0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic. Read 18188 times.
What are the best overall sounding drivers that work well in the Frugal horn enclosure? Thanks:)
I wonder if anyone has tried a Frugal horn build with a straight front and back?
Sorry, late to this thread. A note on spelling: A frugal horn is any horn on the frugal-horn site. A Frugel-Horn is one of the 3 similar designs: the original Frugel-Horn Mk3, the larger Frugel-HornXL, and the unreleased Frugel-Horn Lite.Those frugel horns that aren't Frugel-Horns should use the drivers they were designed for. The Frugel-Horns on the other hand are designed to support a broad range of drivers.For the Frugel-Horn Mk3 (part of our FH3 flat-pak info) these are the usual candidates, but other drivers have been used successfully -- almost any 4-4.5" driver should work with the FH3:<boilerplate>if you have the power the A7.3 (minimum 10W recommended) delivers more than any of the others -- more detail, finesse, top end, and DDR*. It is the least robust of the lot.*(DDR = Downward Dynamic Range. That attribute of a hifi component that gives it the ability to resolve very low level information in the presence of much larger signal. Shows up, if on the recording, as more subtle detail in instruments & voice, better & more 3D image/soundstage & more)The FE126eN2 is the goto driver for most people with low power SE amps. It commonly gets used with 2-10 watts or more. The EL70eN (no longer available) can be looked at as a budget paper cone A7, giving up some finesse, some top, but with the best bass of the lot. The FF125wKeN can be considered as part way between EL70 & FE126, the FF105wKeN a bit smoother, with slightly better top-end and less bass quantityBoth the A7 and FE126 are very revealing of an amps shortcomings, FF105 & FF125 gain an edge if the amp doesn't want its deficiencies shown up.A7.3eN is some 7-8 dB less efficient than FE126, FF125 between EL70 & FE126. A7p about the same as FF125With FE126 the FH3 ideally has corners to load into, at least walls to help support the bass. The others are not bass shy and one tunes the bass they produce by adjusting the damping below the driver (as well as using room placement).FE126, FF105, & FF125 both get special pre & post EnABL treatment to help with specific rough edges that stock versions of these drivers are criticized for -- but they are still Fostex. A7p gets some special pre EnABL treatment.A7PeN stands out in that it needs more break-in than any of the others. </boilerplate>The FHXL was designed specifically for the Alpair 10p/10.3 as a start. We also have it with Fostex FF165wk. Others have reported success with FE168eS & FE166En. This design is fairly new, i expect other drivers will be found to work successfully.The unreleased (soon) Frugel-Horn Lite works with 3" drivers. Scott has simmed it with a wide range of drivers, we have built it with FF85wKeN, and it is really superb. It does not go really low, but low enuff to produce the 2nd harmonic of low notes and trick you into thinking the low bass is there.dave
1/ I'd give the drivers with bettter bass do better at low volumes2/ It is mostly about bass level, but more damping below the driver will also reduce the ripple inherent in a quarter-wave design -- much of that ripple is removed by the damping in the point. I would not build one without at least the damping in the point.When we did the 1st showing of the FH3 with A7 it was a quick swap from the FE126e and there was no front damping. Even pulled out 4 ft from the wall there was clearly toomuch bass but it was big & round and tuneful.dave
Are you saying that the Alpair 7.3 will be better than the FE126 at low volume?
I'm not sure what 'ripple' is - does it relate to extension?
I do wonder if FH3 can reach pretty flat down to 35hz in small rooms. or does one need FHXL.
I would like the FH-XL that Scott mention.
We appear to be employing a different definition for the term 'horn'. I do not define a horn as a pipe that is impedance matched to its QW cutoff frequency (which is what is usually assumed in acoustics texts and what you are using). I simply define it as a pipe that expands toward the terminus, since expanding pipes to the best of my knowledge possess some element of 1/2 wave behaviour -a point GM also frequently makes, and is usually noted in texts on the subject of pipe resonance, e.g. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/waves/opecol.html#c1 In my own defence, I did make the point that there is usually a difference between the QW cutoff frequency (F0) defined by axial length and the frequency to which the horn (or expanding pipe if you prefer) is impedance matched down to (Fc), which is generally taken as a function of terminus size / circumference, with resonant action covering the F0 - Fc BW. So I entirely accept the fact that such designs should be developed as resonant types, always have & AFAIK, I've never intentionally suggested otherwise. If my prose lacked clarity & appeared to imply the opposite, then I owe you and everyone else who read it a most sincere apology.
Page created in 0.047 seconds with 27 queries.