Frugel-Horn XL for Alpair 10.3/10p, Fostex FF165wk, more

It's very refreshing to see a welcoming community. Now, since I've been encouraged to ask questions - here's a few:

Do XL plans need any modifications for a pair of 11MS drivers? I figured stock ones would be fine but better safe than sorry.

I find it hard to come by any wool felt here. What other decent options do I have for damping?

Thanks!



Denim insulation (the thinner compact stuff) is an acceptable replacement for wool iirc
 
Hi. Perhaps this is bad timing considering Dave's upcoming hospital stay. I would like the plans for the FHXL if possible. Tried to send an email,but couldn't figure it out. I have made the donation--actually for the second time, but I can't find the file. Sorry for the bother.
Dave,all the best to you,I've had a number of hospital visits.
 
Last edited:
terminal cup

Got all the panels cut out of 3/4BB ply, now I'm cutting the opening for the driver. Was about to cut a hole in the back panel for a terminal cup, but looking at how thin the plastic is, I'm afraid this will affect the rear chamber area.

Any advice, or experiences with this?

Regards,
Ted
 

Attachments

  • IMG_20190318_160124.jpg
    IMG_20190318_160124.jpg
    634.6 KB · Views: 321
So, regarding 10.3eN / 11MS, I gave them a good long listen this Sunday, accompanied by a friend with a trusted set of ears, and came to the same conclusion as before. While the MS pair have now certainly had enough playing time to be considered “broken in”, there are still two variables that make it hard to call a clear winner: EnABL treated vs stock, and two enclosures with - as I understood it from Scott’s description last August- different alignments/tuning goals. I’d be tempted to say the 10.3/Pensils delivered a fuller /fatter bottom octave or two. Perhaps the 11MS/ MLTL extended at least as far, if not slightly deeper, but was leaner, leading them to sound a bit thin in direct comparison - in the named enclosures
Also, while the 11MS were definitely delivering more energy and maybe more detail in the top two & half or so octaves (say from 3500 up, where my hearing is quite deficient, and tinnitus noise floor is very high), the EnABLed 10.3 seemed to better resolve low level detail/micro dynamics on well recorded tracks e.g. SRV, Tin Pan Alley. Having listed to a wide range of stock vs treated drivers over the past decade or so, I’d very much like revisit this comparison once Dave has a pair of 11MS to spare for a few hours.
Before the question is asked, I have neither the facilities nor interest in learning how to take in room measurements - I’d rather suffer critique for relying on subjective impressions than for investing in wrong type of mic / software. Hell, I’ve built dozens of amps over the years without anything more elaborate than a cheap Canadian Tire DVOM, and none have blown up
Yet.
Cheers.
 
Looks like an additional 3/32 of a inch or 2.5mm has to be taken off all the way around the baffle hole to accomidate the 11ms 144mm-139 mm for the 10.3, mine don’t drop right in??? I used a 5 1/2 in. hole saw for the baffle hole??? FHXL

As it has a heathily wide flange, I’d be inclined to give the 11MS an extra 1mm overall above the drawing spec - i.e. 145mm 5.70”. FWIW, many of the hole saws I’ve used (Lenox, Greenlee, Milwaukee, Dewalt) tend to deliver a slightly large hole than the spec’d dimension- particularly if the arbour has been bent by dropping the drill on the floor. :eek: