And now for the FF165WK

Status
This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.
Here are the measurements on a new pair of FF165WK's. The T/S specs are out-of-the-box. The RTA is with maybe 10hr.

I loaded the 165's in a pair of BR's that I had designed for the FE167E. The boxes are a bit big and tuned a bit low. I think that the ideal BR will be ~21L @45Hz. Anyway....

The new 165's have a sound very close to the old 167E's A bit firmer in the bass --note there is not BSC on the 165's. The bump @ 200Hz is probably baffle hump. The 165's are a bit sibilant as the FR would suggest. The only filter I see at this point is a low Q notch @4-7kHz.

I am pleased with the 165's They are drop-ins for the 167E's in my MLTL's where they sound better than the 166En's I forced into a modified MLTL. The highs are good enough for older ears, though the bat-eared will want a tweeter.

The FR traces are:
Black=0*
Red=15*
Blue=30*
Green=45*
Gray=Combined driver/port

Bob
 

Attachments

  • First Specs.jpg
    First Specs.jpg
    81.8 KB · Views: 1,104
  • New FR.jpg
    New FR.jpg
    83.8 KB · Views: 1,107

GM

Member
Joined 2003
sibilance

This is around an octave wide BW centered at ~6.7 kHz, so excessive peaking in the ~4.7 - 9.5 kHz BW is in theory to be avoided, yet many folks [though hardly all] find this adds a nice 'sharpness'/'inner detail' to many recordings depending on the type of signal chain combined with perceived tonal balance [flatness of response] at the listening position.

GM
 
sideways - if you mean the 85WKs, "nothing wrong" is a pretty good assessment - other than the obvious limitations of bass and max SPL - ain't no breaking the laws of physics

Bob - I trust you meant phase plugs on the 167s, not 165s? AFAIC, the several new materials and design advancements in the WK series - particularly that ridged metal "dust-cap/ tweeter" definitely represent a major performance improvement. Of the bunch, I think the only one I've not yet heard is the 225, which I gather would be the only one most folks would find required a tweeter - if I didn't already have too many speakers, I could probably live with any of them in a system

- what am I saying, who can have too many speakers? - certainly not a builder :D
 
The 85's are great...no sibilance or anything nasty at all...a real pleasure to listen too...and that's coming from a guy with very sensitive ears to nasty's and sibilance LOL!!!

That's what strikes me funny what Bob said about the 165's...there seems to be a bit of an increase in that 4-6k region but nothing huge that would cause a concern...especially once put in a box where the bass can be lifted to offset...

And I thinking that through right???
 
Well, everything is relative WRT tonal balance, so listening off axis is the most common way to deal with a rising and/or 'peaky' response and if the speaker isn't near any walls, corners, then some form BSC is usually required to either lift up the ~<200-300 Hz BW and/or shelve down the BW above it except possibly its extreme HF as Bob has already noted.

Note too that historically, tonally flat is considered +/- 3 dB, though where it was +/- and over how wide a BW determines a speaker's signature 'tone', so plenty of latitude for customizing it to suit the needs of the app.

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