FE167E Replacement

[differential]

Looking at the Martin King TQWT speakers but the FE167E is no longer available. Are any of the current line suitable or does anyone have a pair to sell?

[Bob Brines]

Originally Posted by differential

Looking at the Martin King TQWT speakers but the FE167E is no longer available. Are any of the current line suitable or does anyone have a pair to sell?

The new FF165WK is close to a drop-in for a TQWT. You will have to play with port length and stuffing density to arrive at the best response without a redesign.

I have some FE167E's lying around, but I expect that shipping half way around the world would be prohibitive.

Bob

[Jim Shearer]

FWIW: When I saw the specs for the new FF165wk, I plugged them in to MJK's MathCAD worksheets to see how they would do in the Metronomes I built for the FE167e. (built according to the Planet 10 Met tables.) The model looked like it would be reasonably close, but not optimal. There was a rise of a couple dB in bass before cut-off.

Cheers, Jim

[Bob Brines]

Originally Posted by Jim Shearer

FWIW: When I saw the specs for the new FF165wk, I plugged them in to MJK's MathCAD worksheets to see how they would do in the Metronomes I built for the FE167e. (built according to the Planet 10 Met tables.) The model looked like it would be reasonably close, but not optimal. There was a rise of a couple dB in bass before cut-off.

Cheers, Jim

Right. The 165WK needs a slightly smaller box tuned slightly higher.

Bob

[chrisb]

FWIW both the new 85&125s WK had a chance for exposure to a few more pairs of ears at a little DIY get together here over the weekend, and while an absolute consensus amongst audio-geeks is a statistical impossibility, I think it's fair to say that neither of these was considered a horrible step side- or back wards from the previous models they replaced ( FF85K and FE127E/FF125K).

As risky as it might be to extrapolate on that, in combination with Bob's impressions posted already on the matter, I'd opine that with appropriate (and relatively minor?) adjustments to enclosure volume & tuning, the 165WK could be very satisfying.

The biggest surprise and disappointment of the weekend respectively, and without contention, were the FF85WK and FE138ESR - a. The latter (not ours) had been awaiting some listening tests for some time now, and were a barely tolerable running full range as I'd read them to be. Interestingly enough, on a quickly hobbled together bi-amped system (with 85WK @ 100Hz), they made for a very acceptable, if not frugal-ish FAST.

[Scottmoose]

If you've got a SET amplifier, you should get away with the 165 in Martin's cabinet, with a slight adjustment to the damping. Rather than the stuffing, I'd line the box, top, back & one sidewall down to the bottom, with 1in acoustic fiberglass or similar. If you don't have such an amplifier, you should be able to ~mimic its behaviour with 2.5 - 3ohms series resistance.

I'm not entirely surprised re the FE138ES-R, given previous reports. It's a while since I looked at it, but I dug out the Japanese data sheet, & winced. That thing looks to have a response that'd strip feathers from a vulture at a hundred yards.

[chrisb]

Originally Posted by Scottmoose

I'm not entirely surprised re the FE138ES-R, given previous reports. It's a while since I looked at it, but I dug out the Japanese data sheet, & winced. That thing looks to have a response that'd strip feathers from a vulture at a hundred yards.

well, we haven't dispatched ZaBu into the woods yet to check for dead crows, but then since we were sitting much closer and couldn't endure ourselves them full range for more than a couple of minutes, perhaps no wildlife was endangered

pretty decent job as an upper woofer in the FH3 though - did require a shoe-horn and spacer blocks to fit that magnet

[differential]

Thanks guys. I appreciate the response. No pun intended! Looks like it is the FF165WK.

Russell

[serenechaos]

was the FE138 run w/ a low-pass, and/or notch filter?
as i remember, that (attenuation, crossed over to a nice LCY ribbon on top) took care of the high-end peak problems.

it was the mids, and what lows they had (until they quickly ran out of steam) that made them not worth pursuing. easily the worst in the house. a good example of showing an acceptable, or even good frequency response does not correlate to "sounding good."

[planet10]

When we bi-amped we used a handy 100 Hz 1st order PLLXO.

The particular shreik (when run FR) i heard was, i estimate, lower than a ribbon tweeter would reach.

dave