bottom of the divider and the base of the enclosure. I had to put a brace halfway down because the stuffing kept popping the tape loose.
I used hot melt glue and masking tape to hold everything together. Hot melt glue works great. You can do at least a 36 inch bead without problem.
Attachments
planet10 said:
Taperwood said:
What does the back of the driver fire into? The small box, or the large triangular column?
Joe