FE167eN vs stock FE167e

Status
This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.
FE167En vs stock FE167E

I finally got around to doing a serious comparison between stock and fully enabled FE167E's. Not exactly a DBT, since I did all of the cable swapping myself, but I am satisfied with the results.

The speakers were my FB-16:

An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.


loaded with the stock FE167E's This speaker was stacked on top of my FT-1600 MkII's:

An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.


loaded with FE167En's. The two speakers have exactly the same width and the supra baffles are identical except that the port on the FB-16's exit through the supra baffle.

Both speakers have the same BSC filter -- 1.5mH||6ohm. While the MLTL will go almost an octave deeper than the BR, above 500Hz or so, the two speakers are acoustically identical. Any difference is do to the drivers, and the music I chose is not bass heavy anyway.

Electronics:

HP Pavillion Laptop with the music library a WD Passport USB drive.
Creative SB USB external sound card
SI Super T-amp.

Cables:

DIY CAT5 cross-connected -- 4 wires +ve, 4 wires -ve made up by chopping the ends off of Ethernet patch cords.

Dayton interconnects.

Music:

Alison Krauss: "Forget About It"
Diana Krall: "All or Nothing at All"
Jim Croce: "Operator"
Steely Dan: "Josie"
Mozart: "Rondo Alla Turca"
Vivaldi: Violin Concerto RV251
Telemann: Trumpet Concerto #2 - "Aria"

So. It didn't take a millisecond to hear the difference between the two drivers. The enabled drivers are softer, sweeter and more laid back than the stock driver. Not a little bit -- a lot! It is almost as if the EN's were playing at a lower SLP, but they were not. They take the edge off of Alison Krauss and Jim Croce. Gone are the spitty S's an P's. Just a really smooth sound.

On the other hand, the EN's lack the detail on the stock drivers. I have to be careful hear, because I've stated many times that detail is often nothing more than an exaggerated top end. However, I think that it is real. In the Vivaldi, there is a harpsichord buried under the orchestra in the opening ritornello that is obvious on the stock 167's, but virtually missing on the EN's. Also the solo violin doesn't have the sparkle that I expect from a gut-strung baroque instrument. Same kind of thing in "Operator". The EN's smooth out Croce's rather strident voice, but something is lost in the guitar work.

It's a mixed bag, and it all depends on what you are listening for. The EN's are great for voice, but not so great for instrumentals. This is the same kind of comment that visitors were making at my LSAF demo. There the comparison was the 167EN's and DX3's. The opinions were split about 50/50 as to which sounded better. If you like the sound of small SE amps, you will love the EN's. If you find you SS amp a bit edgy, the EN's will smooth it out. If you like a very detailed, almost edgy sound, then you will want to go stock. Any way you cut it, the EN's are less fatiguing in long listening sessions.

I'm going to offer the 167EN's as an upgrade for my speakers. I think that most folks will prefer the EN's Only die hard baroque nuts like me will actually prefer stock.

Bob
 
A good report Bob.

I am learning the EN technique out of curiosity.

BudP states repeatedly that the EN removes certain forms of sound artifacts and cancels waves produced by the cone that are termed interference. Interested persons really have to read the theory rather than listening to me because I do not do it well.

My questions is: Will you also test the 167e with the phase plug and plus or minus EN?

My EN job is for application on the 127e. My 167e is stock in the GM designed MLTL with which I am very pleased.
 
planet10 said:
Bob,

Can you comment on the differences in imaging?

dave


Bob - and dimensionality (depth /width) of soundstage?

I note that the pictured drivers lacked phase plugs - that would be the next step to try.

For those using BLH or BIB's, I've found the reduction in long session fatigue to be even more noticeable on the FE126E, and would expect* the same with FE166E.

* I've heard/built for at least 9 models in the FE/FF & FnnnA series over the past several years, but so far my only brief exposure to FE166E (stock) was in a version of C&C Abbeys at least 5 years ago. I'd love to know what Terry would have made of the EnABL process.
 
planet10 said:
Bob,

Can you comment on the differences in imaging?

dave

Ah, yes! Imaging! Don't get me started. Imaging on a studio multi-mic'd recording is exactly what the recording engineer chooses it to be. But I digress....

I don't put much stock in imaging, so I wasn't paying attention. So I pulled up the Chesky recording of a cut from Stravinsky's "Soldier's Tale". This has to be a multi-mic'd session, but the instruments have pin-point placement. Both of the drivers image pretty darn well, but with the stock 167, the instruments would float around a bit. The bassoon and trumpet which are sitting side-by-side would occasionally swap places. With the EN, everyone remained locked in place. So, the nod goes to the EN on imaging.


chrisb said:



Bob - and dimensionality (depth /width) of soundstage?

Then I pulled up Alison Krauss' "The Lucky One" I started on the EN's because they happened to be plugged in from the last test. Nice round sound stage with Alison 3-4' in front of the band. I switched to the stock 167's and OMG -- Alison was in my lap. Never had a singer jump out at me like that. Could be the jury-rigged set-up. Could be that the stock driver was getting some phasing detail that the EN was missing.

Depth of sound stage in a studio recording is 100% due to the engineer screwing with the phasing. Same goes with sound stage extending beyond the outside of the speakers. Can't happen unless the phasing is screwed with. Play around a little with SRS WOW and see what I mean.

Last thing on imaging: One thing that really annoys me is a recording with a performer glued to one speaker. I have a couple of Oscar Robinson recordings where the drum kit is on the left channel, the bass on the right and Oscar in the middle. No bleed from right to left. Really gives a fake sound to an otherwise decent recording.

I note that the pictured drivers lacked phase plugs - that would be the next step to try.

The pictures I presented were stock photos from my web page. The FB-16 as tested is indeed stock without a phase plug. The FT-1660 MkII as tested had a full enabled driver with phase plug Here is a picture of the FT-1600's next to LT-2000/DX3's from the Dallas LSAF:


An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.


Note that the FE167EN's are stealth mode -- you can't see the dots, well -- dashes, until you get about a foot away. Well done, Dave.

I did test the phase plugs alone against stock drivers. The phase plugs worked as a notch filter up around 6-7kHz. The result was a reduction in sibilance. Well worth doing for the price.

Bob
 
Re: FE167En vs stock FE167E

Bob Brines said:
- snip -
If you like a very detailed, almost edgy sound, then you will want to go stock. Any way you cut it, the EN's are less fatiguing in long listening sessions.

I'm going to offer the 167EN's as an upgrade for my speakers. I think that most folks will prefer the EN's Only die hard baroque nuts like me will actually prefer stock.

Bob

Never settle for stock - that would be nuts!

If you really like the very detailed sound, get dave to EnABL a pair without the mod podge pre-treatment.
Huge improvement over the stock driver.

You are right though, for 'normal' folk the 167EN's are the way to go.

Cheers,

Alex
 
Re: Re: FE167En vs stock FE167E

Alex from Oz said:


Never settle for stock - that would be nuts!

If you really like the very detailed sound, get dave to EnABL a pair without the mod podge pre-treatment.
Huge improvement over the stock driver.

You are right though, for 'normal' folk the 167EN's are the way to go.

Cheers,

Alex

Actually, this is a moot point for me. The 167EN's are firmly established as my HT speakers. They take some of the tizzyness out of TV sound vs stock. For my two channel setup, I use the DX3's. The DX3's are a class better than the 167's, even the 167EN's, as they had better be for a price difference of $1200/pr vs ~$300/pr.

Bob
 
You might consider having the DX 3 drivers EnABL'd Bob. I suggest contacting Jon Ver Halen for his opinion first, of course.

The EnABL'd DX4 driver, without any sort of horn reinforcement, is an astonishingly lively driver. The PM6A 16 ohm is only slightly less dynamic, but much more detailed and capable of great beauty. The A 45 is so over the top for dynamics, neither Jon nor I can listen to it for long, but it has detail like nothing else I have heard, including the Fostex F 200 A and a pair of Audio Nirvana Super 8 drivers recently completed.

You might idly consider relieving your mounting surfaces, by applying EnABL on them, under the finish, near the outer edge, and invisible to anything but your finger tips. That "ease" of presentation will just be enhanced and the box disappearing act will get even better than it is now.

By and large, with EnABL'd drivers, you will never get the sort of phase shift that puts any cute girls in your lap, sorry. At best they will venture to the front edge of the driver, as with most Patricia Barber recordings. Most will be content with a near back wall location.

Another thought is to put Electron Pools on the drivers themselves. This will aid in retention of very low amplitude, wide band information, as a coherent three dimensional illusion. The harpsichord will be helped to unfold with this tool too.

In any event, thank you for considering an EnABL'd driver for your speakers.

Bud
 
I read this with great interest.

I need some clarification, unless I missed it. Are the En drivers treated with the dots ONLY or are they also treated with some kind of cone coating? It just seems unlikely the dots alone could make the drivers 'alot' more laid back; much less lose critical detail.

(added) Ok I guess they had a cone treatment. What was put on?
 
InclinedPlane,

To begin to answer your questions.

Using the F127 as the only comparison example I have, the raw driver is pretty typical of full range small diameter drivers. They all have a peak at about 4 K and another from 7 to 9 k. The 4 k peak causes the shriek that hurts and the 7 to 9 k provide a false "detail" by enhancing the leading edge signal of all transients. With time I am told, these characteristics "mellow". My opinion is different from this, but I won't argue it here.

A couple of layers of Modge Podge with a Damar varnish three lobe pattern embedded, ala' Planet 10, provides the 127 cone with a needed additional mass and mass damping. The result is a slight lessening of the two top end peaks and a smoothing and "fattening" of the left hand of the piano, mid bass to low mid frequencies. The top end improvement provides some character to right hand piano, in place of just a "clink", but does not provide much more in the way of tonal interior information. In the left hand, quite a bit more internal information is made available, with a very natural and satisfying "piano" character showing up. Much of this additional correct information comes from eliminating the paper fiber noises, their primary corruption comes in an unnatural enhancement of the "plink" near the leading edge of stringed instrument tones.

Adding EnABL to this removes the two top peaks and their daughter resonances. This allows the rest of the piano note to be uncovered, from strike to final decay, without interfering with the character added by the modge podge / Damar pre-coating. This is just the rings of blocks. In the mid range a deep downward dynamic is uncovered, providing a considerable gain in perceived space, the beginnings and final decay of all notes and all without disturbing what Dave's pre-process brings to the reproduction. Adding a gloss coat or three, in appropriate and well described places, brings out the low amplitude, wide band information that provides us with the illusion of space.

A 127 with EnABL only, provides a deeper amount of detail than in a combination with Dave's Pre-process does, but the sound is all at once, purer, faster and thinner in the entire range. This does mean that the EnABL only drivers sound more transparent, but they can lack a completely satisfying balance of musical emphasis reproduction.

The combination of processes will provide you with more hooks to your emotional responses to the beauty of music, and are just sensationally good at this with a well designed, wide band 300 B SE amplifier. If maximum transparency is your goal then EnABL only will do a better job, but in these tiny drivers, not a satisfying one.

As the drivers become more accurate in nature, with the Fostex 200 A, Lowther anything, except the A 45 and DX 4 in a horn, Audio Nirvana Super 8 and I am sure others I have not had experience with, these treatments become much less important in solving gross inaccuracies in response, as with the 126/127 drivers.

Instead, they begin to delve much more deeply into the information content and what it provides for enjoyment of art in music. This includes the back half of wave forms and how they decay alongside other notes. The actual musical structures in sounds that usually have none, like rim shots, triangles and tympani head strikes. The internal structure and interaction of voices in large choral groups and the resolution of piano notes, otherwise buried, in masses of violins, all of which are resolved as individual instruments in a group, with both lateral dimension and pin point placement.

All of these things described above can be gotten from untreated drivers, to one degree or another, they are after all already there. The two processes, combined on the 127 driver, allow all of the information to be expressed, all of the time.

If you need to hear the chimes of a harpsichord. within a full orchestral event as Bob prefers, you will be better served with just EnaBL. You will however, miss the resinous warmth of the strokes of individual cello's and bass viola's, within a massed group. But just the warmth will be missing.

Make no mistake here, those innocuous looking spots are what are doing the heavy lifting. The various coatings are also quite important and not to be discarded in my opinion, but you could do without them and still uncover everything the untreated driver is having corrupted, by an imperfect expression of energy into the air.

Bud
 
Status
This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.