chops said:I was gonna check out the plans for the Fonken167 only to find out that the link is bad. Pooh.
Darn, i haven't fixed that link yet? I emailed you the plans earlier today.
They will only be available in detail for those that buy drivers or by donation (silimar program to Bob's). At the moment they are part of a beta program to get them into a condition that warants the (modest) tariff.
dave
Attachments
chops said:
1 pair exists. They were a hit at their intro at this last summer's VI diyFest. Chris took them over to his sisters, and we were only able to extract them long enuff to veneer them... after vebeer and before delivery Chris set them up in his (wife's) TC room and the Milevas are going to get replaced. We'll also have to do another set for demos.
They get the mids almost as well as the smaller Fonkens, have better, deeper base, better dynamics, and play louder with the small amps we are so fond of.
Chris can chime in, except for his sister, he has had more time with them than anyone else, including in his man-cave which is much the same size as yours.
The bases are purposely mutable so that the height can be adjusted for needs (including short of stature for WAF)
dave
planet10 said:
Since the snow has prevented me from making that trek to the end of Mark Lane for the past 2 weeks, I'll have to rely the memory of my impressions from my last listening sessions.
The two specific driver/enclosure combinations (FE127 / FE167 & Fonken) are as closely optimized to the same goals as the driver's parameters allowed.
I have spent over a year and half listening to a series of FE127 Fonkens, with a variety of electronics and sources, and I think I have a pretty good handle on their strengths and weaknesses.
IMHO, in a direct head to head, the FE127 will still have a greater degree of intimacy and finesse from the midbass on up, particularly at lower volumes and in smaller rooms, as well as superior imaging focus and dimensionality of soundstage - but above 90dB average levels and in larger spaces, it's another story. As the cliche goes, (when it comes to SPL levels and frequency extension) there is simply no replacement for displacement. Think of the Fonken167 as the smaller system on performance enhancing hormones, but without the 'roid rage.
I could certainly live with them, without the need for bass support, but I suppose there will always be folks that need more. For those folks, we could always envision an F'n 207 - but I'd suspect those would definitely need tweeters.
For reference, I have 2 main listening rooms - my "small room" is approx 200ft^2 of usable space, and the larger is the family / TV room which is approx 320ft ^2. The room the 167s now inhabit is at least 800ft^ of very open space "great room" with 12ft ceilings and >30ft wall of windows overlooking the water.
It definitely seems as though the Fonken's are the ones for me.
Since they do bass so well, I shouldn't have any problems crossing them over rather low, around 50Hz or so I would imagine. What do they extend down to anyway?
So you both covered bass and midrange with the Fonken167's, but how about the top end? How do they do in the upper registers compared to say the smaller 4.5" and 4" drivers? That's actually my biggest concern.
Adding bass to a system is much easier and cleaner to deal with as far as phase combing is concerned, but treble isn't as easy and clean, and is a lot more noticeable if not done properly. This is why I don't mind adding a sub or two, but am against the idea of adding tweeters.
Since they do bass so well, I shouldn't have any problems crossing them over rather low, around 50Hz or so I would imagine. What do they extend down to anyway?
So you both covered bass and midrange with the Fonken167's, but how about the top end? How do they do in the upper registers compared to say the smaller 4.5" and 4" drivers? That's actually my biggest concern.
Adding bass to a system is much easier and cleaner to deal with as far as phase combing is concerned, but treble isn't as easy and clean, and is a lot more noticeable if not done properly. This is why I don't mind adding a sub or two, but am against the idea of adding tweeters.
chops said:
A bold statement here, and hope it doesn't further confound your decision tree: AFAIC, within the Fostex series under discussion, and notwithstanding EnABL, phase plugs, etc. , 4.5" siblings ( FE126/127 FF125k) outperform the larger whizzer-coned series (FE166/167) in the upper midrange and top end; and depending on the system and enclosure it's not just by just a smidge.
However - I don't listen very loud (almost entirely below 90dB peaks), and there will be situations in which the better compromise is to go for the larger driver's horsepower and low-end torque, at the minor sacrifice of handling on those tight radius slalom curves. That's it, my automotive analogies are all used up (and the combination of cold medication and Bison Grass Vodka kicked in hours ago....)
Having lived with the 167Fonken for a short while, and the 127s for much longer, I suspect it would take relatively little recalibration for me to fully to adjust to the larger drivers, and get back to listening to the music. However, as serenechaos and others have noted, we all have differing expectations, sensitivities and tolerance levels - so the only one who could say for sure what works for you is, well - you, and only after you've experienced both.
In other words, I love the Fonken-127 - it has all the intimacy any bass I need in my small room, but could probably easily live with the 167s in the larger room, which is (2 channel) video only. Presently that system has a pair of Mileva ( also a 127 based system), and does lack the visceral impact readily available from the 167.
If you consider adding bass to a system easier than band-aiding an ailing top end, and since you already have the 103's on hand, it could well be that something like the Solo103 and dual powered woofers could be a safe bet.
How low do the Fonken167 extend in a real room? I dunno - we haven't had a chance to build the second pair or measure them at my sister's yet.
I'm still screwing around with a pair of 127's trying to find something that will work as anything but computer speakers. Apparently the 127's are fine in a 10'x10' bedroom, but in anything bigger and there is just not enough SPL for even modest listening levels. The 167's will fill at least 15'x15' and they are usable in 15'x21'. And yes the 167's have plenty of top end.
YMMV
Bob
YMMV
Bob
My comments related to the qualities if the upper mids / high end of the 127 vs 167. In my listening so far, I definitely prefer the smaller driver in that area -it could well be a matter of acclimitization.
And no to be argumentative, but since I have a small room, the SPL limitation simply isn't an issue for me.
As I've alluded in another thread, I've long since lost my patience for even the most well intentioned folks telling me what's wrong with what works for me. You could ask Ed Schilling about that.
And no to be argumentative, but since I have a small room, the SPL limitation simply isn't an issue for me.
As I've alluded in another thread, I've long since lost my patience for even the most well intentioned folks telling me what's wrong with what works for me. You could ask Ed Schilling about that.
Bob would you be interested in a little experiment, where I lend you my pair of eNaBLe'd FE127eN's for a month or two, and then we separately (and ideally, simultaneously) post whatever results or impressions?
In other words, a semi-scientific double-blind nation-wide driver shootout? Could be good sporting fun.
Dave, Chris, Scott,
I know you guys don't particularly care for using circuits inline with your speakers, but I was just wondering if the Fonkin167 needs any BSC or series resistance. Honestly, I'd rather not either, but if it makes them sound better, then I must.
I do plan on wiring them with 24awg solid core wire via satin nickle binding posts mounted directly behind the drivers on the rear of the cabinets.
BTW, how many sheets of 4' x 8's will it take for this build?
I know you guys don't particularly care for using circuits inline with your speakers, but I was just wondering if the Fonkin167 needs any BSC or series resistance. Honestly, I'd rather not either, but if it makes them sound better, then I must.
I do plan on wiring them with 24awg solid core wire via satin nickle binding posts mounted directly behind the drivers on the rear of the cabinets.
BTW, how many sheets of 4' x 8's will it take for this build?
I prefer not to use passive circuits if they can be avoided, primarily because they reduce your dynamic headroom, but I use them if / when necessary. The 167 is a nice mid Q unit that works well with most amplifiers, so no SR needed.
I suspect if they're up against a rear wall you won't need a circuit. My 167 MLTLs, which are positioned like that, are happy enough without, and, as is fairly well-known, I'm not exactly enamoured of bright sounding systems.
I suspect if they're up against a rear wall you won't need a circuit. My 167 MLTLs, which are positioned like that, are happy enough without, and, as is fairly well-known, I'm not exactly enamoured of bright sounding systems.
Scottmoose said:
Scott - I'd say you've definitely got that right. I found both the Demitri and Fonken167 had all the bottom I needed, certainly compared to the honky little Fostex recommended BR enclosure.
Charles - of course the degree of synergy and midrange magic / soundstaging, etc. will vary between systems, but on every combination of gear and in any of the larger in which I've heard the 167's, weight and extension of the low end was not an issue.
And with phase plugs and the polka-dots, the mids/high end on the 167 are excellent as well - my reservations in that regard are probably based on most of my listening to them in the same very small room as the 127s.
In the past couple of days, I've had occasion to give that more thought, and I've concluded that the combination of the 167's increased dynamics, extended low end and more forward presentation compared to the FE127 or Hemp Acoustics FR4.5 is responsible for what I attribute as their (167's) lack of "intimacy". They simply move more air, more easily, and produce a larger image.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.