pebbles said:
Greets!
From a technical POV, low power = low dynamic headroom = high efficiency system required or lower average SPL, so if you have a small room and sit relatively close to them and/or only listen to chamber music and/or highly compressed music like R&R you typically don't need a lot of either. Many folks though actually prefer a certain amount of euphonic distortion to add some 'fullness' to a CD's typically 'dry' recording and how they get it is a highly subjective choice, so no real consensus. Personally, I want all the dynamic headroom and gain BW I can get, so starting with several hundred watts of extremely low distortion, ultra wide BW, low (or preferably, no) -fb SS power to drive >100 dB efficient speakers and load it down as required with some form of series resistance to EQ it seems a perfectly reasonable way to get it, while at the other extreme, others find flea powered, severely BW limited, high audible distortion amps a synergistic mate to 'fullrange' and horn loaded systems, with most folks falling somewhere in-between.
As for the cab being used as a musical instrument or not, this has the same subjective caveats as the type of signal system preferred, so while I want the cab to be neutral and only providing a stable 'work platform' for the driver(s), some folks use them to further damp the system and others use it to add 'fullness'.
Bottom line, like the rest of us you'll have to experiment to find your own audio 'Nirvana'.
GM
Hi all, thanks for your answers Scott and GM but could I get you to tease out your answers a bit. Scott, when you say the 168 Sig is a better driver do you mean in a BIB and in what way(s) would it outdo the FF165K? In my room I think either design will give heaps of bass and I would gladly sacrifice a few lowend Hz for quality further up.
GM, could you explain in lay terms why an amp may need to be EQd with series resistance when driving these loads?
On another issue; as these drivers seem to take an eternity to run in would hanging them in free air and running music or test tones through them while I build the boxes be worthwhile or would it be better to put them in some sort of box to load them more?
Soon I hope to be able to use this symbol (build rather than smash!)
Regards, Andrew
GM, could you explain in lay terms why an amp may need to be EQd with series resistance when driving these loads?
On another issue; as these drivers seem to take an eternity to run in would hanging them in free air and running music or test tones through them while I build the boxes be worthwhile or would it be better to put them in some sort of box to load them more?
Soon I hope to be able to use this symbol (build rather than smash!)
Regards, Andrew
No, I mean it's a better driver, period. As it should be for double the price. Better doesn mean more extension (though the ESigma will go higher -maybe not quite as low) -it's a much more solid frame, greater linear excursion, the shaped cone & surround etc. Both are good units, so I'd go with the FF if you can't afford the ESigma, the latter if you can.
I've been continuing to mess with my BIBs. Since I made a couple of great improvements, I thought an update was due. To put this in context, I've got 8" Hemp Acoustics drivers in ScottMoose dimensioned boxes that are considerably smaller than the current ideal. They are baltic birch (I better finish them soon), each stuffed from just below the driver to the top with poly fill. I've got a pound of acoustuff in the bottom of each. I'm driving them with a chip amp.
I've always been a little overwhelmed by the quantity of bass from my BIBs. From the beginning they have gone really deep, and sounded very "fast and tight". I previously was using sealed enclosures with no BSC, so I assumed that I was mostly just sensitive to adaquate bass. It was a fun game at first. I waited for several months, but it was too much of a good thing. I was contemplating cutting some K slots to try and cut the gain down a bit. Then I saw a 10lb box of polyfill for $16 at Walmart. I tried putting half in the last meter of each enclosure, held up by a piece of batting. The bass disappeared. Strangely, the mids and highs seemed to whither and die as well.
I settled for 3lb per side, and it is glorious. 3lb is much less than 1/ft3, but it makes a huge difference. The bass supports the music rather than overwhelming it. It is easier to concentrate on the lush midrange of the Hemp Drivers and hear the tune foremost, rather than the bass line. The leading edges of bass notes feel slightly softer, but it could be the difference in level. I haven't heard others complain of too much bass, but if you are silently suffering, hang some fill in there.
I also built some new speaker cables. I was using twisted PVC insulated 18g solid core (Radio Shack hook up wire). It's a great deal for the low price, but it doesn't hold a candle to the new ones. I built a pair of cross connected Belden 89259 coax, per Jon Risch's recipie: http://www.geocities.com/jonrisch/s1.htm
Though many of you will poo-poo the idea and cost, I notice significant changes across the board. Everything sounds cleaner, bigger, more real and all around better. I won't bore you with more sound details. They are super low inductance, low series resistance, and fairly low capacitance (about as low as it can be when shooting for low inductance.) They are also not cheap or easy to build, as far as diy cables go. If you are interested there is a bunch of information out there (check especially the Audio Asylum Cables section), and you can even buy premade versions (www.elementcable.com, though who here would do that?)
pj
I've always been a little overwhelmed by the quantity of bass from my BIBs. From the beginning they have gone really deep, and sounded very "fast and tight". I previously was using sealed enclosures with no BSC, so I assumed that I was mostly just sensitive to adaquate bass. It was a fun game at first. I waited for several months, but it was too much of a good thing. I was contemplating cutting some K slots to try and cut the gain down a bit. Then I saw a 10lb box of polyfill for $16 at Walmart. I tried putting half in the last meter of each enclosure, held up by a piece of batting. The bass disappeared. Strangely, the mids and highs seemed to whither and die as well.
I settled for 3lb per side, and it is glorious. 3lb is much less than 1/ft3, but it makes a huge difference. The bass supports the music rather than overwhelming it. It is easier to concentrate on the lush midrange of the Hemp Drivers and hear the tune foremost, rather than the bass line. The leading edges of bass notes feel slightly softer, but it could be the difference in level. I haven't heard others complain of too much bass, but if you are silently suffering, hang some fill in there.
I also built some new speaker cables. I was using twisted PVC insulated 18g solid core (Radio Shack hook up wire). It's a great deal for the low price, but it doesn't hold a candle to the new ones. I built a pair of cross connected Belden 89259 coax, per Jon Risch's recipie: http://www.geocities.com/jonrisch/s1.htm
Though many of you will poo-poo the idea and cost, I notice significant changes across the board. Everything sounds cleaner, bigger, more real and all around better. I won't bore you with more sound details. They are super low inductance, low series resistance, and fairly low capacitance (about as low as it can be when shooting for low inductance.) They are also not cheap or easy to build, as far as diy cables go. If you are interested there is a bunch of information out there (check especially the Audio Asylum Cables section), and you can even buy premade versions (www.elementcable.com, though who here would do that?)
pj
I have both the 165 and the older 168S. Both are great drivers. The build quality of the 168S is really nice. It’s a heavy, solid frame which looks and feels expensive. It appears to be an attempt at a state of the art driver. The 165 is much more modest and looks like a typical speaker driver. Looking at them side by side you wouldn’t be surprised at the price difference. Once the drivers are mounted the sonic differences are smaller than the physical differences might suggest. Comparing the two in the same BIB I personally prefer the 165 overall. But pushing these two drivers to higher volume levels the more expensive 168S keeps its composure better.
Ive never heard the newer 168S but would imagine it’s a modest improvement over the older one. For listening pleasure I will personally stick to the more modest 165 but if I were attempting to build the best BIB possible without considering cost and high volume levels were very important I would use the more expensive – better composed – higher power handling 168S.
Ive never heard the newer 168S but would imagine it’s a modest improvement over the older one. For listening pleasure I will personally stick to the more modest 165 but if I were attempting to build the best BIB possible without considering cost and high volume levels were very important I would use the more expensive – better composed – higher power handling 168S.
ghpicard said:
The midrange is a bit fierce for my liking. It's not in the FR, but without seeing a more comprehensive set of plots (a waterfall graph would be useful) I'm not certain exactly what the technical issue that I have with it is. It's very projective, & there's plenty of detail but it's tiring to listen to -tonality isn't great. Gut suspicion is it's the whizzer letting go. The 167's much sweeter over the midband & doesn't give up any detail; the 165 is smoother still & goes lower at the price of upper extension.
that's great Scott! Looks like a nice super-tweeter!
Waiting for your news.........
By the way, I have ordered the woods and can't wait to build my BIBs.
I haven't ordered any damping material... I'll look if I'll find anything locally, otherwise I'll order by net. Any european source?
What's the name of the damping material that I can find in stores that sells products for house-building? I think someone in the forum had suggested it and it's much cheaper than acoustastuff.
And, what kind of speaker connectors are you using? Cat5 wire is too thin so I don't need the most commonly huge connectors.
You know that great Cardas or WBT or whatever that is gold and you can connect too thick Hi-End cables that cost a fortune/meter.
Waiting for your news.........
By the way, I have ordered the woods and can't wait to build my BIBs.
I haven't ordered any damping material... I'll look if I'll find anything locally, otherwise I'll order by net. Any european source?
What's the name of the damping material that I can find in stores that sells products for house-building?
I think someone in the forum had suggested it and it's much cheaper than acoustastuff.And, what kind of speaker connectors are you using? Cat5 wire is too thin so I don't need the most commonly huge connectors.
You know that great Cardas or WBT or whatever that is gold and you can connect too thick Hi-End cables that cost a fortune/meter.
Scottmoose said:Meanwhile, I'm going to find out first hand what a pair of FE208ESigmas will sound like.
Another pair of 208ESigs to be built - as you say "Oh Yes"!!
Mine continue to improve, tho more slowly now than during the "first 100" (hours that is!), and I just love em. Bass still has a way to go I believe but the way the miusic is projected out into the room in such an effortless manner is something beyond my experience to date and I have had some far more expensive speaker systems (mainly panels of one type or another).
I can frequently be seen sittling listening with a stupid grin on my face
resident said:I haven't ordered any damping material... I'll look if I'll find anything locally, otherwise I'll order by net. Any european source?
What's the name of the damping material that I can find in stores that sells products for house-building?
I would suggest using polyfill. It's polyester wool and is used for stuffing pillows and other soft things.
Other people has used car damping felt with some success too.
Any of them is way cheaper than acoustastuff.
What I would personally not use in any open / vented application is glass wool. I value my lungs too much to thrash them in such a way.
Gastón
Two words: phase plugs. I never tried plugs when I had a pair, but I suspect they'd make a significantly greater improvement to the 166 than they do to the 167 (and the improvement on the 167 isn't subtle). I doubt they'd ever have the delicacy the 167 seems to have, or the fluidity of the 165, but I bet with some judicious plug / cone / mods & damping they'd give a vivid listen but gain some subtlty.
pebbles said:
Greets!
You're welcome!
SS amps typically have a vanishing low output impedance and drivers tend to be over-damped (low Qts), so the two combine to make for poor to non-existent bass response. Also, at average listening levels the amp is typically only 'feeling' some tiny fraction of a watt, so may not be all that 'clean' for lack of a better description, ergo adding some form of series resistance will load the amp down a bit and raise the driver's effective Qts to allow a flatter response over a wider BW with the trade-off typically being a larger cab is required and some loss of efficiency and even roll off the top end of a ~full-range driver enough to either require a by-pass cap or a super tweeter.
Anyway, with a typical multi-way speaker the XO's inductor and to a lesser extent, other components usually have enough resistance to do it, but a full-range driver obviously doesn't unless a baffle step or other passive filter is used.
GM
Baffled
Hello, thanks for your responses. Well, in for a penny…….the 168ez’s have been ordered and I cant wait to lay eyes on them.
I think I have a reasonable handle on the construction side of things except for the suprabaffle. Am I right in thinking that ideally I will have two layers of 19mm ply for a baffle and another two or more for a suprabaffle, giving me a 80-90mm tunnel behind the driver? If so should this be flared in any way to reduce reflections? By the way what is the Sbaffle for? I recall someone ( Scott I think) describing it as a wave launcher; is this something that all speakers would benefit from or partricularly full rangers in tall skinny cabinets?
Another thing I was wondering about was what would be the effect of instead of having a suprabaffle, I made one and then cut off the parts which protrude on either side of the box , threw away (disposed of responsibly) the middle bit, and attatched the leftovers to either side but flush with the existing baffle? Don’t ask me why I would want to other than Im a picture framer we tend to (possibly overly) worry about how things look and I think it would look good. Of course it would no longer be a suprabaffle, more of a pair of side baffles and may not work at all in which case they would be a useless bits of decoration!
It is something I could play around with but from what I can see the Sbaffle is the trickiest part of the build I wouldn’t want to ruin one without any hope of success.
Its BIBs for a beginner, any suggestions greatly appreciated. Regards, Andrew
Hello, thanks for your responses. Well, in for a penny…….the 168ez’s have been ordered and I cant wait to lay eyes on them.
I think I have a reasonable handle on the construction side of things except for the suprabaffle. Am I right in thinking that ideally I will have two layers of 19mm ply for a baffle and another two or more for a suprabaffle, giving me a 80-90mm tunnel behind the driver? If so should this be flared in any way to reduce reflections? By the way what is the Sbaffle for? I recall someone ( Scott I think) describing it as a wave launcher; is this something that all speakers would benefit from or partricularly full rangers in tall skinny cabinets?
Another thing I was wondering about was what would be the effect of instead of having a suprabaffle, I made one and then cut off the parts which protrude on either side of the box , threw away (disposed of responsibly) the middle bit, and attatched the leftovers to either side but flush with the existing baffle? Don’t ask me why I would want to other than Im a picture framer we tend to (possibly overly) worry about how things look and I think it would look good. Of course it would no longer be a suprabaffle, more of a pair of side baffles and may not work at all in which case they would be a useless bits of decoration!
It is something I could play around with but from what I can see the Sbaffle is the trickiest part of the build I wouldn’t want to ruin one without any hope of success.
Its BIBs for a beginner, any suggestions greatly appreciated. Regards, Andrew
A suprabaffle lowers the baffle-step frequency to a point where horn-gain compensates for the SPL drop-off caused by the shift from 2pi to 4pi radiation space. You can also use the physical shape of the baffle to shape the frequency response / wavefront launched from it. The additional mass also helps load driver-frame & the main front baffle of the cabinet.
TC's original baffles were lathe-turned, oblete spheriods (i.e. like a frisbee, not a flat disk). For the 168ESigma I'd be looking at one with a diameter of about 14in.
TC's original baffles were lathe-turned, oblete spheriods (i.e. like a frisbee, not a flat disk). For the 168ESigma I'd be looking at one with a diameter of about 14in.
Hi GM,
Nelson Pass talks about this too in some of his papers on the early First Watt stuff..
Could you give me a clue as to what might work well with my
15" 8 ohm overdamped JBL speaker? (not a BIB)
I have lots of 8 Ohm 50 watt resistors sitting around. so what's a good starting point? obviously I can get 8, 16, 4, or 2 ohms pretty easily! Any warnings?
Thanks...
Nelson Pass talks about this too in some of his papers on the early First Watt stuff..
Could you give me a clue as to what might work well with my
15" 8 ohm overdamped JBL speaker? (not a BIB)
I have lots of 8 Ohm 50 watt resistors sitting around. so what's a good starting point? obviously I can get 8, 16, 4, or 2 ohms pretty easily! Any warnings?
Thanks...