I was given a pair of NIB Fostex FE-167 (not the E) for my birthday very recently and am contemplating building something like a small back loaded horn or even simpler just building a pair of the Half-Chilis...
I am open to suggestions which should not be inordinately complex or expensive to execute.
I am open to BSC compensation if required and expect that I may need an RLC series trap as well.
I am open to suggestions which should not be inordinately complex or expensive to execute.
I am open to BSC compensation if required and expect that I may need an RLC series trap as well.
Come to NY and i will give you these speaker cabinets...
http://www.zillaaudio.com/fostex-168s-24l-cabinet.htm
I want to make room for new speaker projects and these are sitting un used.
Godzilla
http://www.zillaaudio.com/fostex-168s-24l-cabinet.htm
I want to make room for new speaker projects and these are sitting un used.
Godzilla
All good replies and have given me something to think about - 
I will have to think about the Onken/Fonken issue, Dave I would be interested in Fonken plans which IIRC are not on your site..
The Half-chilis look quite interesting as well.
Godzilla, offer much appreciated not sure when I can get to NY - where are you located? If upstate I might be able to detour to pick them up during some trip, otherwise I'll have to think about it.
Edit: Unfortunately your server appears to be down at the moment so I have not been able to take a look at them..
Horns are still attractive.
The Onkens are working extremely well, just wondering whether I could get any bass out of an FE167 in an Onken cabinet without building a relative monster. The Half-Chili is interesting because of its small size and somewhat horn like design. (BVR Horn)
I will have to think about the Onken/Fonken issue, Dave I would be interested in Fonken plans which IIRC are not on your site..
The Half-chilis look quite interesting as well.
Godzilla, offer much appreciated not sure when I can get to NY - where are you located? If upstate I might be able to detour to pick them up during some trip, otherwise I'll have to think about it.
Edit: Unfortunately your server appears to be down at the moment so I have not been able to take a look at them..
Horns are still attractive.
The Onkens are working extremely well, just wondering whether I could get any bass out of an FE167 in an Onken cabinet without building a relative monster. The Half-Chili is interesting because of its small size and somewhat horn like design. (BVR Horn)
kevinkr said:
I'm in the midst of a 1v1 revision of the plans (shorter (for more empty space underneath if a stealth woofer is added) and a bit wider to accomodate optional grills). They will be by request, and when i get them far enuff along require a small fee (like Brines).
A thread on the 1v01 version here http://www.audio-talk.co.uk/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=1397
dave
Attachments
Member
Joined 2009
Paid Member
I've read a few comments, can't remember where, but my understanding is that the Onken design gives superior bass performance compared with the chili.
I may also be biassed, as I went the Onken route myself:
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=138195&highlight=
It isn't that complicated - given the effort and time involved in sourcing materials etc. you may as well pick something you'd be excited about and the Onken design is fun.
I will make a brave statement that it isn't that hard to design one of these beasts for good results. There are some pitfalls but that is why we have this Forum to help people. I concede that there are some nuances that require experience to extract the best performance and Dave of planet10 is my guru for such things.
Here's another example...
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=137260
I may also be biassed, as I went the Onken route myself:
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=138195&highlight=
It isn't that complicated - given the effort and time involved in sourcing materials etc. you may as well pick something you'd be excited about and the Onken design is fun.
I will make a brave statement that it isn't that hard to design one of these beasts for good results. There are some pitfalls but that is why we have this Forum to help people. I concede that there are some nuances that require experience to extract the best performance and Dave of planet10 is my guru for such things.
Here's another example...
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=137260
Well I have a pair of Onkens I built a couple of years ago, (check the Onken threads) so I am well acquainted with their performance and limitations.
I think with the FE167 that BSC is probably going to be mandatory and I suspect that will have an adverse impact on efficiency which I need as the FE167 isn't particularly efficient which is why I was thinking a BVR like the Half-Chili might be the ticket..
I have to run the numbers in the Onken calculator to determine just how big a box would be required and what sort of efficiency I can achieve.
I think with the FE167 that BSC is probably going to be mandatory and I suspect that will have an adverse impact on efficiency which I need as the FE167 isn't particularly efficient which is why I was thinking a BVR like the Half-Chili might be the ticket..
I have to run the numbers in the Onken calculator to determine just how big a box would be required and what sort of efficiency I can achieve.
Bigun said:
Onken or Fonken?
Calculated using an Onken designer or just has the Onken 'look'?
'Piece-O-cake' with the calculator, but most 'HIFI' drivers today don't have the right specs to meet the Onken criteria. A 'piece-O-cake' also for just the 'look' since all one need do is design a BR using a big vent and divide it up and AFAIK do the same thing for the Fonken except damp the vents to get the desired roll off response, or at least that's how I would do it.
GM
Running the numbers, it does look like the classic Onken design is a really good match for this driver.
Still I am still curious about the half chili.
This project has been on a hiatus as I strive to complete my diy acrylic TT before the local audio gathering occurs. Now that looks less than likely, and I am thinking maybe I will work on those speakers again..
Still I am still curious about the half chili.
This project has been on a hiatus as I strive to complete my diy acrylic TT before the local audio gathering occurs. Now that looks less than likely, and I am thinking maybe I will work on those speakers again..
definitely worth a try Kevin, as noted previously, I've built a couple of pairs of the half-chili's smaller sibling (Brynn - FE127E), and quite enjoy them. it's certainly a shorter build time than the Nagaoka style BLH for FE166 etc.
the most time consuming part was nesting the driver brace to the magnet structure
Well my father-in-law and I just completed the half chili chang cabinets a few days ago. I have spent a number of days tinkering with them.
A couple of observations:
I ended up adding more layers behind the driver for a total of 3 layers, and also added a single layer on the uncovered side - not too easy since the boxes are already closed up... The braces are not covered.
This helped the midrange confusion and greatly reduced the unwanted HF output from the port..
I suspected that BSC was necessary and took a couple of quick measurements indicating that the response dropped rapidly around 540Hz shelving at roughly -5dB or so and then rolling off steeply slightly below 60Hz. I designed a network with roughly 5dB of step compensation starting at 540Hz based on Martin King's recommendations.
This seems to make a very large difference with the rather obvious trade off in efficiency, a choice I would happily make given the rather obvious improvement in sound quality.
Reference of course are the Onkens, and while the HCC will never match them dynamically or in frequency extension my goal is to make them sound similar within reasonable bounds.
I will post some pictures when I have time, they didn't come out too badly and the boxes are stiff.
They incidentally are doing a creditable job on a BT cd right at this moment - not the sort of music they were probably designed to reproduce..
A couple of observations:
I initially started by lining the interior with acousta-stuff on the top, port shelf, back and one side. I quickly noticed that there was a lot of mid to high frequency stuff shooting through the slot and into the BVR horn mouth - needless to say not good sounding at all.
I ended up adding more layers behind the driver for a total of 3 layers, and also added a single layer on the uncovered side - not too easy since the boxes are already closed up... The braces are not covered.
This helped the midrange confusion and greatly reduced the unwanted HF output from the port..
The bottom end was almost non-existent, although I heard significant improvement after about 10hrs of run in on obnoxious pop and other material with a lot of bass content.. There was severe sibilance on "S" and tracing noise playing vinyl was strongly accentuated.
I suspected that BSC was necessary and took a couple of quick measurements indicating that the response dropped rapidly around 540Hz shelving at roughly -5dB or so and then rolling off steeply slightly below 60Hz. I designed a network with roughly 5dB of step compensation starting at 540Hz based on Martin King's recommendations.
This seems to make a very large difference with the rather obvious trade off in efficiency, a choice I would happily make given the rather obvious improvement in sound quality.
Reference of course are the Onkens, and while the HCC will never match them dynamically or in frequency extension my goal is to make them sound similar within reasonable bounds.
Break in of these drivers seems to be a slow process, and I will wait for them to fully break in before making the next set of tweaks to them.. There is probably some suck out in the midrange which I can hear, but have not taken the time to measure carefully as it will probably change.
I will post some pictures when I have time, they didn't come out too badly and the boxes are stiff.
They incidentally are doing a creditable job on a BT cd right at this moment - not the sort of music they were probably designed to reproduce..
Last edited:
The boilerplate answer is that at least 100 hrs is recommended before you start doing anything. You may well find that you need to back off on the quantity of BSC as time goes on.
dave
Would not be the least bit surprised, and would be delighted as that would gain me back some of the efficiency lost.. Win win I think... They sound pretty good at this point..
I've been doing some measurements today, nothing yet quite ready for publication, but some interesting observations - and I will post them when I have got some proper measurements to share.
Measuring direct radiation the FE167 at 0.5m has usable output from 60Hz (roughly -3dB) to nearly 18kHz (worse than -3dB) on axis.
Sweeps indicate some audible output down to 30Hz, but it is at least 20dB down from midband.
The BSC I am using is apparently close to optimum at this point based on sweeps - there is no visible step in the response, and it is definitely necessary based on measurements and listening.
When I was doing some manual sweeps listening for buzzes I heard a very strong buzz right around 190Hz, as best as I can determine this is coming directly from the whizzers on the FE167. There was nothing else obvious in the range of 50Hz - 250Hz which is as high as I went.
While I have no exact numbers I can confirm that HF response plummets like a rock above 8kHz or so depending on how far off axis the listening position is. The Fostex numbers seem reasonably accurate.
My listening room obviously is not the optimum environment for doing FR measurements..
I am planning to invest in a pair of Planet10's phase plugs for these drivers, I think these will help in a number of areas, and particularly the sibilance band where I still hear some issues.
Measuring direct radiation the FE167 at 0.5m has usable output from 60Hz (roughly -3dB) to nearly 18kHz (worse than -3dB) on axis.
Sweeps indicate some audible output down to 30Hz, but it is at least 20dB down from midband.
The BSC I am using is apparently close to optimum at this point based on sweeps - there is no visible step in the response, and it is definitely necessary based on measurements and listening.
When I was doing some manual sweeps listening for buzzes I heard a very strong buzz right around 190Hz, as best as I can determine this is coming directly from the whizzers on the FE167. There was nothing else obvious in the range of 50Hz - 250Hz which is as high as I went.
While I have no exact numbers I can confirm that HF response plummets like a rock above 8kHz or so depending on how far off axis the listening position is. The Fostex numbers seem reasonably accurate.
My listening room obviously is not the optimum environment for doing FR measurements..
I am planning to invest in a pair of Planet10's phase plugs for these drivers, I think these will help in a number of areas, and particularly the sibilance band where I still hear some issues.
Last edited:
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.