hm
MCM 55-1200. A 'wide range' rather than quite 'full' but very smooth
http://www.geocities.com/gordonwaters/Speaker_specs.html 2nd or 3rd down
MCM 55-1200. A 'wide range' rather than quite 'full' but very smooth
http://www.geocities.com/gordonwaters/Speaker_specs.html 2nd or 3rd down
larkinrulez said:
The stock FE127 tends to be dominated by the paek around 7k. Even if the peak doesn't obviously get in the way of your listening i found it caused fatigue after a while, The FX120 is baby bottom smooth. Once you get over the "false detail" that the peak in the FE127 has, the FX120 also shows that it has greater low level resolution. This quite possibly has to do with the cone treatment that comes stock on the FX120 -- if i had to guess, some sort of borasilicate substance, akin to what Totem paints on the inside of their boxes. The coating looks to have fine sand embedded in it. It also goes lower, and probably higher.
Ignoring a couple dB less efficiency FX120 is a fair step up from stock FE127e.
A fully treated FE127eN on the other hand has the edge on the FX120 as far as downward dynamic range and detail retrieval goes (again to an extent fue to the squashing of the cone's self-noise). The peakiness , althou suppressed to a great extent is still there. Listeners generally chhose the FE127eN over the stock FX120, as the FX120 sounds "fuzzy" in direct comparison.
Solid evaluation of a treated FX120 (FX120eN) has been slowed down by clients scooping up my prototypes before we can do really serious eval -- they are very promising thou. Another pair is nearing the finish line on my bench, and plans for a 2nd iteration FonkenFX have been sent off to Chris to be built (short of an early concept for a biFonken, this will be the trickest Fonken yet to build, and will be exploring new territory)
dave
FE108ES II as far as "out-of-the-box", although I hope the FE138ES-R will be smoother when it breaks in.
The 108 took a few hundred hours to really loosen up.
Maybe enabling would help?
The FE166ES-R was rough on top without damping the basket & the gauze on the whizzer.
That smoothed it out a lot.
Robert
The 108 took a few hundred hours to really loosen up.
Maybe enabling would help?
The FE166ES-R was rough on top without damping the basket & the gauze on the whizzer.
That smoothed it out a lot.
Robert
For me, the FE166ES-R's, once they broke in, became creamy-smooth as hand-churned butter. They have a sweetness that I haven't heard elsewhere, regardless of price.
I'm breaking in some FE208-Sigmas in Bob Brines' LT-2000 cabs, and they amaze with their LF. The bass is fantastic, and the midrange is beauteous. But while they exceeded my expectations, they still aren't as silky-smooth as the FE166ES-R's.
I don't think I could ever settle down with a single set of drivers -- many drivers do a certain trick exceedingly well. I haven't heard a single "best" driver yet. Every driver represents a different set of trade-offs.
I'm breaking in some FE208-Sigmas in Bob Brines' LT-2000 cabs, and they amaze with their LF. The bass is fantastic, and the midrange is beauteous. But while they exceeded my expectations, they still aren't as silky-smooth as the FE166ES-R's.
I don't think I could ever settle down with a single set of drivers -- many drivers do a certain trick exceedingly well. I haven't heard a single "best" driver yet. Every driver represents a different set of trade-offs.
rjbond3rd said:
That's what I thought when I heard the MaxxHorns & 9" Feastex drivers @ RMAF...
FE166ES-R's, tweaked & broken in, were what I was used to listening to every day; they had become the "standard," and it was suprising to hear so many things, so highly priced (and acclaimed) sounding "rougher," with less bass & body.
(Ron Clarke's Austin 166 helps on the last parts).
The 5" Feastex in the Nessie cabs were still by far the best single driver speakers I've ever heard, but this thread is about what you own, not what you've heard...
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.