You are correct abput the 208ss, it looked like a 208 Sigma but with a larger dual magnet motor. There was also the 208es which had a similar double magnet motor but it was more poweful. Neither of these were special in the materials used in the motor assemblies a.f.a.i.k.
This is purely conjecture on my part but I think if we over here in the West want to have a chance at getting these J.D.M. drivers in thew future we better buy out the 170 pairs available from Madisound. Why do I believe Madisound really went all out in trying to get these 166ES-R's?
I had forgotten about the brass rings, I understand their purpose but as you say the price! I wanted to get a pair to try but cannot justify the cost.
Andrew
This is purely conjecture on my part but I think if we over here in the West want to have a chance at getting these J.D.M. drivers in thew future we better buy out the 170 pairs available from Madisound. Why do I believe Madisound really went all out in trying to get these 166ES-R's?
I had forgotten about the brass rings, I understand their purpose but as you say the price! I wanted to get a pair to try but cannot justify the cost.
Andrew
Andrew - it's Chistmas buy yourself a present and worry about "buyers remorse" later - you deserve it.
I had planned a back loaded horn project for later 2005 but why miss an opportunity to try this "gem"? You'll regret not placing an pre-order when we all start reporting results in a few months!
I had planned a back loaded horn project for later 2005 but why miss an opportunity to try this "gem"? You'll regret not placing an pre-order when we all start reporting results in a few months!
Thanks guys,
I was trying to talk myself into buying 2 pairs today (i enjoy speaking to intelligent people)
but somehow still cannot convice myself. I realize I could always sell them if I wanted to but they are not really what I want.
All I want for Christmas is a new FE208ES replacement ta la la la la la la la laaaaa.....
Andrew
I was trying to talk myself into buying 2 pairs today (i enjoy speaking to intelligent people)
but somehow still cannot convice myself. I realize I could always sell them if I wanted to but they are not really what I want.All I want for Christmas is a new FE208ES replacement ta la la la la la la la laaaaa.....
Andrew
Illusus said:
You are on the right track in that line of thinking IMO, however you may find that "as large as will fit through the door' may be inbadequately small as I did with a similar dilema based on basement stairs. In my situation I opted to make the large full-range horns in two pieces that could fit the available passageway and once in their home position be simply bolted together.
Married guys don't often get 'permission' to "build anything you want", so I wouldn't waste this opportunity to do something really spectacular!
don't show her a picture of these:
http://www.firstwatt.com/images/current_amps/lowther_dx55_kline.PDF
http://www.firstwatt.com/images/current_amps/lowther_dx55_kline.PDF
heh, kleinhorns are damn huge.
Just big enough to fit through my door is perfect for me...our place is fairly small, I don't want to put anything too big in here (I know too big is kind of an oxymoron to most). Actually my wife is pretty understanding about these things, more so than anybody I've met so far. I don't like designing in my shop so I usually have stuff strewn all over the living room, drafting supplies, cardboard mock ups...etc. she's cool with it all.
I'm probably going to stick with 6' maybe 7' tall, 4' deep, 3' -4' wide...something like that should be as obtrusive as I will allow in this apartament (laff).
Just big enough to fit through my door is perfect for me...our place is fairly small, I don't want to put anything too big in here (I know too big is kind of an oxymoron to most). Actually my wife is pretty understanding about these things, more so than anybody I've met so far. I don't like designing in my shop so I usually have stuff strewn all over the living room, drafting supplies, cardboard mock ups...etc. she's cool with it all.
I'm probably going to stick with 6' maybe 7' tall, 4' deep, 3' -4' wide...something like that should be as obtrusive as I will allow in this apartament (laff).
How about something like TC's I-BEN?
http://www.cain-cain.com/I-BEN/index.html
I'd kind'a like to see this with glass panals on the sides to show the "horn" profile. (should also make the speakers less visually imposing but a LOT heavier..)
http://www.cain-cain.com/I-BEN/index.html
I'd kind'a like to see this with glass panals on the sides to show the "horn" profile. (should also make the speakers less visually imposing but a LOT heavier..)
Newbie Question
I was thinking of buying the BK-16 kit but after seeing the promo and reading this thread, I've decided to give them a try. Since this is my very first speaker project, I'm going to build the Fostex cabinets and see where that gets me. I've done a few reasonably-sized woodworking projects and have the necessary tools, or access to them, so this should be fun.
Here's my newbie question: The specs for this driver state the frequency response as fs - 22KHz. What is fs?
Thanks
I was thinking of buying the BK-16 kit but after seeing the promo and reading this thread, I've decided to give them a try. Since this is my very first speaker project, I'm going to build the Fostex cabinets and see where that gets me. I've done a few reasonably-sized woodworking projects and have the necessary tools, or access to them, so this should be fun.
Here's my newbie question: The specs for this driver state the frequency response as fs - 22KHz. What is fs?
Thanks
From what I can tell, fs is 50Hz. Check out this google translation of a Japanese webpage on the FE166ES-R.
I was looking for alternate cabinet ideas in my post, but for some reason got no response. Maybe I should have posted that question to the fullrage forum instead?
I was looking for alternate cabinet ideas in my post, but for some reason got no response. Maybe I should have posted that question to the fullrage forum instead?
I modeled various MLTLs configurations using Martin King's Math Cad worksheets for this driver and found some that would work, although series resistance will be most likely be required to smooth it out. Best box IMO, was about 22" high x 6" deep X 12" wide with 2" diameter 3" long port and 3 ohm series resistance which yeilded an F3 of about 60 Hz.
I am going to build the factory recommended horn as I think an MLTL will suck the life out of this driver.
Bill
I am going to build the factory recommended horn as I think an MLTL will suck the life out of this driver.
Bill
I've read some of Martin's writings and find his work to be intriguing. For now, I don't want anything between the amp and driver and don't have the tools or experience to test, measure, and refine the design. Since this is my first project, I've decided to go with the recommended cabinet for the sake of simplicity and to keep the sensitivity as high as possible.
In sourcing parts, I've come across the Spectra Dynamics Deflex Panels and Magnapads (sounds like something my wife would use). Are these good choices for the one small section of the box that calls for damping or is hollofil a better choice? The concept sounds great but I wonder about overdamping.
In sourcing parts, I've come across the Spectra Dynamics Deflex Panels and Magnapads (sounds like something my wife would use). Are these good choices for the one small section of the box that calls for damping or is hollofil a better choice? The concept sounds great but I wonder about overdamping.
Badwater: Thanks for the comments on MLTL. I think I'll stick with the horn as well, at least to start.
As far as the damping material goes, you only need to soak up the reflections from that panel so they don't go straight back out through the driver cone... hollofil woudn't soak up enough HF, and would add acoustic resistance to the path of the LF waves in there. Deflex / magnapads aren't really the right sort of treatment, either. Felt padding is probably what's intended. I figure I'll use a good acoustic foam, possibly with a mass damping layer ... Something like blackhole 5 or one of the BH5 clones like whispermat or Sonic Barrier from parts express.
As far as the damping material goes, you only need to soak up the reflections from that panel so they don't go straight back out through the driver cone... hollofil woudn't soak up enough HF, and would add acoustic resistance to the path of the LF waves in there. Deflex / magnapads aren't really the right sort of treatment, either. Felt padding is probably what's intended. I figure I'll use a good acoustic foam, possibly with a mass damping layer ... Something like blackhole 5 or one of the BH5 clones like whispermat or Sonic Barrier from parts express.
I have decided to build an MLTL using this driver rather than a horn. The horn is still a possibility, but probably well into the future. I modeled various alignments using MJK's mathcad worksheets and have settled on the following:
42" high
6" deep
12" wide
Drive located 14" from the top
Port 2" diameter x 3/4" (I will continue to model to see if I can increase the size to 3" diameter) Port is located 36" from the top
3 ohm series resistance.
Nominal stuffing - 0.1#/ft3 I will probably just lline the top and walls to about 18" down from the top.
This alignment will require BSC. In designing the BSC I will take my lead from Bob Briens and the work that he did on his FT1600 MK2, which is very similiar to what I plan to do.
The F3 is about 40Hz (see link for a scan of the modeling results). Based on other speakers that I have built using Martin's worksheets this should be an outstanding performer.
Bill
http://community.webshots.com/photo/251736373/251739382jjfKdF
42" high
6" deep
12" wide
Drive located 14" from the top
Port 2" diameter x 3/4" (I will continue to model to see if I can increase the size to 3" diameter) Port is located 36" from the top
3 ohm series resistance.
Nominal stuffing - 0.1#/ft3 I will probably just lline the top and walls to about 18" down from the top.
This alignment will require BSC. In designing the BSC I will take my lead from Bob Briens and the work that he did on his FT1600 MK2, which is very similiar to what I plan to do.
The F3 is about 40Hz (see link for a scan of the modeling results). Based on other speakers that I have built using Martin's worksheets this should be an outstanding performer.
Bill
http://community.webshots.com/photo/251736373/251739382jjfKdF
Hi Scott,
I find you point out some interesting things about the differences in magnet quality and strength. One thing that has surprised me for a while is that some people overlook this point and suggest for example the fe-“XX7” series without considering that on the right alignment the bigger magnet “XX6” series should have advantages.
I don`t know how the parameters are actually derived, but it seems to me that BL, Sd Sensitivity and Moving Mass should be taken together in consideration (they are almost certainly not independent of each other). If BL is large but also the Mass no more control should be gained as on the same proportion and smaller absolute values. This ratio by the way is particularly high on the ff85 and fe126. I could only speculate a little about how to integrate Sd , sensbility or other parameters in to a general parameter that could reflect the theoretical magnet related qualities of a driver.
I would really appreciate if you could keep us up to date with your new 166s and any commets you have on the things I mentioned above.
Regards, Sebastian
I find you point out some interesting things about the differences in magnet quality and strength. One thing that has surprised me for a while is that some people overlook this point and suggest for example the fe-“XX7” series without considering that on the right alignment the bigger magnet “XX6” series should have advantages.
I don`t know how the parameters are actually derived, but it seems to me that BL, Sd Sensitivity and Moving Mass should be taken together in consideration (they are almost certainly not independent of each other). If BL is large but also the Mass no more control should be gained as on the same proportion and smaller absolute values. This ratio by the way is particularly high on the ff85 and fe126. I could only speculate a little about how to integrate Sd , sensbility or other parameters in to a general parameter that could reflect the theoretical magnet related qualities of a driver.
I would really appreciate if you could keep us up to date with your new 166s and any commets you have on the things I mentioned above.
Regards, Sebastian
Magnet Gauss is just a parameter of the magnet itself (not of the speaker), but it does relate directly to "B" (magnetic flux density in the magnetic gap) of the speaker. "l" is only the length of the voice coil wire in the magnetic gap, but again it relates to how much the magnetic field in the gap effects the voice coil.
A decent source of information on the relationship can be found here:
http://www.epanorama.net/documents/audio/speaker_impedance.html
An important factor that the writer fails to mention is that as "l" is increased so is inductance (because of the "turns" in the voice coil wire" which will limit high freq. extension to some extent. (Just as using an inductor in the crossover exhibits a low-pass function.) This can however be reduced via a second VC wire wound oppositly alternating between turns (i.e. Aryton-Perry windings).
Remember that Eff. and Sensetivity are NOT the same things, Eff. is the important measure. BUT Eff. is essentially a "by-product" of the other measures. There are only 3 reasons to look at Eff. as determinitive of sound quality:
1. Max driver SPL
2. Driver related distortion as it relates to increases due to thermal compression (AND physical excursion because fs is usually lowered because of increased mass).
3. Amplifier choices.
(all 3 are related to amp gain)
So removing the element of sensetivity (or of actually eff.), lets look at the other aspects you mentioned as they relate to sound quality..
Bl per se relates to voice coil control, however this does not neccesarily imply that increased Bl (even for a given mms) will result in more accurate "cone control". There are a lot of other driver specific mechanical factors to account for.
With the above caution stated, yes greater Bl for a given mms will exhibit greater "cone control" than the same driver (with out it) - AT LEAST WITH RESPECT TO THE INITIAL "PULSE" of the signal in its linear range of motion from a "pistonic perspective"*.
As you and others have guessed, this is very important to sound reproduction. Graphically the "rise" (or "leading edge") of the signal can be seen in a detailed impulse response. The faster the better. Both the "rise" and the "decay" (or "trailing edge") can be seen in a CSD (cummulative spectral decay) plot. The important thing to note here with respect to rise and decay is the level of each (vs. freq.) on those few U-seconds of a millisecond display. Significantly delayed energy levels (harmonic distortion) are also important, but these represent a qualitative difference in sound reproduction. The trouble is that most designers (even highly respected ones), attach the same signifigance to the "intial" decay and the "trailing" decay (or harmonic distortion - aka stored energy being released). It isn't the same, and the alteration of sound quality isn't either.
As always there is give and take in a speaker's design. In many cases the initial "rise" and "decay" will be sacrificed so that the driver can have a lower fs and/or a better (lower) harmonic decay. (Usually done by dampening the cone.) In some cases the trade-off is probably worth it. I can think of one highly regarded driver that that is far better served by slight cone dampening, decreased "l", and a lower gauss magnet: The Supravox sig. 215 Bicone vs. the normal 215 bicone. Take a look at the differences between the two here:
http://www.supravox.fr/les_hp.htm
Notice that the decay of the signiture is a LOT better than the non-signiture.
So again, there is no magic parameter to look at.
(*note that most drivers do not operate in a pistonic method, instead most are forms of bending wave drivers over most of their operating range. Sd (or surface diameter) plays a part here because typically the driver's membrane/cone profile (or thickness) generally isn't the same over the entire surface area OR most certainly isn't the same with respect to its compliance/rigidity. This effects the "rise" and "decay" factors mentioned above relative to freq.. Sd also relates to x-max which can also effect a driver.)
I'll post here when I get the 166esr's. Hopefully I'll get Louddpeaker Lab running on my lap-top so I can measure them (and some other drivers I received recently). Even if I do though, I don't have a normal 166 to compare them to.
A decent source of information on the relationship can be found here:
http://www.epanorama.net/documents/audio/speaker_impedance.html
An important factor that the writer fails to mention is that as "l" is increased so is inductance (because of the "turns" in the voice coil wire" which will limit high freq. extension to some extent. (Just as using an inductor in the crossover exhibits a low-pass function.) This can however be reduced via a second VC wire wound oppositly alternating between turns (i.e. Aryton-Perry windings).
Remember that Eff. and Sensetivity are NOT the same things, Eff. is the important measure. BUT Eff. is essentially a "by-product" of the other measures. There are only 3 reasons to look at Eff. as determinitive of sound quality:
1. Max driver SPL
2. Driver related distortion as it relates to increases due to thermal compression (AND physical excursion because fs is usually lowered because of increased mass).
3. Amplifier choices.
(all 3 are related to amp gain)
So removing the element of sensetivity (or of actually eff.), lets look at the other aspects you mentioned as they relate to sound quality..
Bl per se relates to voice coil control, however this does not neccesarily imply that increased Bl (even for a given mms) will result in more accurate "cone control". There are a lot of other driver specific mechanical factors to account for.
With the above caution stated, yes greater Bl for a given mms will exhibit greater "cone control" than the same driver (with out it) - AT LEAST WITH RESPECT TO THE INITIAL "PULSE" of the signal in its linear range of motion from a "pistonic perspective"*.
As you and others have guessed, this is very important to sound reproduction. Graphically the "rise" (or "leading edge") of the signal can be seen in a detailed impulse response. The faster the better. Both the "rise" and the "decay" (or "trailing edge") can be seen in a CSD (cummulative spectral decay) plot. The important thing to note here with respect to rise and decay is the level of each (vs. freq.) on those few U-seconds of a millisecond display. Significantly delayed energy levels (harmonic distortion) are also important, but these represent a qualitative difference in sound reproduction. The trouble is that most designers (even highly respected ones), attach the same signifigance to the "intial" decay and the "trailing" decay (or harmonic distortion - aka stored energy being released). It isn't the same, and the alteration of sound quality isn't either.
As always there is give and take in a speaker's design. In many cases the initial "rise" and "decay" will be sacrificed so that the driver can have a lower fs and/or a better (lower) harmonic decay. (Usually done by dampening the cone.) In some cases the trade-off is probably worth it. I can think of one highly regarded driver that that is far better served by slight cone dampening, decreased "l", and a lower gauss magnet: The Supravox sig. 215 Bicone vs. the normal 215 bicone. Take a look at the differences between the two here:
http://www.supravox.fr/les_hp.htm
Notice that the decay of the signiture is a LOT better than the non-signiture.
So again, there is no magic parameter to look at.
(*note that most drivers do not operate in a pistonic method, instead most are forms of bending wave drivers over most of their operating range. Sd (or surface diameter) plays a part here because typically the driver's membrane/cone profile (or thickness) generally isn't the same over the entire surface area OR most certainly isn't the same with respect to its compliance/rigidity. This effects the "rise" and "decay" factors mentioned above relative to freq.. Sd also relates to x-max which can also effect a driver.)
I'll post here when I get the 166esr's. Hopefully I'll get Louddpeaker Lab running on my lap-top so I can measure them (and some other drivers I received recently). Even if I do though, I don't have a normal 166 to compare them to.
Thanks for your reply Scott.
I dont have the time to reply now, I only want to say there is this page ( in french) you might or might not find interesting. It develops a statistical parameter for as a quality indicator for a driver. Might be worth giving it a look, perhaps with some translator if you dont read french.
http://pageperso.aol.fr/petoindominique/doc_htm/hp.htm#bl
go to "Critère qualité HP"
I dont have the time to reply now, I only want to say there is this page ( in french) you might or might not find interesting. It develops a statistical parameter for as a quality indicator for a driver. Might be worth giving it a look, perhaps with some translator if you dont read french.
http://pageperso.aol.fr/petoindominique/doc_htm/hp.htm#bl
go to "Critère qualité HP"
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.