Fostex Driver question - diyAudio
Go Back   Home > Forums > Loudspeakers > Full Range

Please consider donating to help us continue to serve you.

Ads on/off / Custom Title / More PMs / More album space / Advanced printing & mass image saving
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 7th October 2007, 04:32 AM   #1
Shae is offline Shae  Australia
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Default Fostex Driver question

Please forgive my noobness,

What are the differences between the Fostex FE167E & the FE168EZ? Are the differences audible?

Would it be worthwhile using the FE168EZ instead of the 167 in the Martin J King designed ML TQWT I'm planning on building? Any advice would be appreciated!
  Reply With Quote
Old 7th October 2007, 05:50 AM   #2
frugal-phile(tm)
diyAudio Moderator
 
planet10's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Victoria, BC, NA, Sol III
Blog Entries: 5
Default Re: Fostex Driver question

Quote:
Originally posted by Shae
What are the differences between the Fostex FE167E & the FE168EZ? Are the differences audible?

Would it be worthwhile using the FE168EZ instead of the 167 in the Martin J King designed ML TQWT I'm planning on building? Any advice would be appreciated!
FE166 has a whizzer, and stamped steel basket. FE168eS (168eZ is a mis-tansliteration) has no whizzer, a cast basket, Fostexes (gorgeous) in.out surround *and spider), and quite a bit more complex cone.

The FE168 should sound better (i've unfortubatly not heard it), but it may not kust drop into the ML-TQWT. i'm not familiar with a MJK ML-TQWT for the 166. He did one for the FE164 and the FE167 is a drop0-in replacement for it.

dave
__________________
community sites t-linespeakers.org, frugal-horn.com, frugal-phile.com ........ commercial site planet10-HiFi
p10-hifi forum here at diyA
  Reply With Quote
Old 7th October 2007, 08:26 AM   #3
diyAudio Member
 
Scottmoose's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: UK
Aha. One of my all-time favourite boxes. The FE167E is a drop-in replacement for the defunct FE164. The FE168ESigma unfortunately will not work at all well in that cabinet, so if you're wanting to build it, I'd stick with the 167 & add phase-plus, basket / magnet damping, EnABL etc.
__________________
Community site www.frugal-horn.com Commercial site www.wodendesign.com
  Reply With Quote
Old 7th October 2007, 08:49 AM   #4
hm is offline hm  Europe
diyAudio Member
 
hm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: near Hamburg Germany
Hello,

a main difference is the Xmax,
168 is useful in a bass horn like my TUBA,
167 has only 0,6 mm only useful by taking two
like in my POSAUNE.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg posaune_innen2_klein linberg.jpg (23.8 KB, 360 views)
__________________
http://www.hm-moreart.de
  Reply With Quote
Old 7th October 2007, 09:38 AM   #5
diyAudio Member
 
Scottmoose's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: UK
...by your opinion. Fair enough. But plenty of people are also happy with it run solo. Witness the thousands of satisfied builders of cabinets with a single unit mounted. Fostex sell a shed-load of these units globally every year.

The 167 overloads very gradually, and distortion is not generally audible, except on demanding pieces at high SPLs. It works very nicely for nearfield listening in a small BR box, or MLTL like Bob's FT1600, on the music they are designed for -small to medium-scale classical ensembles, folk, blues, light rock etc. They don't make a bad fist at heavier stuff considering that's not what they're for, though personally I'd prefer larger drivers with dedicated woofers & supertweeters for that. 167s do many things well, but Pink Floyd in Pompii at ~live levels is not exactly their forte. Sally Oldfield is currently sounding rather nice though my own 167 MLTLs as I type this actually.
__________________
Community site www.frugal-horn.com Commercial site www.wodendesign.com
  Reply With Quote
Old 7th October 2007, 10:49 AM   #6
hm is offline hm  Europe
diyAudio Member
 
hm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: near Hamburg Germany
Hallo,

my experience shows take the 167av only near TV,
the 166E has bit more highs IMO.

compair the graphs:
http://www.fostexspeaker.de/gehaeuse/168ez_encl.pdf
to much clay tone between 150-350 Hz, covers the bass,
and makes colouration.
http://www.fostexspeaker.de/fullrang...ma/fe168ez.pdf
on an IEC baffle !


therefore i prefer a bass horn working only below 150 Hz.

and I prefer horns because you didnīt use the resonanz
of the driver.

scoutmoose, you are right, different enclosures are possible.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg tuba by hifisoundkl.datei.jpg (10.9 KB, 307 views)
__________________
http://www.hm-moreart.de
  Reply With Quote
Old 7th October 2007, 11:51 AM   #7
diyAudio Member
 
Scottmoose's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: UK
Is that a Jordan in the pictured box Horst?

Yeah, the 166 has slightly more HF than the 167, whch rolls off a little earlier. Suits me as I find a slightly rolled off treble easier to listen to for extended periods. It usually needs some correction to work in a box other than a horn though, so the 167 is a bit more versatile.

The Sigma's a lovely unit -I completely agree with you that that Fostex horn isn't one of their better efforts. Something like this 25 litre reflex box with massive end-correction on the vent (i.e. a short horn) I've quickly roughed up gives equal LF extension, a much smoother response and excursion's no more than 0.6mm (total) at 70Hz, 1w / 1m.
Attached Images
File Type: gif 168fr.gif (5.6 KB, 274 views)
__________________
Community site www.frugal-horn.com Commercial site www.wodendesign.com
  Reply With Quote
Old 7th October 2007, 11:53 AM   #8
diyAudio Member
 
Scottmoose's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: UK
Predicted driver excursion for the above box, 1w / 1m. I usually only post FR graphs to avoid clogging threads up, but as I know you're interested in the subject, I thought I'd add it. Not a finished design as I say, just something I quickly knocked together now. They don't support the cone as well as small chamber / chamberless BLH at high SPLs, but at reasonable levels these boxes do a very decent job, & don't suffer from the response problems many others have.
Attached Images
File Type: gif 168 excursion.gif (6.4 KB, 267 views)
__________________
Community site www.frugal-horn.com Commercial site www.wodendesign.com
  Reply With Quote

Reply


Hide this!Advertise here!
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Which Fostex driver for me? kin0kin Full Range 43 19th March 2009 08:08 PM
WR for Fostex Driver thanhVNS Full Range 10 9th November 2007 02:48 PM
Which fostex driver for BLH? boonedog Full Range 12 18th March 2005 12:58 AM
Need help on fostex driver Buhl Multi-Way 1 1st December 2003 01:08 PM
Fostex single-driver noob question here... GrahamnDodder Multi-Way 17 4th July 2003 11:15 PM


New To Site? Need Help?

All times are GMT. The time now is 08:59 PM.


vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright Đ1999-2014 diyAudio

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2