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
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
Thanks for the measurements again Bob.
Why would say these are improvements over the FE167E? The treble looks fairly shouty.
Why would say these are improvements over the FE167E? The treble looks fairly shouty.
Hi Bob,as I am thinking of getting a pair of FF165 drivers,could please give me the notch filter values that work the best.Thanks,Leo.
Right. You may want, no, you will want a BSC filter, but no notch. 30* may be a bit extreme, but somewhere around 15*.
Bob
Bob
Phase plugs will help. You do have a BSC filter on them, don't you? The FF165Wk's are much better in this regard, an most others too.
Bob
Bob
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
I don't own the 165's although I am considering them...
I own the 85's and find nothing wrong with them at all 🙂
I own the 85's and find nothing wrong with them at all 🙂
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 😀
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 😀
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???
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
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
- Not open for further replies.