Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[LeVan Moxley]

I've been reading and doing a little comparing on some EV speakers and would like to get some input on the differences, in your opinion, in these two boxes.  I realize there are some obvious big differences, like:

weight - the TX is 61 lbs.
and the FRX is 152lbs. 

The FRX costs 3 times as much as a TX. 

The FRX is a coaxial horn loaded design and the TX is a standard trap box design. 

The TX (the less expensive speaker)has a larger DH3T 1.25" compression driver.
The FRX has a  smaller DH2T 1" compression driver.

There are, however, some similarities. 

Both have 15" low freq drivers.

Both have a 60 x 40 coverage pattern .

Power handling for the TX is  500 cont. and 2000 peak. 
Power handling for the FRX is 400 cont. and 1600 peak. 

Crossover is 1800 for the FRX.
Crossover is 1650 for the TX.

Here's the TX freq. response:
Freq. Response
 (-3 dB): 55 Hz - 20 kHz
Freq. Range
 (-10 dB): 40 Hz - 20 kHz

The FRX's -3dB low end is 50 hz,
while the -10 dB is 43 hz.

A couple of other observations with questions.

1. With the FRX being a horn loaded design, is it considered a more efficient box and is it designed for longer throw applications?  My guess would be the FRX would get quite a bit louder than the TX.  Is this because of the horn loaded design?

2. Why is the cost of the FRX 3x that of the TX?  Is it just to pay for all that extra plywood? lol

Ok, tell me where I'm right and where I'm wrong.  Does this horn loaded design really make that much difference?

[David Sturzenbecher]

The horn loading in the FRX line allows for pattern control to a lower frequency.  I wouldn't necessarily use that to classify it as long throw or short throw.  Typically those phrases are reserved for coverage patterns.  Remember that no speaker has a coverage pattern consistent over all frequencies, but the horn helps extend this consistency.  I would have to double check but i thought the FRX speakers were replaced with the EVH line, and then there is the corresponding EVF line using the same drivers.  EVH - Horn Loaded, EVF - Front Loaded. 

[Robert Healey]

  Does this horn loaded design really make that much difference?

Yes. You're leaving out a couple specs. The most important is directivity (probably a more important spec than any of the ones you've listed)- the TX1152 sheet doesn't include this information, but in terms of design it's pretty similar to the EVF-1152S-64. Compare the beamwidth charts on both those data sheets - the FRX holds it's pattern down to 500Hz (i.e. it's only 60 x 40 down to 500Hz), while the EVF only holds it's pattern down to 1000Hz. That means a lot more sound where you don't want it to go and significantly worse performance in an array.

You can biamp the FRX, which has a much higher sensitivity when biamped (105LF, 109HF vs 100 on the TX). That means smaller and cheaper amplifiers.

The frequency response numbers look comparable, but take a look at the charts - the TX bumps up the lows (for a DJ style sound) and then drops off much sooner than the FRX.

The FRX is made of seven-ply plywood, while the TX lists "Plywood and MDF" - probably much lighter duty construction.

Another important point is that the FRX has L-Track rigging and can support 304 lbs hung below the cabinet, while the TX only has six threaded points. That's big for installers.

Add that all up and it becomes pretty apparent that the TX is a mid-level MI speaker while the FRX is a powerful tool for installed sound system designers.

[ProSoundWeb Community]