Re: Groan indeed......
Quick response would be "prolly not"
The Chang family were originally designed for the Fostex "7" series drivers ( 107/127/167/207) and drivers with similar T/S parameters.
Based on my experience with the Brynn, while experimentation with series R can provide some adjustment to the rising FR of the "6" series, there are still some compromises.
For example, the difference in net in-room efficiency between the 126 and 127 in well executed designs that are tailored for their T/S parameters is only a couple of dB. Stuffing a 126 in the Brynn and adding series R (about 3 ohm IIRC), resulted in reduction of dynamics and "jump factor" that is for me the only reason to choose it over the 127, and it didn't adequately tame the rising upper midrange resonances (3-8k range), and lacked the weight and body in the lower registers of the 127 (or Hemp Acoustics FR4.5) in the same cabinet.
Usually the mouth of a horn, or BVR's "flared vent" (that could sound smutty, couldn't it?) is designed to load to floor and/or wall boundaries to increase the virtual terminus size, so it will be interesting to see what Scott has in mind with and inverted HC design.
If you're keen on using the 206, it might be worth revisiting whether the dimensions for the BIB might be better suited to this application. It's a far simpler build than the any of Scott's BVR or Nagaoka inspired designs, and if it's primarily intended for use in a video system, the arguably higher degree of ripple compared to a more elaborate horn might not necessarily be a bad thing.
Just don't be tempted to alter its dimensions or driver placement to fit the room, and definitely try it in material other than MDF . If multi-ply veneer core plywood is out of the budget- even particle board would probably be better for a horn.
edgebc said:
Quick response would be "prolly not"
The Chang family were originally designed for the Fostex "7" series drivers ( 107/127/167/207) and drivers with similar T/S parameters.
Based on my experience with the Brynn, while experimentation with series R can provide some adjustment to the rising FR of the "6" series, there are still some compromises.
For example, the difference in net in-room efficiency between the 126 and 127 in well executed designs that are tailored for their T/S parameters is only a couple of dB. Stuffing a 126 in the Brynn and adding series R (about 3 ohm IIRC), resulted in reduction of dynamics and "jump factor" that is for me the only reason to choose it over the 127, and it didn't adequately tame the rising upper midrange resonances (3-8k range), and lacked the weight and body in the lower registers of the 127 (or Hemp Acoustics FR4.5) in the same cabinet.
Usually the mouth of a horn, or BVR's "flared vent" (that could sound smutty, couldn't it?) is designed to load to floor and/or wall boundaries to increase the virtual terminus size, so it will be interesting to see what Scott has in mind with and inverted HC design.
If you're keen on using the 206, it might be worth revisiting whether the dimensions for the BIB might be better suited to this application. It's a far simpler build than the any of Scott's BVR or Nagaoka inspired designs, and if it's primarily intended for use in a video system, the arguably higher degree of ripple compared to a more elaborate horn might not necessarily be a bad thing.
Just don't be tempted to alter its dimensions or driver placement to fit the room, and definitely try it in material other than MDF . If multi-ply veneer core plywood is out of the budget- even particle board would probably be better for a horn.
Ok, plan H.......
Thanks Chris for that......my ceiling is too high.
Looks like the 206s are out for the tv mains.
Maybe horns out by the pool...the neighbors are going to hate this. I'll have to look in to a 2 or 3-way design. I really liked this full-range concept and wanted this to work.
Thanks Chris for that......my ceiling is too high.
Looks like the 206s are out for the tv mains.
Maybe horns out by the pool...the neighbors are going to hate this. I'll have to look in to a 2 or 3-way design. I really liked this full-range concept and wanted this to work.
Howdy edgebc,
There are still lots and lots of options for the 206. I don't think you should give up on the driver just yet.
A tall MLTL would be a possibility. Martin King's "Virtual Project 5" has the driver mounted very high, though not at 48". I think you have yet to exhaust the dozens of possibilities out there for the 206.
There are still lots and lots of options for the 206. I don't think you should give up on the driver just yet.
A tall MLTL would be a possibility. Martin King's "Virtual Project 5" has the driver mounted very high, though not at 48". I think you have yet to exhaust the dozens of possibilities out there for the 206.
There are plenty of possible options, and it's possible to design something venting out the top, but I don't have time at the moment to take it any further. I will at some point though.
Re: Ok, plan H.......
There's no reason a full range driver can't work for TV mains - I've been using them for several years. You just might want to consider a different driver.
As Scott noted above, there are any number of excellent DIY FE167 designs, including a new member of the Fonken family (contact Dave for details ). I just delivered a pair to my sister and brother in law, and they just love them in their 600ft^2 open space living room. Hell, while much to my continuing disappointment she couldn't care less about the sound, even my wife liked the look, and she'd usually like them to visually disappear.
The "breathing" portion of the resistively vented enclosure is approx 26liters. In this pair, with ballast filled lower void cavity and base plinth, the finished height of the enclosure is 1 meter - the driver centered approx 816mm from the floor. Depending on the size of the lower section, they could be as tall as you'd like, or you could eliminate it altogether and mount on stands (in which case height would be approx 702mm). Furthermore, while the enclosure's dimensions and materials are recommended for specific reasons, the driver placement is far more flexible than with double mouth designs.
While the FE127 is still probably my personal favorite Fostex driver (that I can afford, and that doesn't need "helper" woofer), the 167 could be for most folks a better bet for a video system. If you're looking for the full n.1 bass immersion experience, you'll need powered sub(s) anyway, and with phase plugs, I've yet to feel the need for tweeters. ( 207 could be a different matter).
at today's currency exchange rate, this $.02 is worth approx $0.0161780 USD - an interesting number, n'est-ca pas mes ami(e)s?
edgebc said:
There's no reason a full range driver can't work for TV mains - I've been using them for several years. You just might want to consider a different driver.
As Scott noted above, there are any number of excellent DIY FE167 designs, including a new member of the Fonken family (contact Dave for details ). I just delivered a pair to my sister and brother in law, and they just love them in their 600ft^2 open space living room. Hell, while much to my continuing disappointment she couldn't care less about the sound, even my wife liked the look, and she'd usually like them to visually disappear.
The "breathing" portion of the resistively vented enclosure is approx 26liters. In this pair, with ballast filled lower void cavity and base plinth, the finished height of the enclosure is 1 meter - the driver centered approx 816mm from the floor. Depending on the size of the lower section, they could be as tall as you'd like, or you could eliminate it altogether and mount on stands (in which case height would be approx 702mm). Furthermore, while the enclosure's dimensions and materials are recommended for specific reasons, the driver placement is far more flexible than with double mouth designs.
While the FE127 is still probably my personal favorite Fostex driver (that I can afford, and that doesn't need "helper" woofer), the 167 could be for most folks a better bet for a video system. If you're looking for the full n.1 bass immersion experience, you'll need powered sub(s) anyway, and with phase plugs, I've yet to feel the need for tweeters. ( 207 could be a different matter).
at today's currency exchange rate, this $.02 is worth approx $0.0161780 USD - an interesting number, n'est-ca pas mes ami(e)s?
Re: Ok, plan H.......
How high? Since you want the drivers at least 48" off the floor, this equates to ~222" long BIB unfolded for ceiling loaded. Otherwise, fold it in half and floor load it.
GM
edgebc said:
How high? Since you want the drivers at least 48" off the floor, this equates to ~222" long BIB unfolded for ceiling loaded. Otherwise, fold it in half and floor load it.
GM
That would seem favourite. 🙂
OK, very quick MLTL that might be large enough to suit.
L = 60in
CSA = 104in^2
Vent = 5in diameter x 1.0in long.
Zd = 21.25in which with a 1in thick plinth should put the driver 39.75in off the deck. If it's still too high you can use a Zd of 14in if you must.
OK, very quick MLTL that might be large enough to suit.
L = 60in
CSA = 104in^2
Vent = 5in diameter x 1.0in long.
Zd = 21.25in which with a 1in thick plinth should put the driver 39.75in off the deck. If it's still too high you can use a Zd of 14in if you must.
Re: Yikes Again.........
A 50" probably isn't big enough to make much, if any, difference, but FYI you ideally want the HF portion of the mains at 2/3 screen height and if a CC is used, then placing all mains at the same height above the screen is normally preferred performance wise overall to below it.
GM
edgebc said:
A 50" probably isn't big enough to make much, if any, difference, but FYI you ideally want the HF portion of the mains at 2/3 screen height and if a CC is used, then placing all mains at the same height above the screen is normally preferred performance wise overall to below it.
GM
Thanks to all........
A lot of info to work on. I'll be in LA for Thanksgiving so I'll start again in December.
A lot of info to work on. I'll be in LA for Thanksgiving so I'll start again in December.
Lotus | the 1st Mark Audio Spawn
Scott & I have both been working on new enclosures for the Mark Audio drivers.
This is the 1st one out the gate, Lotus MBVR for the Mark Audio CHR-70.
Plans aren't yet up on the Frugal-Horn site, but the plans are there
http://p10hifi.net/tlinespeakers/FH/download/Lotus-CHR70-map-130409.pdf
Scott has suggested an interesting twist to this one -- by the sims it is capable of supporting 1 or 2 drivers per box.
dave
Scott & I have both been working on new enclosures for the Mark Audio drivers.
This is the 1st one out the gate, Lotus MBVR for the Mark Audio CHR-70.
Plans aren't yet up on the Frugal-Horn site, but the plans are there
http://p10hifi.net/tlinespeakers/FH/download/Lotus-CHR70-map-130409.pdf
Scott has suggested an interesting twist to this one -- by the sims it is capable of supporting 1 or 2 drivers per box.
dave
Shades of a certain (very different type of) box a few years back -designed for one driver, but should be happy with two. These things happen on occasion.
Anyway, it's a compact box designed for modest spaces & SPLs. Minimum recommended listening distance is 6ft. Obviously, not one for the headbangers with a barn conversion, but if you're short on budget, favour subtlety on folk, jazz, blues, small-piece classical etc., & have a more normal space, this could be right up your street.
Anyway, it's a compact box designed for modest spaces & SPLs. Minimum recommended listening distance is 6ft. Obviously, not one for the headbangers with a barn conversion, but if you're short on budget, favour subtlety on folk, jazz, blues, small-piece classical etc., & have a more normal space, this could be right up your street.
For the Markaudio Alpair 10: Jaguar -first pass plan. Like Lotus & the new Riley box for the Alpair 6 (next on the list), it'll accept 1 unit, or 2 in series. Bit previous, as Dave hasn't had chance to draw up the 'proper' plans yet, but as interest in the MA drivers is unsurprisingly increasing, I figured the time had come for an intitial airing (although I want to make it plain the walrus is innocent, and cannot be held responsible).
Attachments
Been wondering, and given the recent designs this seems like a valid place to ask:
When you design a box for two drivers, does it matter if you hook them up series or parallel? Do T/S params or box design care about this your choice here?
I didn't think so, but then I realized I wasn't sure...
When you design a box for two drivers, does it matter if you hook them up series or parallel? Do T/S params or box design care about this your choice here?
I didn't think so, but then I realized I wasn't sure...
Yes, it does make a difference. All three boxes of this type I've done for the Markaudio drivers (3rd for the Alpair 6 coming shortly) assume series wiring.
2 drivers in series, Sd, Vas, Re, Le, Bl all double. SPL remains per single unit. 2 drivers in parallel, Sd & Vas double, Re & Le are halved; effective increase of 3db in practice.
2 drivers in series, Sd, Vas, Re, Le, Bl all double. SPL remains per single unit. 2 drivers in parallel, Sd & Vas double, Re & Le are halved; effective increase of 3db in practice.
Ah ha. Once again, that which seemed simple from a distance sprouts further complexity when approached.
With your advice I am fore-armed. Thanks.
With your advice I am fore-armed. Thanks.
It's just something to be aware of. For e.g., with the MA drivers, I went with series wiring because they're already relatively low impedance units, so parallel wiring would drop things below 2ohms, which is a nightmare load for most amplifiers.
Lurking for a while, first post.
Wondering if there has been any further development on the curved fronts for the saburos?
Have had a set of mules set up since Christmas and these just keep getting better! Would like to see if there is more performance to be squeezed out of these yet.
Would the curved front change the sweet spot for the listening position, or does listening position stay similar (same) and time alignment is more correct?
Listening room is 14'x50', current sweet spot approx 13' out.
MANY thanks to Scottmoose for these designs!
Wondering if there has been any further development on the curved fronts for the saburos?
Have had a set of mules set up since Christmas and these just keep getting better! Would like to see if there is more performance to be squeezed out of these yet.
Would the curved front change the sweet spot for the listening position, or does listening position stay similar (same) and time alignment is more correct?
Listening room is 14'x50', current sweet spot approx 13' out.
MANY thanks to Scottmoose for these designs!
archrival said:
If your drivers are stock there is a whole lot more you can get out of them.
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=1773260#post1773260
dave
Followed that thread with much interest, build was going on about the same time.
This pair of drivers is probably approaching 450-500 hours.(previously in iBIB and A126) Basket arms have been damped, magnet to basket "junction" has been filled for air flow, 5/16" underlay on back of magnets to reduce reflections. Have not yet found puzzlecoat.
Have been re-reading many of the posts regarding curved mouths and how these release the sound waves. Re-read the bubble analogy one of the Austin 126 threads and it makes partial sense to me. I can visualize how the curve would allow the sound wave to esapce more spherically.
However, I am still trying to grasp how the curved front "combines" the three points of origin into one sound wave front. My understanding is that at lower frequencies (ie frequecies at the mouths), sound waves would look most like waves around pebbles dropped into water.
This is where I get stuck, because the waves off of two (or three in this case) pebbles dropped beside each would pass through each other instead of combining into one wave front.
What am I missing?????
This pair of drivers is probably approaching 450-500 hours.(previously in iBIB and A126) Basket arms have been damped, magnet to basket "junction" has been filled for air flow, 5/16" underlay on back of magnets to reduce reflections. Have not yet found puzzlecoat.
Have been re-reading many of the posts regarding curved mouths and how these release the sound waves. Re-read the bubble analogy one of the Austin 126 threads and it makes partial sense to me. I can visualize how the curve would allow the sound wave to esapce more spherically.
However, I am still trying to grasp how the curved front "combines" the three points of origin into one sound wave front. My understanding is that at lower frequencies (ie frequecies at the mouths), sound waves would look most like waves around pebbles dropped into water.
This is where I get stuck, because the waves off of two (or three in this case) pebbles dropped beside each would pass through each other instead of combining into one wave front.
What am I missing?????