I agree with the Buschorns, the MKI being better. I modified the enclosure (MKI) and thought it even better. The Mark II is okay I guess. My main issue with them is the way the compression chamber (or whatever you want to call it) collects into the throat.
Compare that with E.G. Ron's A126, fluid dynamics at work.
I had all intentions of trying Burt's pipes but never got around to it. I always liked the thought behind that design with the second driver compensating for the cabinet response.
The 207 is a nice driver, ideally needs a tweeter though as it's about done by 14KHz. 206 is the better unit & certainly gets up high enough. Maybe not quite as good at the top end as the smaller units, but not half bad.
WRT the AN drivers, the cast frame units would be my choice from their range, and the 10in is probably the pick of the lot. The 12in really needs a very large cabinet to get the best out of it. Depends what you want to do, really.
WRT the AN drivers, the cast frame units would be my choice from their range, and the 10in is probably the pick of the lot. The 12in really needs a very large cabinet to get the best out of it. Depends what you want to do, really.
Scottmoose said:
Hello Scott!
So the 206 is the better way to go, huh? Maybe I misread something. Wouldn't be the first time.
What kind of top end extension can be expected with the 206 anyway? Is there anything that can improve the top end to get it close to the 103?
I'm still interested in the AN 10's, but more people around here know a lot more about the 206 than the AN drivers in general, so that kind of makes me lean towards the 206 more. Not to mention that I absolutely love the sound of the 103's already. I imagine in the proper enclosures with the proper tweaks, the 206 can sound just as good by itself, if not better.
BTW, doesn't Dave sell already modified Fostex drivers? I wouldn't feel comfortable doing mods to these drivers myself.
I have another quick question...
If I were to stay with small drivers (I do love the sound I'm getting from the 103's), would I be better off with the FE126E or FE127E?
The 126 has an extended top end and is also rated at 93dB whereas the 127 is 91dB. I know there's more at play here than just extension and efficiency, but I just wanted to point those out.
Again, I would be going along the lines of the Vampyr (double mouth horn) design.
Thanks!
If I were to stay with small drivers (I do love the sound I'm getting from the 103's), would I be better off with the FE126E or FE127E?
The 126 has an extended top end and is also rated at 93dB whereas the 127 is 91dB. I know there's more at play here than just extension and efficiency, but I just wanted to point those out.
Again, I would be going along the lines of the Vampyr (double mouth horn) design.
Thanks!
chops said:
Charles:
here we go again
There are more than enough well documented designs for both nominated drivers, including many with double mouths - indeed too many to keep track of, and I'm sure very few folks have had the opportunity to build or hear more than 3 or 4 together.
IINM, Scott would classify the Vampyr as a BVR not "horn" i.e. its DNA would be Chang, not Nagaoka?
All things being equal, in enclosures of approximately equal dimensions, and with loading/ foldings, etc optimized for their specific T/S parameters, they will still not sound the same - the 126 will be more dynamic, with a more forward presentation, particularly from about middle of mid-range on up.
The 127 will tend to be a bit more laid back, and smoother across a wider bandwidth.
Both drivers benefit substantially from the polka-dots / trifoil treatment; to my ears, the 126 more so than the 127, as the former has a generally rising top end with more pronounced peaks in the 3 -7 kHz range.
Single driver speakers tend to be even more transparent to the quality of the rest of the system, and synergy is not always predictable- nor can it be guaranteed by asset value, brand name pedigree or circuitry design.
FWIW, I preferred the 127 (over the 126) in the Curvey Harvey, as did most of the others who listened to the swap. But the 127 was also Enabl'd, if you happen to believe in the magic dots (as I do, albeit reluctantly 
).
It may have been that it was "more laid back, and smoother" - to me, it just sounded more musical. As you can see, I am not particularly analytic in these matters.
And the 127 was an improvement to a sound I already liked with the 126, so I don't think you'd go seriously wrong with either.
Regards.
Aengus
).It may have been that it was "more laid back, and smoother" - to me, it just sounded more musical. As you can see, I am not particularly analytic in these matters.
And the 127 was an improvement to a sound I already liked with the 126, so I don't think you'd go seriously wrong with either.
Regards.
Aengus
chrisb said:
Aengus said:FWIW, I preferred the 127 (over the 126) in the Curvey Harvey, as did most of the others who listened to the swap. But the 127 was also Enabl'd, if you happen to believe in the magic dots (as I do, albeit reluctantly
It may have been that it was "more laid back, and smoother" - to me, it just sounded more musical. As you can see, I am not particularly analytic in these matters.
And the 127 was an improvement to a sound I already liked with the 126, so I don't think you'd go seriously wrong with either.
Regards.
Aengus
Great points made by the both of you.
I guess what I was trying to get at with my question is that I don't want to stray too far away from the sound of the 103. A little warmer and fuller in the midrange and more dynamic overall would be nice, as long as the quality of treble would remain somewhat the same as to what I have now.
The thing is, I would love to go with a larger driver like the 167 or 207, but I'm not 100% sure I'd be happy with the stock driver sound from what I have read, and don't want to put down the $$$ for a modded version at the moment as I have too many other projects going ATM. At least if I go with either the 126 or 127, I pretty much know what I'm going to get which is probably a little better than what I already have with the 103's.
If anything, going with the 126/127 will be a good learning experience if nothing else as well as keeping project costs to a minimum. If after I build the horns, really like them and decide to keep heading further into the "single driver" direction, then I can plan things out a little better and go with better, modded drivers.
Charles - if I was to make a recommendation for a "next project" , it would be to try the 127 in whatever enclosure appeals to your aesthetic sensibilities / domestic considerations. If you're happy with what you're hearing from the 103s - I doubt you'll be disappointed.
Your questions in this thread have got me reflecting on my experience with 3 of the drivers on your list (i.e. 126 , 127 / 167) - the vintage Foster 103 Alnicos and RS 40-1197 are probably not representative of current FE103E, and frankly it's been at least 3 yrs since I've even heard any of them, and enclosure designs by Dave and Scott have certainly evolved during that time.
If I had to characterize the differences among the trio, the single word that comes to mind for the 127 is intimacy. All other buzzwords and tweak-speak aside, they are just more relaxing to sit down with for hours on end - in the first few months of living with the Fonkens, there was many a work-week night that it was well past 1:00Am before I headed off to bed.
In a much larger venue than a 200sq ft "cave", the FE167E can command attention, and the extra sensitivity and LF extension certainly come in handy, but it's never quite as open and finely resolved in the midrange as the 127.
For me, the 126 is initially impressive - very dynamic and forward, but less enjoyable over extended sessions that the 127.
I had only a couple of weeks with the F120A, and it was always enjoyable - but not without some issues for a fan of low powered SET amps.
It should be noted that all of the above named current production Fostex drivers have received some degree or other of aftermarket modification - specifically the early Planet10 "tri-foil/Puzzlecoat" mods to 126 127, up to the full-zoot EnABL treatment on all of them. It ain't "snake-oil" if it works.
Your questions in this thread have got me reflecting on my experience with 3 of the drivers on your list (i.e. 126 , 127 / 167) - the vintage Foster 103 Alnicos and RS 40-1197 are probably not representative of current FE103E, and frankly it's been at least 3 yrs since I've even heard any of them, and enclosure designs by Dave and Scott have certainly evolved during that time.
If I had to characterize the differences among the trio, the single word that comes to mind for the 127 is intimacy. All other buzzwords and tweak-speak aside, they are just more relaxing to sit down with for hours on end - in the first few months of living with the Fonkens, there was many a work-week night that it was well past 1:00Am before I headed off to bed.
In a much larger venue than a 200sq ft "cave", the FE167E can command attention, and the extra sensitivity and LF extension certainly come in handy, but it's never quite as open and finely resolved in the midrange as the 127.
For me, the 126 is initially impressive - very dynamic and forward, but less enjoyable over extended sessions that the 127.
I had only a couple of weeks with the F120A, and it was always enjoyable - but not without some issues for a fan of low powered SET amps.
It should be noted that all of the above named current production Fostex drivers have received some degree or other of aftermarket modification - specifically the early Planet10 "tri-foil/Puzzlecoat" mods to 126 127, up to the full-zoot EnABL treatment on all of them. It ain't "snake-oil" if it works.
From all the great input, I think I'm going to go with the 127's then. Seems like the most logical choice!
Now comes the question of which enclosure type and why. I do have a sub on tap and will also probably be building a pair of small "helper bass modules" with those CSS SDX7 drivers (two per side).
The good news is, I might have some help on building the enclosures, and if that's the case, the sky's the limit.
My main concern is getting a nice, full, natural sound out of these small drivers as possible, from the lower midbass on up (maybe from 100Hz on up?).
Any suggestions?
Now comes the question of which enclosure type and why. I do have a sub on tap and will also probably be building a pair of small "helper bass modules" with those CSS SDX7 drivers (two per side).
The good news is, I might have some help on building the enclosures, and if that's the case, the sky's the limit.
My main concern is getting a nice, full, natural sound out of these small drivers as possible, from the lower midbass on up (maybe from 100Hz on up?).
Any suggestions?
hello chops,
think about the 168es in a bib. very nice, the top end is a little bit rougher than the top end of the 108es, but over all, it's the better performer.
look at the bib thread here in the fullrange forum, there you can find lot's of info.
stunning what the 168es bib can do
... IF you are willing to experiment a lot with damping. personally, i don't have to look anymore for "my" speaker, at least not in the near future .
i also had to play with positioning quiet a lot, but after all, the combo is a no-brainer, you can't go wrong with it imho.
just my humble opinion
.
have a nice day
think about the 168es in a bib. very nice, the top end is a little bit rougher than the top end of the 108es, but over all, it's the better performer.
look at the bib thread here in the fullrange forum, there you can find lot's of info
.stunning what the 168es bib can do
... IF you are willing to experiment a lot with damping. personally, i don't have to look anymore for "my" speaker, at least not in the near future .i also had to play with positioning quiet a lot, but after all, the combo is a no-brainer, you can't go wrong with it imho.
just my humble opinion
.have a nice day
chops said:
For the FE127E?
Why yes, I might just have a suggestion
Fonken + Fonken-woof (2 SDX7's per side)
The plans for the former are on the site, you'll need to contact Dave for the drawings for the latter. It was designed as a stand for the Fonkens, and has the same footprint.
100Hz works very well indeed for this combo- it just happened to be the turnover of an old active XO (Ace Audio) that was lying around. EL84 SE on the 127s and some generic SS workhorse on the bottom, fills a huge room quite easily.
shouldn't be long before Dave posts a photo of this pair
chops said:
I.m listening to Fonkens biamped with FonkenWoofTL as we speak... next i'm probably going to try sealed.
Measures show the TL only gives a little more extension than the Fonkens by themselves but they sure do give a lot more weight and the mid/top gets better with the bottom-end relief on the 127
dave
chops said:
If you consider that "Fonken" was originally flippantly coined to refer to a particular enclosure loading format using Fostex drivers, then technically it's probably incorrect to call it that.
OTOH, as the particular dual SDX7 enclosure in question was specifically designed to cosmetically integrate with the Fonken, how could you not?
I'm guessing, Dave, that a sealed version would allow for somewhat of a reduction in overall height of the woofer enclosure. As it is, the TL cabinet does place the FE127 a bit higher than some might want.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.