Scottmoose said:
No biggie.
Other than it takes a bigger man to apologize for a misunderstanding than to ignore one; so hats off to you.
Uh, yeah.Scottmoose said:
These have been a learning experience, and never what was expected.
Everything's an experiment, may work, may not.
but--
I didn't expect them to sound as good as they did in the HDT cabs.
Or as bad in the sealed boxes (now bird houses).
Much less worse in BVRs.
Wasn't surprised the peaks were there, was surprised they were as annoying as they were.
Was very apprehensive about putting "all that junk" in the signal path to deal with it-- notch filter & crossover then adding tweeter.
Keep reading (like on this forum) how filters "take the life out of speakers."
They smoothed out the peaks, the mid-highs are ok now.
(It's set-up so just the 138 can be plugged in, or with the filter and/or crossover, or tweeter, all separate).
Didn't "take the life out," just the harshness.
As Robert said in the first post; they definitely reminded me "...just how much there is to learn in audio, and how important the, um, listening part is.
chrisb said:
I obviously can't know "if/when/how Deb & I may get the 138s to work to our satisfaction."
I read that and was wondering what "to our satisfaction" would entail...
Probably being able to listen to more than one song without wanting to change speakers.
The yardstick I've been using lately as to whether Deb likes something is how long it is before she ask "when can you put the swans back in?"
Don't know what it would take for me to be "satisfied" with them though.
I was wanting them to be the best fullrange speakers I had.
Something for simple music, played @ low level, like late @ nite.
Something to replace the other fullrangers, so I could concentrate on the horns.
But @ this point, they're the most expensive, and a noticeable step down sonically, for any type of music, with any amp, in any room...
Don't know what "other folks issues or expectations" might be;
guess I'm comparing to what's already in the room.
e.g. Roberts Enabled FE127s were so much nicer, there was no comparison.
Fair to compare value / sound of Enabled FE127s w/ 108s, but yeah, I "expected" 138s to be better, not worse.
serenechaos said:
Indeed, based on paper, and pictures, on the generally very positive reception of the special editions of FE108, FE166, FE206, Clark's (initial) comments on his FE208eSR, my experiences with various standard Fostex, making the call that the FE138eSR might well be the best driver Fostex has ever made, seems to have been a bad guess (based on some people's comments anyway)
It is interesting that after Clark came back from his sojourn (sp?) to Feastrex, after re-evaluating the FE208eSR he has made similar comments about how the character of these has been pushed too much towards the character of many "damish" school drivers and have lost that thing that gives Fostex drivers their "life"
That said i still hope at some time, i get a chance to hear and muck with a set of these. Even as a possible step backwards there is stuff to be learned from them.
dave
True.
Based on prior experience / knowledge there certainly was a possibility that they would be Fostex's best yet; I'd say you were completely justified in forwarding the possibility Dave.
FWIW, I haven't seen any FR plots of these units, aside from the Fostex published one, so some of those annoying peaks reported are very likely the small bumps to be seen on the graph. I don't think my guess will be very far off if I say that those are likely to be substantially greater in reality.
If they go in a resonant tube (say, a Nessie), may I tentatively suggest two things.
1/ don't try tuning them too low (40Hz would be more than sufficient), and
2/ Make sure they have sufficient Vp. 54 litres would do nicely. Just my opinion of course. Won't do anything to solve the problems in the midband / HF, but they should have plenty of gain.
Based on prior experience / knowledge there certainly was a possibility that they would be Fostex's best yet; I'd say you were completely justified in forwarding the possibility Dave.
FWIW, I haven't seen any FR plots of these units, aside from the Fostex published one, so some of those annoying peaks reported are very likely the small bumps to be seen on the graph. I don't think my guess will be very far off if I say that those are likely to be substantially greater in reality.
If they go in a resonant tube (say, a Nessie), may I tentatively suggest two things.
1/ don't try tuning them too low (40Hz would be more than sufficient), and
2/ Make sure they have sufficient Vp. 54 litres would do nicely. Just my opinion of course. Won't do anything to solve the problems in the midband / HF, but they should have plenty of gain.
planet10 said:
hey, I'm not blaming dave for my decision!
I'm just saying his guess is more experienced than mine!
Still doesn't mean it was a bad call.
Just my (& listeners last weekend's) observations.
Other posters seemed to like them.
whew!
40Hz would align w/ a room mode...
am planning to try to go around them, tune for nulls.
serenechaos said:
Makes sense. Tuning shouldn't be too hard; just a matter of selecting whatever frequency / length works for your needs. FWIW though, if you do go down the Nessie style route, I suggest you go with roughly the bulk I mentioned -you could get by with a bit less, but you'd loose out on some gain; much more will probably just mean you need more damping to calm things down. YMMV as always of course.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.