chrisb said:
Ron has done a good job:
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=1623243#post1623243
The more you step down from the full level 3 build, the more compromises you bring to the loudspeaker. You have built a level 0 version. The more complete builds all add acoustic fixes to problems that EQ with only band-aid. Just sit back & enjoy them.
dave
Yeah, I know. They are in corners. I was just saying that pushing them or any speaker tight to the sidewalls as I have been doing effectively increases the apparent baffle size by a lot AFAIK which is why I'm probably doing fine without a suprabaffle so far. (BTW, if I did have a suprabaffle I would no longer be able to push them tight to the sidewalls).
Believe me, I'm enjoying them a lot. I'm all done nitpicking. It's not hard to make them sound great with a bit of eq. But I was hoping to have plug and play idiot proof speakers for this gift and these may prove to be problematic in that regard (as has been pointed out several times, being corner horns and all). I don't even know if she even has eq capabilities. (For that matter I don't even know if she has suitable corners - this was supposed to be somewhat of a surprise but maybe I should ask her what she actually wants.) I might keep them and play with suprabaffles and deflectors, something I guarantee she would not be interested in. I find placement and toe in experimentation tiresome, I can't imagine she'll be interested in trying every possible combination for optimal results. They are great for me, maybe not so much for her.
Adding the SB and deflectors will get me close to level 3.
I don't think I could stop if I tried. The A126 is definitely in the queue (way down the line) but not the ugly duckling. Can you imagine a swan with a suprabaffle? That kind of thing might get me institutionalized by the waf monsters... (not saying they need it, but it sure would be funny lookin)
I don't think I could stop if I tried. The A126 is definitely in the queue (way down the line) but not the ugly duckling. Can you imagine a swan with a suprabaffle? That kind of thing might get me institutionalized by the waf monsters... (not saying they need it, but it sure would be funny lookin)
--DUDE--just a guy said:
This is too funny!!!
That's my wife's favorite fullrange/widerange speaker...
Her immediate reaction after listening to abeautiful pair of bamboo fonkens driven by a nice 300B @ VSAC was "Why would anyone waste the time to build something like that, when you can build the swans with the same size driver?"
She thought the Swans sounded that much better...
And no, they don't seem to need a SB, just to not be placed to close to a corner.
You have a166 as well don't you? She likes the swan better than that?
I've never heard swans or fonkens, but I did hear a mini onken with fr125. It's an mdf box with no bracing, the drivers were brand spankin new out of the box, the room, music and all associated equipment were all unfamiliar to me and the session was only a few minutes but I thought they sounded freakin great with a wonderful tonal balance (no need for eq). I liked them a lot.
I've never heard swans or fonkens, but I did hear a mini onken with fr125. It's an mdf box with no bracing, the drivers were brand spankin new out of the box, the room, music and all associated equipment were all unfamiliar to me and the session was only a few minutes but I thought they sounded freakin great with a wonderful tonal balance (no need for eq). I liked them a lot.
Yep, she likes the swans better than the A166.just a guy said:
Actually they're the "super swans," Nagoka's latest design of the series, with the FE108ESRII drivers, & cc adjusted to compensate.
Cleaner, better detail than the 166ES-R, and they don't have the high-end "shout" at all that the 166s do sometimes.
She just walked in; in her words; "They're less muddy, they're less confused. It's eaiser to hear the words, the diction, to pick out the alto part in a massed choral part. Like in the song playing now (on the 166s) you can tell they're singing in Latin, on the Swan's you can tell what the words are."
"Compared to Fonkens, the Swans have range, and balance, and aren't distorted." The Fonkens mids that are there are pale, thin and watered down by comparison. I liked the bamboo though, they sure were pretty."
Both the swans & a166s are sensitive to rooms & don't like too live rooms.
The configuration I have the swans in now (and really like) is a JBL Paragon kludge kinda thing...
A 4' x 9' curved plywood "parabolic reflector" sits aginst the rear wall. The swans point sideways into it, like the midrange horns of the Paragon would.
I've also actually used it with the front of the swan driver firing into a Paragon front horn, firing into the reflector.
It really does distrubute the sound throughout the room smoothly & evenly, & gets everything back from being out in the middle of the floor.
--Suggestion on the frugal horn SB--
Just to experiment you might want to try heavy cardboard & tape. That's an easy way to tell you how much difference it makes.
That's what I did with the A166s, before deciding to made a U-shaped piece that goes around the sides and top (out 4x4s, cut at angles & glued together).
FE206E vs FE206ES-R
Can someone here tell me specifically what the differences between the Fostex FE206E and the FE206ES-R are?
I own both versions of the driver ---{with the FE206ES-R}--- being prepared to be sent to Dave @ Planet 10 to work his magic on.
I've looked but, cannot locate what the specific differences are to justify the vast price differences between them. I'd really appreciate someone educating me on this issue.
Thetubeguy1954
Rational Subjectivism. It's An Acquired Taste!
Can someone here tell me specifically what the differences between the Fostex FE206E and the FE206ES-R are?
I own both versions of the driver ---{with the FE206ES-R}--- being prepared to be sent to Dave @ Planet 10 to work his magic on.
I've looked but, cannot locate what the specific differences are to justify the vast price differences between them. I'd really appreciate someone educating me on this issue.
Thetubeguy1954
Rational Subjectivism. It's An Acquired Taste!
serenechaos said:
Robert - you are more than doubly fortunate to have both the resources to play with the wide array of audio projects you describe, including it appears access to driver models with very limited release , and a wife who will apparently tolerate whatever the visual aesthetics might be and lets her ears guide her.
not all of us are so lucky in either regard
BTW, I did mention earlier in this thread that our early experiments with supra-baffles for the A126 several years ago was exactly the same - cardboard cut-outs. What dimensions did you settle on for the A166 suprabaffles?
Well, I guess what your wife calls "pale, thin, watered down mids" I would call "normal". Of course we are talking about different drivers with different boxes (fonken vs monken - and I would expect the monken mids to be even more watered down than the fonken) and our points of reference are different. But in my (limited) experience so far, fostex drivers might sound great but they certainly don't sound "normal" without eq'ing the mids down a bit, and all my measurements show this so far. YMMV, and obviously it does. With the 126 I am currently cutting 1 - 4khz by at least a couple db (in addition to heavier midbass eq'ing), and from what I can tell, most or all of the fostex fullrange lineup will need the same type of treatment somewhere between 1 - 8khz, depending on the driver in question. I find the fostex presentation very forward and in yer face and painful at high volumes but wonderful with a touch of eq. I guess it's all about personal taste - I like flat(ish) - sometimes even slightly recessed - mids.
chrisb,
Yes, I sure feel lucky, on both those counts.
She's a musician, and hears with her ears, not her eyes.
A166 baffle size--
I stayed with the specified 12.7" width & height from center.
It came out to something like 1 3/4 out from the sides & top of the cabinet. I started with a rough cut cedar 4x4, ripped it in half (to get a flat bottom instead of rounded edges of 2x4), cut angles front & back, top & bottom and joined them.
I have a couple pair of 166ES-R drivers I should sell to work on other projects though...
I'm throwing in the towel on single driver designs...
Yes, I sure feel lucky, on both those counts.
She's a musician, and hears with her ears, not her eyes.
A166 baffle size--
I stayed with the specified 12.7" width & height from center.
It came out to something like 1 3/4 out from the sides & top of the cabinet. I started with a rough cut cedar 4x4, ripped it in half (to get a flat bottom instead of rounded edges of 2x4), cut angles front & back, top & bottom and joined them.
I have a couple pair of 166ES-R drivers I should sell to work on other projects though...
I'm throwing in the towel on single driver designs...
just a guy,
"pale, thin, watered down mids" was NOT a general statement, just my wife’s off the cuff response comparison of the Fonkens to the Swans.
Which is also F127 to the limited production FE108ES-RII...
Both 4" Fostex, but still Apples & Oranges in a way.
I would say that the 127/Fonkens don't have the Harmonic content, the colors and textures that the 108/Swans do.
And the Swans are lacking the same in comparison to the A166s.
I don't know "normal" means, other than a setting on the clothes dryer...
Just got back from lunch with the wife, talked about speakers (& upcoming RMAF) a lot, and this comparison.
The rising frequency response you noted, which you alter with eq, is what she calls balance, or lack of.
The swans & A166 deal with it acoustically.
The back wave brings up the low mids to closer match the high mids.
Depending on the room, and room placement, they can even over-do it.
Too close to the corners, and the swans have too much bass.
In a small live room they're really bad.
None of this addresses what I feel is the Achilles heel of BLHs though, and why I'm giving up on them-- the time delay between what is heard from the front of the driver, and the rear of the driver (way different path lengths).
This is more noticeable on the A166, on complex material.
The room makes a huge difference.
The 166s are in a room which started as a clone of Steve Deckert's listening room; exact same dimensions, sand filled walls, and I've been playing with treatment for a few years.
Presently it has a 9" fiberglass "cloud" suspended 3" from the ceiling in an oak frame work, four 2' x 4' x 4" diffusers panels, alternating with four 2' x 4' 4" absorber panels, 18" floor to ceiling tube traps in both rear corners, and a couple more absorber panels on the back wall.
This was a slow process to get a flat response, and not to dead or live. It's still a little live for high volume listening, but nice for quiet late nite stuff.
I'm writing all that to say that the room is a lot of what is heard, and measured, when speakers (and amps) are blamed.
Edit:
dave,
yeah, I'd sure love to trade a pair of 166ES-Rs for a spare pair of 108ES-RIIs...
r
"pale, thin, watered down mids" was NOT a general statement, just my wife’s off the cuff response comparison of the Fonkens to the Swans.
Which is also F127 to the limited production FE108ES-RII...
Both 4" Fostex, but still Apples & Oranges in a way.
I would say that the 127/Fonkens don't have the Harmonic content, the colors and textures that the 108/Swans do.
And the Swans are lacking the same in comparison to the A166s.
I don't know "normal" means, other than a setting on the clothes dryer...
Just got back from lunch with the wife, talked about speakers (& upcoming RMAF) a lot, and this comparison.
The rising frequency response you noted, which you alter with eq, is what she calls balance, or lack of.
The swans & A166 deal with it acoustically.
The back wave brings up the low mids to closer match the high mids.
Depending on the room, and room placement, they can even over-do it.
Too close to the corners, and the swans have too much bass.
In a small live room they're really bad.
None of this addresses what I feel is the Achilles heel of BLHs though, and why I'm giving up on them-- the time delay between what is heard from the front of the driver, and the rear of the driver (way different path lengths).
This is more noticeable on the A166, on complex material.
The room makes a huge difference.
The 166s are in a room which started as a clone of Steve Deckert's listening room; exact same dimensions, sand filled walls, and I've been playing with treatment for a few years.
Presently it has a 9" fiberglass "cloud" suspended 3" from the ceiling in an oak frame work, four 2' x 4' x 4" diffusers panels, alternating with four 2' x 4' 4" absorber panels, 18" floor to ceiling tube traps in both rear corners, and a couple more absorber panels on the back wall.
This was a slow process to get a flat response, and not to dead or live. It's still a little live for high volume listening, but nice for quiet late nite stuff.
I'm writing all that to say that the room is a lot of what is heard, and measured, when speakers (and amps) are blamed.
Edit:
dave,
yeah, I'd sure love to trade a pair of 166ES-Rs for a spare pair of 108ES-RIIs...
r
Just to correct the perceived misconception in a couple of prior posts, the Fonken (series) utilize the FE127E, which is in itself an apples vs oranges comparison to the FE126E.
FWIW, I've often opined that it's almost harder to get the FE127 to sound bad as it is to get the FE126 to excel.
In my personal experience with several enclosure designs as well balanced and tuned to each of the above drivers' parameters as possible and matched to the room/system synergy, any of the FExx6 series will still deliver a more forward, dynamic and in your face presentation than its FExx7 "twin". It can be impressive at first, but depending on each individual's sensitivities and/or experience can become fatiguing over extended listening.
The same can be said for multi-way designs - I've listened to the Hawthorne SI15 on several occasions, and while I'd definitely prefer it to the Hammer Dynamics Super 12, I couldn't live with the sound either of them.
FWIW, I've often opined that it's almost harder to get the FE127 to sound bad as it is to get the FE126 to excel.
In my personal experience with several enclosure designs as well balanced and tuned to each of the above drivers' parameters as possible and matched to the room/system synergy, any of the FExx6 series will still deliver a more forward, dynamic and in your face presentation than its FExx7 "twin". It can be impressive at first, but depending on each individual's sensitivities and/or experience can become fatiguing over extended listening.
The same can be said for multi-way designs - I've listened to the Hawthorne SI15 on several occasions, and while I'd definitely prefer it to the Hammer Dynamics Super 12, I couldn't live with the sound either of them.
INITIAL SUPRABAFFLE TESTING
I added a suprabaffle to one of the speakers and tested it alone. For this measurement, the speaker mouth was about 12 inches from the back wall and 12 inches from the sidewall (so these measurements will look slightly different than the last set, which were tight to the sidewall). My suprabaffle is just scraps of plywood forming a U around the top and sides, flush with the front baffle, taped tight so no air can leak. Total size of the suprabaffle is about 12 x 12 inches.
PLEASE bear in mind that these are done with the built in soundcard and mic in my laptop - hardly the last word in accuracy. The red trace is with no sb, the blue trace is fully suprabafflicious.
There's a small difference, probably audible *(I haven't tested with actual listening yet) but certainly negligible in the grand scheme of things (according to this graph). It does make the speaker look a lot more like a cobra though. I guess that's something. Maybe listening tests will show me the light though.
It's interesting to note that pulling the speaker away from the sidewall seemed to kill the two low resonances better than the sb. (when compared to the last set of measurements)
I added a suprabaffle to one of the speakers and tested it alone. For this measurement, the speaker mouth was about 12 inches from the back wall and 12 inches from the sidewall (so these measurements will look slightly different than the last set, which were tight to the sidewall). My suprabaffle is just scraps of plywood forming a U around the top and sides, flush with the front baffle, taped tight so no air can leak. Total size of the suprabaffle is about 12 x 12 inches.
PLEASE bear in mind that these are done with the built in soundcard and mic in my laptop - hardly the last word in accuracy. The red trace is with no sb, the blue trace is fully suprabafflicious.
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
There's a small difference, probably audible *(I haven't tested with actual listening yet) but certainly negligible in the grand scheme of things (according to this graph). It does make the speaker look a lot more like a cobra though. I guess that's something. Maybe listening tests will show me the light though.
It's interesting to note that pulling the speaker away from the sidewall seemed to kill the two low resonances better than the sb. (when compared to the last set of measurements)
The effect of the suprabaffle looks about as expected; 1-2dB bost in the 300-1000Hz area. See attached sim.
The soundcard in your PC is probably quite adequate for this kind of measurement, but a god microphone is desired. A $2 Panasonic capsule with a 9V battery power will do nicely. Your vertical scale is a bit too forgiving at 30dB/div.
SveinB
The soundcard in your PC is probably quite adequate for this kind of measurement, but a god microphone is desired. A $2 Panasonic capsule with a 9V battery power will do nicely. Your vertical scale is a bit too forgiving at 30dB/div.
SveinB
Attachments
Confirmed by listening - pulling them out from the walls is a huge improvement, I can almost live without eq now. Can't say much about the sb yet until I make a bonnet for the other one and a/b with/without.
Rear deflector testing coming next. If the deflector smooths the low end response it will be welcome. I don't care about the extra extension potential at all though. This speaker definitely needs a sub (in my current environment) - absolutely no way around that - so anything below 80 hz is just bonus - and it already does that and more.
Rear deflector testing coming next. If the deflector smooths the low end response it will be welcome. I don't care about the extra extension potential at all though. This speaker definitely needs a sub (in my current environment) - absolutely no way around that - so anything below 80 hz is just bonus - and it already does that and more.
just a guy said:
I made rear deflectors for the A166s, and am now using bottom firing subs instead.
Just use the corners of the square box like the deflector & build a sub to fit the box, make it higher if needed.
Might work for the little guy as well?
Bottom firing LT Sealed box or TL recommended...
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.