I'm making a website to document a lot of my previous and future projects and stuff. The 3rd page I've completed is a write up of my conical pipe/horn / BIB - link below. Comments are welcome, and there's a couple of other interesting projects on the site as well so far (but not single driver). Please note that this website is very new, only a couple of days old in fact, so it's quite rough and needs work.
Most importantly though, I used an image from the BIB calculator spreadsheet and I need to know who to ask permission. I know GM formulated the equations but I have no idea who made the spreadsheet or the picture.
Conical Pipe/Horn (amateur audio)
Most importantly though, I used an image from the BIB calculator spreadsheet and I need to know who to ask permission. I know GM formulated the equations but I have no idea who made the spreadsheet or the picture.
Conical Pipe/Horn (amateur audio)
Last edited:
There's a lot more than 3 pages now so I had to move them around and now the old link in the previous post doesn't work anymore. I editted my sig to show the site home page link but if that doesn't work it's here - Home (amateur audio).
In addition to the BIB (conical pipe/horn) page I've added a Frugal Horn project page and a BOFU Half Chang project page that might be interesting to the single driver crowd. In the coming weeks there will also be a Mini Onken project page.
There's also a theory and a recommended software section now, if you are into that kind of thing. And lots of non single driver projects too.
Comments and opinions still welcome. Feel free to let me know about any mistakes.
In addition to the BIB (conical pipe/horn) page I've added a Frugal Horn project page and a BOFU Half Chang project page that might be interesting to the single driver crowd. In the coming weeks there will also be a Mini Onken project page.
There's also a theory and a recommended software section now, if you are into that kind of thing. And lots of non single driver projects too.
Comments and opinions still welcome. Feel free to let me know about any mistakes.
Last edited:
A few factural corrections WRT your page on the Frugel horns, if you don't mind?
The Buschorn Mk1 was the first box, and was actually quite well thought of to the best of my knowledge. However, the Mk2 Buschorn, with very different internals appeared quite soon after, and the original cabinet was largely forgotten in DIY circles. FYI, there is also a Mk3 Buschorn, which is basically a Mk2 with an additional downward-firing mid-bass driver. Never gained much exposure outside Germany; I'm not even sure if it was an 'official' B-horn or simply a variation created by an enthusiast. Not that it matters.
Ed Schilling's highly regarded commercial Horn was based upon the folding scheme of the Mk1 Buschorn, although it is somewhat larger, and has a different flare profile (i.e. the layout is similar, but all the dimensions are different).
The Frugel-horn was essentially created in response to a request for a compact DIY corner-horn design of roughly the same size as Ed's commercial Horn. Internally, it's closer to the B-horn Mk2 in layout, with a few elements of the Mk1. It is emphatically not an 'updated, refolded and rebranded' version of Ed's (excellent) Horn. It's kind of you to include my name in your paragraph on their background, but honesty compels me to point out that my involvement with the FH was in fact quite minimal -I stuck it through MathCAD, but that was pretty much as far as it went.
The Buschorn Mk1 was the first box, and was actually quite well thought of to the best of my knowledge. However, the Mk2 Buschorn, with very different internals appeared quite soon after, and the original cabinet was largely forgotten in DIY circles. FYI, there is also a Mk3 Buschorn, which is basically a Mk2 with an additional downward-firing mid-bass driver. Never gained much exposure outside Germany; I'm not even sure if it was an 'official' B-horn or simply a variation created by an enthusiast. Not that it matters.
Ed Schilling's highly regarded commercial Horn was based upon the folding scheme of the Mk1 Buschorn, although it is somewhat larger, and has a different flare profile (i.e. the layout is similar, but all the dimensions are different).
The Frugel-horn was essentially created in response to a request for a compact DIY corner-horn design of roughly the same size as Ed's commercial Horn. Internally, it's closer to the B-horn Mk2 in layout, with a few elements of the Mk1. It is emphatically not an 'updated, refolded and rebranded' version of Ed's (excellent) Horn. It's kind of you to include my name in your paragraph on their background, but honesty compels me to point out that my involvement with the FH was in fact quite minimal -I stuck it through MathCAD, but that was pretty much as far as it went.
Last edited:
I don't mind at all, I'll make the changes asap, probably within an hour or two.
FWIW, your name appears on more pages (the bib page and the half chang page) and both of them are big hits.
FWIW, your name appears on more pages (the bib page and the half chang page) and both of them are big hits.
The Frugel-Horn page has been editted. I also realized I was spelling Frugel-Horn wrong all this time...
Thanks. It's only a couple of weeks old so some pages are still pretty rough. I have lots more content coming.
This is my first website. It's (obviously) a google hosted site so it's free and super simple to put together and maintain. Now that I know how easy it is I think everyone should have one.
Well, at the risk of "shilling" (don't groan, Ed's made the same joke himself) for the Frugel-Horn design, and being quite familiar with all 3 designs - I own a pair of "Horns" myself, and have built numerous pairs of the FH & BH MKI & II, I'd like to make a few comments - in no particular order:
Aside from Ed & his dad, no one knows for sure what is going on inside his design, so as many of us have found over the years, opining on the similarities to the original BH MKI is an interesting intellectual exercise, but otherwise pointless.
As Scott noted above, the provenance of its origins aside, the Frugel-Horn is not in any way derived from the folding topology of "The Horn".
This was a cooperative project that evolved over a period of many months, and experimentation was encouraged. Where Scott became far more involved was the still expanding series of designs found under the heading Spawn of ... : some of these have already become commercially licensed.
If I read your webpage correctly, you constructed a pair of FH from 1/2" plywood? That's probably a good part of the source of some of the resonance issues you're finding.
AFAIK, the published graphs from the Stereophile review were made without the benefit of corner loading that "completes" the last section of the horn flare. This subject was indeed fodder for much of the "animated conversation" on a long since deleted thread at the old Decware forum.
Read Floyd Toole's recent book, wherein the efficacy or relevance of in-room loudspeaker measurements is discussed. This is a guy who knows a thing or 3 about loudspeakers and measurements thereof.
I think you'll find that the forward midrange is a characteristic of the FE126E - certainly a common trait shared by all of the FExx6 series compared to the shielded FExx7 series.
If you're not planning on completely abandoning them, when you next invest some time on the FH cabinets, might I suggest that you:
a) open up the large triangular void cavity behind the driver chamber, rather than experiment with different fill materials
b) try a simple supra-baffle - my first experiment was with a cut-out of 3 ply corrugated cardboard taped to the cabinet. I found it to help considerable fill in some of the lower midrange area between the baffle step loss frequency and the "horn lift"
c) add a layer of 1/4" ply to the side panels and front baffle, and perhaps 1/2" to the top
Aside from Ed & his dad, no one knows for sure what is going on inside his design, so as many of us have found over the years, opining on the similarities to the original BH MKI is an interesting intellectual exercise, but otherwise pointless.
As Scott noted above, the provenance of its origins aside, the Frugel-Horn is not in any way derived from the folding topology of "The Horn".
This was a cooperative project that evolved over a period of many months, and experimentation was encouraged. Where Scott became far more involved was the still expanding series of designs found under the heading Spawn of ... : some of these have already become commercially licensed.
If I read your webpage correctly, you constructed a pair of FH from 1/2" plywood? That's probably a good part of the source of some of the resonance issues you're finding.
AFAIK, the published graphs from the Stereophile review were made without the benefit of corner loading that "completes" the last section of the horn flare. This subject was indeed fodder for much of the "animated conversation" on a long since deleted thread at the old Decware forum.
Read Floyd Toole's recent book, wherein the efficacy or relevance of in-room loudspeaker measurements is discussed. This is a guy who knows a thing or 3 about loudspeakers and measurements thereof.
I think you'll find that the forward midrange is a characteristic of the FE126E - certainly a common trait shared by all of the FExx6 series compared to the shielded FExx7 series.
If you're not planning on completely abandoning them, when you next invest some time on the FH cabinets, might I suggest that you:
a) open up the large triangular void cavity behind the driver chamber, rather than experiment with different fill materials
b) try a simple supra-baffle - my first experiment was with a cut-out of 3 ply corrugated cardboard taped to the cabinet. I found it to help considerable fill in some of the lower midrange area between the baffle step loss frequency and the "horn lift"
c) add a layer of 1/4" ply to the side panels and front baffle, and perhaps 1/2" to the top
Chris, we went through all this in the frugel-horn thread. About 20 pages worth. I tried everything you mentioned and so so much more. I don't want to go through all that again, so suffice it to say it's not panel resonances and it's not improper placement causing the massive twin midbass peaks - which are my main complaint. It's simply an undersized horn and no amount of tweaks, deflectors or careful room placement is going to completely fix it.
I have a lot of respect for everyone involved (including you of course) and their other published works so I hope we can just agree to disagree on the FH and let it go.
I have a lot of respect for everyone involved (including you of course) and their other published works so I hope we can just agree to disagree on the FH and let it go.
Last edited:
done
If I may ask a few of questions re the BIB project - much written on your site on the measures, etc, but not much about the subjective evaluation.
Pardon me if this has been discussed elsewhere, but what are your impressions? The one photo on the site that shows your system setup doesn't give much of a clue as to position in relation to the 3 corner boundaries. How much variation in bass extension and ripple did you hear with different placements relative to the back wall? - i.e. was there an optimal distance?
Have you had much experience with the CSS FR/WR125, which is hinted that you might try in a BIB ? If not, perhaps you're unaware that even though they may possess "more regular" or smoother specs than the FE126E, one disturbing characteristic is their performance when X-Max is exceeded. Based on several of my own builds with them, I'd describe it as ungraceful, particularly in larger, less than critically damped vented enclosures.
I like the BIBs a lot. The picture you are referring to shows them in the living room, where they spent about a day. IIRC none of the speakers I've tried there sounded any good. Now, they sit in the front corners of a room that's 14.25 x 11.25 x 7.5 feet. It's a terrible little room as well but it's what I have. The boxes are so large and imposing that I've never had them away from the corners. They sit about 1 or 2 baseboard widths away from the walls, tight in the corners.
I reviewed the BIBs quickly in the BIB thread awhile ago, and at that point they had a whole lot more stuffing in them. Measurements taken then compared to the measurement posted on the webpage (with very little stuffing) show the stuffing provides a much smoother response, with the peaks rounded off significantly. I use parametric eq to flatten everything out a bit and counter some of the effects of the room modes.
In these boxes, I have tried the Pioneer A11, Fostex FE108E Sigma, FE126E, and CSS FR125. The A11 didn't last long since it needed a tweeter and I didn't want to mess with that. Also, we measured the A11 fs at 113 or so (IIRC) so a bit too high to be a good match for these boxes. The 108 was soon abandoned in search of more bass and more treble, and it's fs is a bit high too. The 126 had a 90 hz fs and surprisingly high .41 qts but was clearly the best match so far. And then I very briefly tried the CSS on loan. I liked it but didn't have too much time with them. Can't declare a winner either, since it was days in between listening to the CSS and Fostex.
Beyond that I don't have much subjective to say except that the performance is impressive considering the driver size but size is somewhat prohibitive. For most material no sub is needed, but they only get down to 50 hz or so.
I reviewed the BIBs quickly in the BIB thread awhile ago, and at that point they had a whole lot more stuffing in them. Measurements taken then compared to the measurement posted on the webpage (with very little stuffing) show the stuffing provides a much smoother response, with the peaks rounded off significantly. I use parametric eq to flatten everything out a bit and counter some of the effects of the room modes.
In these boxes, I have tried the Pioneer A11, Fostex FE108E Sigma, FE126E, and CSS FR125. The A11 didn't last long since it needed a tweeter and I didn't want to mess with that. Also, we measured the A11 fs at 113 or so (IIRC) so a bit too high to be a good match for these boxes. The 108 was soon abandoned in search of more bass and more treble, and it's fs is a bit high too. The 126 had a 90 hz fs and surprisingly high .41 qts but was clearly the best match so far. And then I very briefly tried the CSS on loan. I liked it but didn't have too much time with them. Can't declare a winner either, since it was days in between listening to the CSS and Fostex.
Beyond that I don't have much subjective to say except that the performance is impressive considering the driver size but size is somewhat prohibitive. For most material no sub is needed, but they only get down to 50 hz or so.
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.