upper midrange = 1280-2560 Hz ...i certainly find no lack there.
We raised our initial 160 Hz XO to 240 to get a bit more meat in the upper bass/ bottom part of the lower midrange thou.
dave
I completely agree. The FF85wk has upper midrange detail magic but fails to communicate from the lower midrange on down. The FF105wk of course goes down much lower. Your 240 Hz XO seems about perfect from what I am hearing.
was wondering what you utilized for the low frequency(s).
`````````````````````````````````````````````````````
http://www.fostexinternational.com/docs/speaker_components/pdf/recom_enclose/fw137_fw85k_tboy.pdf
Depends on the enclosure - we've been using the SDX7 for quite some time, and have I think finally exhausted our supply ( I have 5 presently at home in 2 different systems) . We've most recently used Silver Flute W14 in an MTM arrangement, and Peerless 830870 (side mounted duals and quads per enclosure) with the FF85WK. The latter array makes for a pretty dynamic and spacious presentation.
Multiples of the highly missed and very affordable Mark Audio W6/EL166 also worked very well with this size of Fostex.
Multiples of the highly missed and very affordable Mark Audio W6/EL166 also worked very well with this size of Fostex.
In this particular loudspeaker Peerless 830870 4" Poly midbasses in a Woden designed ML-TL (2/line) and a ML-Voigt (4/line)
dave
Since I was the original thread starter, I'll chime in. I had the ff105wk and it's a really smooth driver. I heard no peakiness at all; I still found it to be a little bit on the forward side but it's a very good driver. I compared it to the CHP-70 gen 2 and while I like the chp a little bit better, mainly due to better bass performance which gives it a better balance across the board from highs to lows, the ff105wk held it's own; slightly less bass with slightly better highs to my ears.
I agree. The FF105WK is a good all around driver that seems to do most things fairly well. Its smooth with no obvious flaws. It also produces much better bass than the FF85WK but lacks some of the FF85WK detail, resolution, and high end magic. In most respects, these 2 drivers actually sound very similar. They are both excellent choices. I also agree with others that the FF85WK could really use some bass support. The FF105WK on the other hand can stand on its own.
Member
Joined 2009
Paid Member
I like the FF105WK in a metronome - REW measured about 1% distortion at 50Hz with my SE Tube amplifier but below that output drops away as a rock - at 43 Hz there is hardly any output with distortion shooting up (fundamental down, harmonics up). Prefer them FF105WK above the FF125WK metronome that goes lower.
If I could place the FH Mk III in my office then I would be trying that one out - unfortunately I am limited to having speakers on my desk and the FF105WK metronomes end up with an image above my head and I'm on the hunt for something (nearly) as good that has the driver lower.
What are the FF105 met dimensions, it might be possible to fold it into a shape more useful for your ap.
dave
Post 1000 in the metronome thread
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/full-range/85410-metronome-100.html#post3218978
And I have been off and on thinking about the DBR but have been hesistant about making one.
The MJK horn is intriguing and putting it upside down in the corners may work and leaves the option to use it as a floor stander.
Last edited:
If not already mentioned, there's also Scott Lindgren's very cute little folded labyrinth design. So far I've built versions for A6P, FF85WK & FF105WK - each have their merits - for a stand-alone near field, the 85WK is hard to beat, and the 105 comes into its own at between 2-3 meters listening distance.
I like me some small drivers; FF125K, W4-1320, but FF85WK crosses into tiny territory. 
It's a good driver and I can only echo what was said above, these guys have probably used it way more than me.
I did get surprisingly punchy mid-upper bass on my pair in some little back-load "horns" I kludged up, at medium levels. FR was rather ragged, but it was still enjoyable. I have other plans for my 85's at the moment though.
It's a good driver and I can only echo what was said above, these guys have probably used it way more than me.I did get surprisingly punchy mid-upper bass on my pair in some little back-load "horns" I kludged up, at medium levels. FR was rather ragged, but it was still enjoyable. I have other plans for my 85's at the moment though.
It's a lovely little mid-tweet. Doesn't go as low as the 105, but response is linear and distortion levels low providing you don't expect too much of it. A 3in widebander is not a 16in Altec woofer.
Lol....as it is, my wife hates the Mark Audio CHP-70 floorstanders I put in the living room, let alone some 16's
But funny how she really, really likes my Cambridge Audio Minx satellites, go figure My next project will likely be some 3 inchers in small cabinets with a smaller Diy sub as bass support. Driver contenders are the FF85wk, Alpair 6p and the FR89ex. I dont' need really deep bass - if I hit 40hz I'm fine (so are my neighbors), so for the sub I'm looking at the Dayton 25 watt plate amp and a 5.25 or 6.5 inch woofer (not sure which one yet). Just not sure if a 200hz cross over point will be high enough for these guys. I'm currently using an older Cambridge Soundworks passive sub from the ensemble IV system which jells pretty well with the Minx sats, so needless to say my bass needs are nominal and using the passive sub is also an option.
Last edited:
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.