planet10 said:I wouldn't use a pot holder, but i don't think he was kidding
dave
Greets!
Nope, but to clarify, I didn't mean use potholders to stuff the rear of the cabs, they're much too dense, just to line the back/corners of the shelves to damp cavity resonances and unwanted mids/HF reflections somewhat.
GM
http://www.zillaspeak.com/fostex127eSSB.asp
I am nearly done with these 127e based speakers. Should be firing them up this weekend with my Cary tube amp... wonder how they will compare to the 168S system they are replacing.
Godzilla
I am nearly done with these 127e based speakers. Should be firing them up this weekend with my Cary tube amp... wonder how they will compare to the 168S system they are replacing.
Godzilla
I am very pleased with the Fostex 127e! I just spent about two hours comparing this driver to the older style Fostex 168s and the Radio Shack 1197. I will post pictures soon of all three speakers standing together so you can see exactly what I compared.
Lets just say the 1197s are not in the same category. Mostly because of the small aperiodic box they are in. They sounded small, congested and boxy. I know they can sound much better and will put them in better cabinets in the future.
But the 127e and 168s are certainly comparable. My first comparison was without a subwoofer. To make a long story short, I’d pick the 168s without a sub because its warmer and fuller sound was a pleasure to listen to.
But the 127e was great too. Everything was clean. Bass was deeper than I expected but the 168s (in its larger box) was fuller and bouncier.
Then I connected the subwoofer. Overall, the efficiency of both these drivers is about the same. I didn’t need to change the sub at all and the comparison was a bit different when neither full range driver needed to produce the deepest bass. It’s a toss up between these two drivers when using a sub. Here are my subjective comments:
127e – Clear as a bell. Slightly forward. Clean.
168s – Slightly shouty, not as ‘flat’ sounding as 127e. Slightly boxy sound in the mid bass (probably my ported box - these drivers are going into a BIB soon).
Overall, the imaging was better with the 127e. Vocals were rock solid floating in space. But it was very close and this was only when using the subwoofer. The two drivers did sound different and I was always able to tell which was playing.
Pink Floyd sounded better on the 168s.
Eric Clapton sounded better on the 127e.
Squeeze – tie.
Norah Jones – tie.
Melissa Ethridge – better on the 127e.
Red Hot Chili Peppers – horrible on both – I had to turn it off.
Sometimes the 168s sounded a bit larger, sometimes smaller. I think the 168s was less consistent overall, sounding amazing or just ok. Sometimes it sounded thin.
This thread on the 127e reference project (thank you all!) was a great help and my design is basically a slightly smaller and compromised version of it and GM’s MLTL… I will post the design but feel it’s probably a compromise in overall performance to the larger reference project and GM’s probably smoother since it’s an MLTL and mine’s not. My design was made to fit next to the fireplace and near a chair. It’s a high WAF design specifically built for my living room. But I would imagine they are similar enough in sound. If the other two are any better, they are indeed excellent speakers!
BTW, I used my Cary tube amp and the Sonic Impact amp for comparison and they both sounded good but when I first switched from the Cary to the SI I thought the SI sounded bad (flat, grainy, smaller sounding)… then things settled in and I was happy with the SI overall. The Cary is certainly better. But I was curious how $30 sounded to $1000.
Peace,
Godzilla
Lets just say the 1197s are not in the same category. Mostly because of the small aperiodic box they are in. They sounded small, congested and boxy. I know they can sound much better and will put them in better cabinets in the future.
But the 127e and 168s are certainly comparable. My first comparison was without a subwoofer. To make a long story short, I’d pick the 168s without a sub because its warmer and fuller sound was a pleasure to listen to.
But the 127e was great too. Everything was clean. Bass was deeper than I expected but the 168s (in its larger box) was fuller and bouncier.
Then I connected the subwoofer. Overall, the efficiency of both these drivers is about the same. I didn’t need to change the sub at all and the comparison was a bit different when neither full range driver needed to produce the deepest bass. It’s a toss up between these two drivers when using a sub. Here are my subjective comments:
127e – Clear as a bell. Slightly forward. Clean.
168s – Slightly shouty, not as ‘flat’ sounding as 127e. Slightly boxy sound in the mid bass (probably my ported box - these drivers are going into a BIB soon).
Overall, the imaging was better with the 127e. Vocals were rock solid floating in space. But it was very close and this was only when using the subwoofer. The two drivers did sound different and I was always able to tell which was playing.
Pink Floyd sounded better on the 168s.
Eric Clapton sounded better on the 127e.
Squeeze – tie.
Norah Jones – tie.
Melissa Ethridge – better on the 127e.
Red Hot Chili Peppers – horrible on both – I had to turn it off.
Sometimes the 168s sounded a bit larger, sometimes smaller. I think the 168s was less consistent overall, sounding amazing or just ok. Sometimes it sounded thin.
This thread on the 127e reference project (thank you all!) was a great help and my design is basically a slightly smaller and compromised version of it and GM’s MLTL… I will post the design but feel it’s probably a compromise in overall performance to the larger reference project and GM’s probably smoother since it’s an MLTL and mine’s not. My design was made to fit next to the fireplace and near a chair. It’s a high WAF design specifically built for my living room. But I would imagine they are similar enough in sound. If the other two are any better, they are indeed excellent speakers!
BTW, I used my Cary tube amp and the Sonic Impact amp for comparison and they both sounded good but when I first switched from the Cary to the SI I thought the SI sounded bad (flat, grainy, smaller sounding)… then things settled in and I was happy with the SI overall. The Cary is certainly better. But I was curious how $30 sounded to $1000.
Peace,
Godzilla
The 127e has a slight ‘hysteria’ or excitability that I wonder if the modification cures? Yes, the lumber is standard sizes… 1x4 and 1x10… I will measure and post dims tomorrow. They were so easy to build - like putting together an easy wooden puzzle. Hardest part is cutting out the holes (used a hole saw drill bit that took forever to ‘score’ its way thru the pine… but the hole came out perfectly). No circuit but these are very close to the wall… about an inch or two and the bass is nice and clean. Just a small amount of stuffing behind the driver in the top third of the cab is all it took. Simple and clean project.
Godzilla said:
Mark MacKenzie noted 2 or 3 resonances to tame and talked about high levels of cone talk. When we were developing the Fonkens, there was always something in the background that the FE127 putting a rough edge on everything.
Cone talk is something i've been dealing with for 25 years with puzzlecoat so that part was easy. Mark MacKenzie left a couple clues as to how to cure the resonances. I took what i'd seen in his other driver mods, my experience and the tools at hand, to try out a scheme on the 127.
We were gobsmacked.
There is more on the mod on my Fostex driver page with a link to the FR Forum thread where i outlined the procedure i used. I've refined that a bit since then and will be getting a page up with a more detailed & up-to-date how to.
I have no idea whether i've reached the the best attainable, but they do sound better. And they are prettier (certainly more interesting). The 1st ones are in the field now, so hopefully we'll have some feedback soon.
The cone mods require damar, puzzlecoat, applicators, and (optional) colourant if you want to change the color. Best if used with the felt & the ductseal tweaks.
dave
Attachments
I'll be looking forward to seeing the by-the-numbers
how-to on the FE127e's.
But why do I think that doing mods is the thing you
do before you throw the speaks out? It's so easy
to make an irreversible error.
I've seen Tangbands with little dents tapped in them,
lacquered up Radio Shacks and and now Fostex and
also the felt ring thingie from (Morey James, I think).
I actually tried the felt ring made (since it was completely
reversible) but I ditched it as not a good improvement.
how-to on the FE127e's.
But why do I think that doing mods is the thing you
do before you throw the speaks out? It's so easy
to make an irreversible error.
I've seen Tangbands with little dents tapped in them,
lacquered up Radio Shacks and and now Fostex and
also the felt ring thingie from (Morey James, I think).
I actually tried the felt ring made (since it was completely
reversible) but I ditched it as not a good improvement.
I did the mods (damar and puzzlecoat) and was fairly impressed. Bass improved to the point where I moved the speakers about 6" further from the wall (I did add spikes to the speaker at the same time as I did the speaker mods, that may account for some of the extra bass).
Treble improved enough that I forgot about adding a helper tweeter.
And before the mods, the speakers were a bit edgy. The mods smoothed that out considerably.
Treble improved enough that I forgot about adding a helper tweeter.
And before the mods, the speakers were a bit edgy. The mods smoothed that out considerably.
Attachments
I can vouch for the mods too. I've heard the stock FE126E (nice driver), but my pair are the blue ones on Dave's site, with all the mods, and it's a dramatic improvement in every respect. Well worth doing. If you're worried about wrecking the drivers, you can always buy a modified pair from Dave, which are also pair-matched into the bargin.
modifications to the fe127e
I have modified a few drivers so having a go at the 127e was not a scarry thing for me. Her is a photo of one of mine. I used an artist brush to get a thin line of damar. I made a guide to ensure I was in the region that Mark Mc recommended. After the damar dried I applied a thin coat of moodge poodge (a puzzle coat variant). I have not heard them yet but i have heard a set that Dave had worked on, and I was impressed with the out come. Once I get the final finish on my bipole fonkens I will have another set in the fostex fleet to listen to. Hmmmmm..... That makes seven sets of speakers in the living rooom! I will have to get rid of some of the furniture!!
Anyone need a couch, all I need is one commfie chair.
I have modified a few drivers so having a go at the 127e was not a scarry thing for me. Her is a photo of one of mine. I used an artist brush to get a thin line of damar. I made a guide to ensure I was in the region that Mark Mc recommended. After the damar dried I applied a thin coat of moodge poodge (a puzzle coat variant). I have not heard them yet but i have heard a set that Dave had worked on, and I was impressed with the out come. Once I get the final finish on my bipole fonkens I will have another set in the fostex fleet to listen to. Hmmmmm..... That makes seven sets of speakers in the living rooom! I will have to get rid of some of the furniture!!
Anyone need a couch, all I need is one commfie chair.
Attachments
Banned
Joined 2002
Hmmmmmmm
Good point Jason that makes two chairs. Yes I can still get rid of the rest of the furniture and have enough room.
Here is a shot of the bi-fonken from last week. Things have changed a bit. The stand legs have been painted black and the first coats of the final finish has gone on the cabinets.
Listening session sometime in November?
Good point Jason that makes two chairs. Yes I can still get rid of the rest of the furniture and have enough room.
Here is a shot of the bi-fonken from last week. Things have changed a bit. The stand legs have been painted black and the first coats of the final finish has gone on the cabinets.
Listening session sometime in November?
Attachments
Banned
Joined 2002
Fonken Fill
Dave, Chris,...
I have lined the inside of the Fonkens with Poly but don't know if I need to cover the brace and the back of the baffle. ?? If the brace needs to be covered would I do both sides? It is probably a pedantic attention to details but my learning curve is still steep.
Thanks,
Ray
Dave, Chris,...
I have lined the inside of the Fonkens with Poly but don't know if I need to cover the brace and the back of the baffle. ?? If the brace needs to be covered would I do both sides? It is probably a pedantic attention to details but my learning curve is still steep.
Thanks,
Ray