Finished
At Last... Many thanks to Scottmouse ,this is a great sounding design !! Powered them up yesterday to my Push pull 6CA7 Mono Blocks.Vocals are very very detailed bass is fine good down to 40hz or so .The most astonishing bit is the treble,very detailed sparkley sounding,better than i was expecting.They have a bit of an issue with some recordings in that the midrange can sound alittle bit harsh.I ran them in only for about 80 hours as i went away so i think they will improve abitwith use.I know your Supposed to use SET amps with these so i might build one latter in the year.My only question being how long will these take to smooth out alittle ? They are so much more open though than my Revels. I'm hearing much more in my music than before.Thanks all you other guys who have helped me on this journey in the land of the Horn.......James
Ps, sound staging and imaging are the best ive ever heard from any speaker,great focus too fantastic stage depth...wow
At Last... Many thanks to Scottmouse ,this is a great sounding design !! Powered them up yesterday to my Push pull 6CA7 Mono Blocks.Vocals are very very detailed bass is fine good down to 40hz or so .The most astonishing bit is the treble,very detailed sparkley sounding,better than i was expecting.They have a bit of an issue with some recordings in that the midrange can sound alittle bit harsh.I ran them in only for about 80 hours as i went away so i think they will improve abitwith use.I know your Supposed to use SET amps with these so i might build one latter in the year.My only question being how long will these take to smooth out alittle ? They are so much more open though than my Revels. I'm hearing much more in my music than before.Thanks all you other guys who have helped me on this journey in the land of the Horn.......James
Ps, sound staging and imaging are the best ive ever heard from any speaker,great focus too fantastic stage depth...wow
Attachments
harshness?
Hi James, I found my 168e sigmas BIBs a bit strident at times but with a few hundred hours on them now I have forgotten that issue completely. Even with a SS amp and up to quite high volumes I would now never describe any aspect of their sound as harsh...they are very smooth. I think it was GM who said about a 1000 hrs would do it, and even then I think they will probably continue to improve.
I'm interested in the specs of your boxes, are they the FE167e Chilli Changs with different port dims or are there other changes to the boxes?
How far do you find you need to be from them for the soundstage to gel? I have a smallish room...only about 11ft across and thats the way the speakers fire and I wonder whetner this design will fit sonically. Also can anybody tell me what the sonic difference between the half and full Chang designs would be? Anyway yours look really good James, regards, Andrew
Hi James, I found my 168e sigmas BIBs a bit strident at times but with a few hundred hours on them now I have forgotten that issue completely. Even with a SS amp and up to quite high volumes I would now never describe any aspect of their sound as harsh...they are very smooth. I think it was GM who said about a 1000 hrs would do it, and even then I think they will probably continue to improve.
I'm interested in the specs of your boxes, are they the FE167e Chilli Changs with different port dims or are there other changes to the boxes?
How far do you find you need to be from them for the soundstage to gel? I have a smallish room...only about 11ft across and thats the way the speakers fire and I wonder whetner this design will fit sonically. Also can anybody tell me what the sonic difference between the half and full Chang designs would be? Anyway yours look really good James, regards, Andrew
Other changes -James's are a different cabinet.
Completely different presentation with the single or MTM configured cabinets in height, general scale soundstage depth, imaging etc. 11ft width if you're firing across the room might just do it, at a squeeze, although I'd suggest more myself.
The Sigmas will take a goodly while to fully come up to speed -they generally need a little longer than the regular models. Glad you like them James.
Completely different presentation with the single or MTM configured cabinets in height, general scale soundstage depth, imaging etc. 11ft width if you're firing across the room might just do it, at a squeeze, although I'd suggest more myself.
The Sigmas will take a goodly while to fully come up to speed -they generally need a little longer than the regular models. Glad you like them James.
Chillichangs
Hi pebbles,my boxes are a little different to the drawing ,i reduced the throat length abit and also cut my side panels to the shape of the top horn mouth as i think it looks less boxy.I sit around 12 foot away and the sound stage is realy excelent so i think you will be ok.I think its also important to sit at ear level with the drivers.That one reason i built the plinths ....James
Hi pebbles,my boxes are a little different to the drawing ,i reduced the throat length abit and also cut my side panels to the shape of the top horn mouth as i think it looks less boxy.I sit around 12 foot away and the sound stage is realy excelent so i think you will be ok.I think its also important to sit at ear level with the drivers.That one reason i built the plinths ....James
Nice ones, James
I have built a pair of 168eSigma Changs myself:
Ceinwyn
Dimensions where given to me by Scott but from the look of things yours are different than mine (especially the reflectors are much further from the vents in your case).
Scott can you tell a little more about these differences?
I have built a pair of 168eSigma Changs myself:
Ceinwyn
Dimensions where given to me by Scott but from the look of things yours are different than mine (especially the reflectors are much further from the vents in your case).
Scott can you tell a little more about these differences?
Chili changs
Hi Peter.I was going to build the KimChi Changs but the 168 sigma wouldnt fit in the baffle because of the curved sides.Scottmouse sugested i use the standard Straight fronted Chilli changs with shorter 1.5 inch throats.Aparentley these cabinates are quite forgiving with different drivers.Mine realy sound supereb stunning imagery and depth.nice bass too ...james
Hi Peter.I was going to build the KimChi Changs but the 168 sigma wouldnt fit in the baffle because of the curved sides.Scottmouse sugested i use the standard Straight fronted Chilli changs with shorter 1.5 inch throats.Aparentley these cabinates are quite forgiving with different drivers.Mine realy sound supereb stunning imagery and depth.nice bass too ...james
Hi
James love the look of your speakers, wish I'd used veneer on mine, instead of grey ubdercoat!
I'd like to add a view of the Curvy Changs (which would probebly be the same with the KimChi's). I have lived with a pair of Curvy Changs for nearly a year now, driven by approx 6-8W SE EL34 monoblocks. My current listening room is 4.5m x 3.5m x 9'6" ceiling. Due to its dual function most of my listening is done with the speakers on the long wall firing across the narrow wall, listening position about 3m (the wrong way). Even in this position they are a very enjoyable speaker, I think Scottmoose and Ronc would be surprised at how forgiving the focused sound is to both room dimensions (within limits) and placement. Though as a caveat, you do have to sit dead centre, go of centre and the sound goes almost mono. As a bonus though I can re-arange the room and place the speakers in the reomended position (due to the domestic mayhem I dont get to do it as often as I'd like) they are quite a listening experience. Its like having 8 foot earphones but with none of the enclosed fealing. As Scott siad it's a cigar and best port moment.
James love the look of your speakers, wish I'd used veneer on mine, instead of grey ubdercoat!
I'd like to add a view of the Curvy Changs (which would probebly be the same with the KimChi's). I have lived with a pair of Curvy Changs for nearly a year now, driven by approx 6-8W SE EL34 monoblocks. My current listening room is 4.5m x 3.5m x 9'6" ceiling. Due to its dual function most of my listening is done with the speakers on the long wall firing across the narrow wall, listening position about 3m (the wrong way). Even in this position they are a very enjoyable speaker, I think Scottmoose and Ronc would be surprised at how forgiving the focused sound is to both room dimensions (within limits) and placement. Though as a caveat, you do have to sit dead centre, go of centre and the sound goes almost mono. As a bonus though I can re-arange the room and place the speakers in the reomended position (due to the domestic mayhem I dont get to do it as often as I'd like) they are quite a listening experience. Its like having 8 foot earphones but with none of the enclosed fealing. As Scott siad it's a cigar and best port moment.
Just when I thought that Ceinwynwas the perfect ticket to Fostex168Sigmas, I now read that theChilli Changs may be better.
My room will allow for the speakers to be 5 to 6 feet apart and my listening distance would be 8 to 10 feet from the speakers.
Which is the most suited design for these cramped conditions?
Thanks,
My room will allow for the speakers to be 5 to 6 feet apart and my listening distance would be 8 to 10 feet from the speakers.
Which is the most suited design for these cramped conditions?
Thanks,
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.