NO ss in my midrange in years......
I thank Bob for the info on alot I am just learning, but I am no stranger to good tube amps or SS real class A jobs,,, have'nt took the plundge on these so called wonder chip amps yet or whatever they are, but the quad of 300B I run in main is a main ingredient in my sound...I actually don't own any SS amps other than 1 old jvc for testing mods & such.....there is not many ss amps in the world that will touch my midrange candy of the 300b pp amp I run,,,....I do however enjoy running Class D plate active subs in stereo pairs, on the bottom end & relieving my tube amps of lower end duty & let them sing..I will study & persue this route for a long time with full rangers, I am hooked on them BIGTIME....for SS yamaha had some GREAT amps,,, I had a MX2000, that was crazy good, but can't hang with my tube amps in the midrange.. I bought my mother a old SS Onkyo reciever that she loves, it does sound good for SS, ..& nice build quality for sure..Thanks for all the help to everyone here.
J & G
I thank Bob for the info on alot I am just learning, but I am no stranger to good tube amps or SS real class A jobs,,, have'nt took the plundge on these so called wonder chip amps yet or whatever they are, but the quad of 300B I run in main is a main ingredient in my sound...I actually don't own any SS amps other than 1 old jvc for testing mods & such.....there is not many ss amps in the world that will touch my midrange candy of the 300b pp amp I run,,,....I do however enjoy running Class D plate active subs in stereo pairs, on the bottom end & relieving my tube amps of lower end duty & let them sing..I will study & persue this route for a long time with full rangers, I am hooked on them BIGTIME....for SS yamaha had some GREAT amps,,, I had a MX2000, that was crazy good, but can't hang with my tube amps in the midrange.. I bought my mother a old SS Onkyo reciever that she loves, it does sound good for SS, ..& nice build quality for sure..Thanks for all the help to everyone here.
J & G
Xmax - Second take
JandG,
I am still very interested in your experience. Since nobody answered my concerns about excursion limitation, would you, please, answer some of my questions:
1. What is the volume of your cabinets for FE167? What is the ports size?
2. Can you describe more precisely how did you plug the ports? I am tryimg to gage to what degree it is totally plugged, or became an aperiodic box. I actually like aperiodics a lot, but they are not easy to simulate or predict. Experimentation with those is a must.
3. How much power do you think you are driving them with on average? Is there any hint of bottoming out the suspension? To check on this, you may want to drive your system with some well known to you recording to fairly loud level and then shut off the subwoofers. At this point any problems with low end of Fostexes should becoume audible.
I am very interested in making a new system, employing some wide range driver instead of Manger, and FE167 is certainly a candidate. Therefore your feedback would be greatly appreciated.
Vadim
JandG,
I am still very interested in your experience. Since nobody answered my concerns about excursion limitation, would you, please, answer some of my questions:
1. What is the volume of your cabinets for FE167? What is the ports size?
2. Can you describe more precisely how did you plug the ports? I am tryimg to gage to what degree it is totally plugged, or became an aperiodic box. I actually like aperiodics a lot, but they are not easy to simulate or predict. Experimentation with those is a must.
3. How much power do you think you are driving them with on average? Is there any hint of bottoming out the suspension? To check on this, you may want to drive your system with some well known to you recording to fairly loud level and then shut off the subwoofers. At this point any problems with low end of Fostexes should becoume audible.
I am very interested in making a new system, employing some wide range driver instead of Manger, and FE167 is certainly a candidate. Therefore your feedback would be greatly appreciated.
Vadim
1. What is the volume of your cabinets for FE167? What is the ports size?
http://www.zillaspeak.com/FostexReflexCabsFE.asp
There’s the Fostex recommended enclosure for the 167.
And here are some plots for the 167 done in WinISD
http://www.zillaspeak.com/ZillaSpeakBoxPlotFostex168-167.asp
http://www.zillaspeak.com/FostexReflexCabsFE.asp
There’s the Fostex recommended enclosure for the 167.
And here are some plots for the 167 done in WinISD
http://www.zillaspeak.com/ZillaSpeakBoxPlotFostex168-167.asp
Re: Xmax - Second take
I have 2 methods of designing an aperiodic box....
1/ for a high Q driver (that would probably prefer to be on an OB -- build a box as big as you can live with and then add some holes as far away from the driver as you can. Then damp the holes (i have done this by ear in the past, but the last one i did was pre impedance measuring kit)
2/ for a lower Q driver, i model a BR box with a specific shape curve (ie by feel), then make the ports with a high aspect ratio to push the box towards aperiodic. If that isn't enuff then i use fairly stiff packing foam to block the port (i end up with lots of it lying around (a specific foam from Apple Service parts boxes works well))).
Attached is the measured imp with & without the port damping... you can see the bottom hump disappearing (and is already pretty small -- indicating some aperiodicity without).
This technique worked really well for the FE127 (the Fonken) and we have an untried design for an FE167 (the Mama Fonken) and will also try the 207 (Papa Fonken) & Neophone (NeoFon-ken)
dave
VadimB said:
I have 2 methods of designing an aperiodic box....
1/ for a high Q driver (that would probably prefer to be on an OB -- build a box as big as you can live with and then add some holes as far away from the driver as you can. Then damp the holes (i have done this by ear in the past, but the last one i did was pre impedance measuring kit)
2/ for a lower Q driver, i model a BR box with a specific shape curve (ie by feel), then make the ports with a high aspect ratio to push the box towards aperiodic. If that isn't enuff then i use fairly stiff packing foam to block the port (i end up with lots of it lying around (a specific foam from Apple Service parts boxes works well))).
Attached is the measured imp with & without the port damping... you can see the bottom hump disappearing (and is already pretty small -- indicating some aperiodicity without).
This technique worked really well for the FE127 (the Fonken) and we have an untried design for an FE167 (the Mama Fonken) and will also try the 207 (Papa Fonken) & Neophone (NeoFon-ken)
dave
Attachments
Xmax - Second take
Dave,
According to my experience, the Z-plot you've attached is not exactly an aperiodic alignment. I've built several speakers with both Variovent (Scan-speak) and my own aperiodic damping. All of them had a single impedance peak at almost the same F as a closed box, but with lower Q. Your plot looks more like heawily damped TL or BLH. I'm not saying it can not be done this way - just that it's not the same as you'll get with Variovent. Also, in my experience, the closer to the driver you put the damping device - the more efficiently it works.
I use WinISD (Pro Alpha) to simulate aperiodic box. You should model a closed box, then click on "advanced" button in "Box" tab. It'll show the Qb (Q of the box). Default value is 10. For a well-made box of 30-40 liters that's about right. Smaller boxes will have higher Qb in real life. Then, I change Qb to about 3. Resulting plots will give you a good estimate of an aperiodic box. However, this approximation is not as close to the real thing as other "standard" models in WinISD.
I'd like to thank all, who replied. But, my concern is actually a different question.
New version of WinISD (Pro Alpha) has this very useful plot, called "Max Power". It shows "Power, required to reach Xmax vs. Frequency". I've tried the BR boxes suggested by Fostex and by Zilla. Basically, the results are the same - all these should bottom out the suspension at something like 0.5W at 100 Hz and below.
My question is - have any of you, who have FE167 (or any of the FE series for this matter) in BR or closed boxes, experienced this bottoming of the cone? How do you get around this problem? Do you limit your power to 1/2 W, do you carefully choose what kind of music to play over these speakers, or is WinISD wrong by a big margin? So far I have quite a bit of respect for this program. I've got very good match between it's models and actually built speakers.
Thanks,
Vadim
Dave,
According to my experience, the Z-plot you've attached is not exactly an aperiodic alignment. I've built several speakers with both Variovent (Scan-speak) and my own aperiodic damping. All of them had a single impedance peak at almost the same F as a closed box, but with lower Q. Your plot looks more like heawily damped TL or BLH. I'm not saying it can not be done this way - just that it's not the same as you'll get with Variovent. Also, in my experience, the closer to the driver you put the damping device - the more efficiently it works.
I use WinISD (Pro Alpha) to simulate aperiodic box. You should model a closed box, then click on "advanced" button in "Box" tab. It'll show the Qb (Q of the box). Default value is 10. For a well-made box of 30-40 liters that's about right. Smaller boxes will have higher Qb in real life. Then, I change Qb to about 3. Resulting plots will give you a good estimate of an aperiodic box. However, this approximation is not as close to the real thing as other "standard" models in WinISD.
I'd like to thank all, who replied. But, my concern is actually a different question.
New version of WinISD (Pro Alpha) has this very useful plot, called "Max Power". It shows "Power, required to reach Xmax vs. Frequency". I've tried the BR boxes suggested by Fostex and by Zilla. Basically, the results are the same - all these should bottom out the suspension at something like 0.5W at 100 Hz and below.
My question is - have any of you, who have FE167 (or any of the FE series for this matter) in BR or closed boxes, experienced this bottoming of the cone? How do you get around this problem? Do you limit your power to 1/2 W, do you carefully choose what kind of music to play over these speakers, or is WinISD wrong by a big margin? So far I have quite a bit of respect for this program. I've got very good match between it's models and actually built speakers.
Thanks,
Vadim
Re: Xmax - Second take
I've no test equipment handy, but I can be pretty certain that some of my playing levels are well in excess of .5w - and I can never recall any of the current Fostex drivers (FE126/127/167) that we've tried in a variety of enclosure designs bottoming out. In fact the smallest tube amps (<3w) can easily be driven to clipping before any noticable distress from the drivers.
The powerful XBL motor system notwithstanding (or perhaps because of it), the CSS WR/FR125, on the other hand can exhibit some uncontrolled colonic gas emissions if driven moderately to hard in an enclosure that unloads the driver; and particularly in my experience with low DF SE tube amps. I'm pretty sure others have commented on this as well - easily mitigated when using them in an HT system with high DF SS amp stages and bass management control functions; hi-pass filter and cross them over to a powered sub anywhere from 100-120, and you're probably safe for all but insane SPL.s
VadimB said:
I've no test equipment handy, but I can be pretty certain that some of my playing levels are well in excess of .5w - and I can never recall any of the current Fostex drivers (FE126/127/167) that we've tried in a variety of enclosure designs bottoming out. In fact the smallest tube amps (<3w) can easily be driven to clipping before any noticable distress from the drivers.
The powerful XBL motor system notwithstanding (or perhaps because of it), the CSS WR/FR125, on the other hand can exhibit some uncontrolled colonic gas emissions if driven moderately to hard in an enclosure that unloads the driver; and particularly in my experience with low DF SE tube amps. I'm pretty sure others have commented on this as well - easily mitigated when using them in an HT system with high DF SS amp stages and bass management control functions; hi-pass filter and cross them over to a powered sub anywhere from 100-120, and you're probably safe for all but insane SPL.s
Re: Xmax - Second take
I take it you have never played with a FE-166/167. The physical x-max is an order of magnitude higher than the magnet-gap x-max (the .6mm). You won't bottom them generally (I haven't ever), you'll just get increasing distortion. I have seen displacements of +/- 1CM (SWAG) with no really ugly sounds.
Sean
VadimB said:
I take it you have never played with a FE-166/167. The physical x-max is an order of magnitude higher than the magnet-gap x-max (the .6mm). You won't bottom them generally (I haven't ever), you'll just get increasing distortion. I have seen displacements of +/- 1CM (SWAG) with no really ugly sounds.
Sean
Sure....volume is..
.72 cu ft. & port size is 3".... & I even stuffed port even tighter with acoustic filler. It is even better in the mids, but have to get the sub up near 150,,, but it is NOT bad........the mids are very good & will experiment this weekend somemore with it..there is no cone movement I can see now even @ fairly loud levels, I am not try to get these to do large bass duty at all, just use the midrange for what it is,,,GREAT.. I am listening to Loreena McKennitt " Live in Paris & Toronto",,, good test for any system , especially vocal.,,,I detect no shout,, & will make up my mind this weekend if I need a helper tweeter crossed high, but that is a big maybe on the tweeter. I will try what you said about stopping the subs & report back to you....The cabs they are in are MDF witha 1" baffle..& 1 internal brace in the middle..If Lorenna McKinnitt does not raise ever hair on my body on every song see sings,, on any album of hers, then I am not happy with system at all..I need this weekend to see if I can live with any trade offs I might find...should be intresting...
.72 cu ft. & port size is 3".... & I even stuffed port even tighter with acoustic filler. It is even better in the mids, but have to get the sub up near 150,,, but it is NOT bad........the mids are very good & will experiment this weekend somemore with it..there is no cone movement I can see now even @ fairly loud levels, I am not try to get these to do large bass duty at all, just use the midrange for what it is,,,GREAT.. I am listening to Loreena McKennitt " Live in Paris & Toronto",,, good test for any system , especially vocal.,,,I detect no shout,, & will make up my mind this weekend if I need a helper tweeter crossed high, but that is a big maybe on the tweeter. I will try what you said about stopping the subs & report back to you....The cabs they are in are MDF witha 1" baffle..& 1 internal brace in the middle..If Lorenna McKinnitt does not raise ever hair on my body on every song see sings,, on any album of hers, then I am not happy with system at all..I need this weekend to see if I can live with any trade offs I might find...should be intresting...
I must say again that I am as I write running this set up with a Canary CA301 MkII @ 22w of 300B & now have turned it up alot thru a TVC & there moving good, but no distortion detectable yet, & not moving more than I am used to seeing, nothing scary looking that is,, If it blow apart I will certanlly let you know..*s*
I have some compression plugs I bought @ my plumbing store & will test also completelly sealed, with low volume & then some...Also will let you know..
I have some compression plugs I bought @ my plumbing store & will test also completelly sealed, with low volume & then some...Also will let you know..
Installed compression plugs...
I installed the 3" compression plugs & also installed a helper tweeter. Pair of Vifa D27TG-45's, all I have on hand, ended up with .22uf Auricap for value..set subs @ 150 & it is all holding tight up to very loud levels without seemingly messing with the very nice midrange...Imageing seeming to be holding also,, I don't have a clue what I am doing,,, but am having fun.. ,,, so all I got is my ear & some help from others. I truely see my self soon going B200 in OB w/ my pair of subs & LCY-100K's on top set very high....I think this would make me very happy, If a/b on the LCY-100K's don't seem needed, I can sell them,, I have a sets of differant tweeters & style on the way to try ifferant things before spending big $ on the keepers..I am sure I am about to blow something up,... Fostex, amp...etc. *s*
I installed the 3" compression plugs & also installed a helper tweeter. Pair of Vifa D27TG-45's, all I have on hand, ended up with .22uf Auricap for value..set subs @ 150 & it is all holding tight up to very loud levels without seemingly messing with the very nice midrange...Imageing seeming to be holding also,, I don't have a clue what I am doing,,, but am having fun.. ,,, so all I got is my ear & some help from others. I truely see my self soon going B200 in OB w/ my pair of subs & LCY-100K's on top set very high....I think this would make me very happy, If a/b on the LCY-100K's don't seem needed, I can sell them,, I have a sets of differant tweeters & style on the way to try ifferant things before spending big $ on the keepers..I am sure I am about to blow something up,... Fostex, amp...etc. *s*
Changed it again...
Pulled the plug in fe167e's, pulled the stands, mounted monitors directly on top of front fire subs, changed cap to .0056uf styrene. Slightly stuufed the port in subs.. set @ about 70 integration is HECK of alot better, will work with rest...hated to see my stands go to spare room, but they will stay there for now. Didn't even relise integration was that far off....oh well..It is creepy good now, Can't wait to try ribbon's, horns, etc, @ 94db & go from there.....Why is this soft dome doing so well..? @ 90db I think
Pulled the plug in fe167e's, pulled the stands, mounted monitors directly on top of front fire subs, changed cap to .0056uf styrene. Slightly stuufed the port in subs.. set @ about 70 integration is HECK of alot better, will work with rest...hated to see my stands go to spare room, but they will stay there for now. Didn't even relise integration was that far off....oh well..It is creepy good now, Can't wait to try ribbon's, horns, etc, @ 94db & go from there.....Why is this soft dome doing so well..? @ 90db I think
pulled all suffing from fe167e cab's. Put compression plug BACK in port.. kept subs slightly stuffed & went back to 150hz with them...
.0056uf styrene cap on the Vifa D27TG-45-06..seems like a good value finally..must be WAY up there, but works for me..the fostex imaging & mids seem presevered, which is what I want..I do like it better without the white fiberglass that was in upper cabs..also integration is MUCH better with monitors directly on top & flush with sub front's..I think I need to get the set up on granite like I had my stands on...I will try it..
.0056uf styrene cap on the Vifa D27TG-45-06..seems like a good value finally..must be WAY up there, but works for me..the fostex imaging & mids seem presevered, which is what I want..I do like it better without the white fiberglass that was in upper cabs..also integration is MUCH better with monitors directly on top & flush with sub front's..I think I need to get the set up on granite like I had my stands on...I will try it..
Re: Xmax - Second take
Keep in mind that the WinISD sim represents continuous power at a fixed (low) frequency. Music typically does not do this.
Mine seem to take about 4W of soft rock before they start to color the sound. However, some bass intensive music can sound ugly with as little as 1W. So it is music dependent.
If you limit the bass to these drivers, you can get some serious SPL.
chrisb said:
Keep in mind that the WinISD sim represents continuous power at a fixed (low) frequency. Music typically does not do this.
Mine seem to take about 4W of soft rock before they start to color the sound. However, some bass intensive music can sound ugly with as little as 1W. So it is music dependent.
If you limit the bass to these drivers, you can get some serious SPL.
Thanks again for all the replies.
Sean, you are right: I have not tried them yet, exactly because I could not see how to get a reasonable SPL before bumping into Xmax. However, after spending 2 years to make Manger sound right, I am more than interested to try something else, especially since anything else is significantly less expensive.
JangG,
the easiest way to limit bass in your set-up is to put a cap in series with the input of power amp feeding the Fostex. This would create a first order RC crossower. It's the same formula as you use for the supertweeter, but instead of the impedance of the tweeter sustitute the input impedance of the amp (usually between 10 and 100 kOhm). I don't remember the formula over the top of my head now, but it should be in the range of .1 - 1 uF. If you can't find the formula, let me know and I'll dig it out.
Also, I have tried a bunch of supertweeters for the Manger and settled down on LCY -100K that you've mentioned. It's the only one that did not screw-up the imaging of the Mangers. Mangers do disappear completelely. Any other tweeter I've tried, regardless of how high crossed, would give out it's location. I have to pad LCY down with 2 Ohm series resistor and use higher setting of the crossower to match the Manger. I would guess, that with Fostex you may get away without padding. Good luck!
Vadim
Sean, you are right: I have not tried them yet, exactly because I could not see how to get a reasonable SPL before bumping into Xmax. However, after spending 2 years to make Manger sound right, I am more than interested to try something else, especially since anything else is significantly less expensive.
JangG,
the easiest way to limit bass in your set-up is to put a cap in series with the input of power amp feeding the Fostex. This would create a first order RC crossower. It's the same formula as you use for the supertweeter, but instead of the impedance of the tweeter sustitute the input impedance of the amp (usually between 10 and 100 kOhm). I don't remember the formula over the top of my head now, but it should be in the range of .1 - 1 uF. If you can't find the formula, let me know and I'll dig it out.
Also, I have tried a bunch of supertweeters for the Manger and settled down on LCY -100K that you've mentioned. It's the only one that did not screw-up the imaging of the Mangers. Mangers do disappear completelely. Any other tweeter I've tried, regardless of how high crossed, would give out it's location. I have to pad LCY down with 2 Ohm series resistor and use higher setting of the crossower to match the Manger. I would guess, that with Fostex you may get away without padding. Good luck!
Vadim
Thank you....
If you run into the formula it would help me alot,,, I did NOT use a formula for tweeter, just started with 2uf & went by ear from there, took 2 days.................LOL...If you can't find it , I'll get it by ear,, the starting point you gave me is of GREAT help.....Thanks so much.. also that is great news on the LCY -100k, .....
J & G
If you run into the formula it would help me alot,,, I did NOT use a formula for tweeter, just started with 2uf & went by ear from there, took 2 days.................LOL...If you can't find it , I'll get it by ear,, the starting point you gave me is of GREAT help.....Thanks so much.. also that is great news on the LCY -100k, .....
J & G
X-o formula
C=1/(2*Pi*Fxo*Rin),
where:
C- capacitance of the cap, Farad
Pi = 2.14...
Fxo - crossover friquency, Hz
Rin - input impedance of the amp, Ohm
Note: uF=E-6 Farad
For 150 Hz and 10k input impedance C=0.1uF
For 150 Hz and 50k input impedance C=0.021uF
For 150 Hz and 100k input impedance C=0.011uF
Keep in mind that you will get only !st order electrical Xo. However, FE167 in your box has acoustical 2nd order high-pass at -6db point of about 85-90 Hz, so the resulting accoustical Xo would be close to 3d order. What Xo do you have in the sub amp?
To get away from all of this, I am using Marchand XM9 active Xo, 4th order.
Also, as mentioned in previous post, good phase match is extremely important at these friquencies. I have continuous phase adjustment built-in in the sub amp. If you decide to take the plunge and go active Xo, Marchand offers an optional phase adjustment circuit on his active crossovers. BTW, I can highly recommend his products.
Vadim
Here it is:
C=1/(2*Pi*Fxo*Rin),
where:
C- capacitance of the cap, Farad
Pi = 2.14...
Fxo - crossover friquency, Hz
Rin - input impedance of the amp, Ohm
Note: uF=E-6 Farad
For 150 Hz and 10k input impedance C=0.1uF
For 150 Hz and 50k input impedance C=0.021uF
For 150 Hz and 100k input impedance C=0.011uF
Keep in mind that you will get only !st order electrical Xo. However, FE167 in your box has acoustical 2nd order high-pass at -6db point of about 85-90 Hz, so the resulting accoustical Xo would be close to 3d order. What Xo do you have in the sub amp?
To get away from all of this, I am using Marchand XM9 active Xo, 4th order.
Also, as mentioned in previous post, good phase match is extremely important at these friquencies. I have continuous phase adjustment built-in in the sub amp. If you decide to take the plunge and go active Xo, Marchand offers an optional phase adjustment circuit on his active crossovers. BTW, I can highly recommend his products.
Vadim
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.