these, perhaps?
From the 3 models I've heard, it's hard not to concur with the assessment (Bud's?) that the WK series is an improvement over the prior FE series. The previous FF85K was a bit of a giant-killer, but I like the the new 85WK even more - it makes for a wonderful mid/tweet in a "FAST" type systems, or alone in a nearfield / desktop - I have a pair both at home and work, powered by Topping TP30 amps.
Hi rjbond3rd,
You are correct. I have multiple Mets: FE108eS, F120A, FE167e, FF85k bipole, and just at the moment, the FE103en are in the Mets built for the FE108eS.
Some of my scattered thoughts about them:
-- all of the Mets with Fostex drivers have a way of extracting the ambience from recordings which I like; other speakers which I have enjoyed in the past sound a bit flat and one dimensional by comparison; don’t know if it’s just the Fostex drivers or if the Met design helps with this; the FE127e Fonkens Prime also do well in this regard, so perhaps it has something to do with baffle width/shape in addition to the Fostex family characteristics.
-- the 108s are lively and engaging; they seem to disappear and the music just fills the room; I think they produce good sound stage and imaging; they begin to struggle on large scale orchestral works at anything more than modest volume; the need support from a sub if there is significant low freq content.
-- the 103s are similar, except that they are smoother than the 108s; I don’t know how to explain it, but they are different from the 108s; not better or worse: similar but different; they are a bit less ‘in your face’ than the 108s, while still delivering a great sonic image with small groups; they have the same need for low end support as the 108s.
-- the F120A, when driven by tubes, is superior to either the 103 or 108; it has just enough low end grunt that I am satisfied to use them without a sub; smoother than the 108; more like the 103 but bigger, more capable of presenting larger scale works at a bit more volume; they are less ‘in your face’ than the 108’; the sonic presentation is a bit more laid back than the 103 too, as if you were sitting a few seats back further than with the 103; I could live with these as my only speakers... if I had to. (but why would I do that?)
-- the FE167e digs deeper and does better yet on larger works, although it still won’t produce large scale orchestral material at high SPLs; the 167 is rougher in the highs than the 108, but is a good compromise between articulation, bass extension, and ability to present more complex material; a little more ‘in your face’ than the 103.
-- the FF85k bipole Mets are smoother and brighter than the 108s; they only reach down to 80 Hz, so I wouldn’t think of using them without a sub; they have the interesting spacial qualities of bipole/dipole speakers; As with the F120As, I think I could live with these as my only speakers if I had to, but I would put a high pass filter on them to prevent low freqs from stressing them.
Cheers, Jim
You are correct. I have multiple Mets: FE108eS, F120A, FE167e, FF85k bipole, and just at the moment, the FE103en are in the Mets built for the FE108eS.
Some of my scattered thoughts about them:
-- all of the Mets with Fostex drivers have a way of extracting the ambience from recordings which I like; other speakers which I have enjoyed in the past sound a bit flat and one dimensional by comparison; don’t know if it’s just the Fostex drivers or if the Met design helps with this; the FE127e Fonkens Prime also do well in this regard, so perhaps it has something to do with baffle width/shape in addition to the Fostex family characteristics.
-- the 108s are lively and engaging; they seem to disappear and the music just fills the room; I think they produce good sound stage and imaging; they begin to struggle on large scale orchestral works at anything more than modest volume; the need support from a sub if there is significant low freq content.
-- the 103s are similar, except that they are smoother than the 108s; I don’t know how to explain it, but they are different from the 108s; not better or worse: similar but different; they are a bit less ‘in your face’ than the 108s, while still delivering a great sonic image with small groups; they have the same need for low end support as the 108s.
-- the F120A, when driven by tubes, is superior to either the 103 or 108; it has just enough low end grunt that I am satisfied to use them without a sub; smoother than the 108; more like the 103 but bigger, more capable of presenting larger scale works at a bit more volume; they are less ‘in your face’ than the 108’; the sonic presentation is a bit more laid back than the 103 too, as if you were sitting a few seats back further than with the 103; I could live with these as my only speakers... if I had to. (but why would I do that?)
-- the FE167e digs deeper and does better yet on larger works, although it still won’t produce large scale orchestral material at high SPLs; the 167 is rougher in the highs than the 108, but is a good compromise between articulation, bass extension, and ability to present more complex material; a little more ‘in your face’ than the 103.
-- the FF85k bipole Mets are smoother and brighter than the 108s; they only reach down to 80 Hz, so I wouldn’t think of using them without a sub; they have the interesting spacial qualities of bipole/dipole speakers; As with the F120As, I think I could live with these as my only speakers if I had to, but I would put a high pass filter on them to prevent low freqs from stressing them.
Cheers, Jim
Thank you, Jim. Those impressions are really similar to my own. For years, I listened to models with problematic treble, but I'll never go back after living with the smoother, flatter models.
The one thing people comment on with the 103 is the spooky realism. On soundtracks, for example, people say, "Answer the door, didn't you hear the doorbell?" and it's merely on the soundtrack. Also, the 103's seem to be able to "float" images more readily than some other models.
Thank you again for your thorough (and accurate!) insights.
The one thing people comment on with the 103 is the spooky realism. On soundtracks, for example, people say, "Answer the door, didn't you hear the doorbell?" and it's merely on the soundtrack. Also, the 103's seem to be able to "float" images more readily than some other models.
Thank you again for your thorough (and accurate!) insights.
Dynablasterstuners,
I rather doubt I would like the poly cone of the TB W5. At least my experience so far is that I am more of a paper cone guy.
rjbond3rd,
You are most welcome! I don't know how to express all the things I hear in the different drivers. (probably would be writing reviews if I could) I think we definitely agree that there is something special about the FE103.
Cheers, Jim
I rather doubt I would like the poly cone of the TB W5. At least my experience so far is that I am more of a paper cone guy.
rjbond3rd,
You are most welcome! I don't know how to express all the things I hear in the different drivers. (probably would be writing reviews if I could) I think we definitely agree that there is something special about the FE103.
Cheers, Jim
There may be something special about the FE103 but it might be unwise to overlook it's overlooked 4" brother FF105WK; could be more special yet in the right cabinet.
FE103 vs FE126 below 4500hz
Hi Chrisb---- yes, Bud brought the bamboo/fe127 speakers like the ones in your photo(same ones?). He did give credit to the builder, but I don't remember who it is. I must say by that point in the meeting there was enough chatter from the peanut gallery(sorry peanuts) that it was hard to have a serious listen. I did previously hear them when Bud did an A-B comparison with a non-ENABLED pair at a PNWAS meeting a couple years back. It was an interesting exercise for me at the time, because after 30 mins I was hearing a quite noticeable difference, whereas in the beginning I was hard pressed to hear the difference. I am not sure what to attribute the difference in perception to. At the time I was mostly listening to untreated FE126's at home.
ON THE FOSTEX FE DRIVERS: Adjusting for the efficiency, and keeping volume moderate, would a FE103 sound much different in my existing 3way, described in this thread, than the FE 126e's that are already installed there? The upper crossover is second order at around 4500hz.I ask this by way of trying to tease out where the differences lie in the drivers for a future build, probably a woofer and a mid/tweet 2-way, not to change out the drivers in the existing.
Hi Chrisb---- yes, Bud brought the bamboo/fe127 speakers like the ones in your photo(same ones?). He did give credit to the builder, but I don't remember who it is. I must say by that point in the meeting there was enough chatter from the peanut gallery(sorry peanuts) that it was hard to have a serious listen. I did previously hear them when Bud did an A-B comparison with a non-ENABLED pair at a PNWAS meeting a couple years back. It was an interesting exercise for me at the time, because after 30 mins I was hearing a quite noticeable difference, whereas in the beginning I was hard pressed to hear the difference. I am not sure what to attribute the difference in perception to. At the time I was mostly listening to untreated FE126's at home.
ON THE FOSTEX FE DRIVERS: Adjusting for the efficiency, and keeping volume moderate, would a FE103 sound much different in my existing 3way, described in this thread, than the FE 126e's that are already installed there? The upper crossover is second order at around 4500hz.I ask this by way of trying to tease out where the differences lie in the drivers for a future build, probably a woofer and a mid/tweet 2-way, not to change out the drivers in the existing.
FF105wk is nice
dave
The canine in the photo appears to find them very soothing.
I have Coral Flat 5II papercone, and this polypropilene TB is on the same sonic level
inrank
How did you find the Jericho? I am thinking about building a slightly modified Jericho 08. The 08 has a very similar horn flare and fold to the original one but the driver is in the flare not a chamber and it also has a internal helmholz resonator. I built a Lowther A115 cabinet using a Philips 9710 driver and was very disapointed with no bass what so ever below 80 hz and that shouty 9710...
How did you find the Jericho? I am thinking about building a slightly modified Jericho 08. The 08 has a very similar horn flare and fold to the original one but the driver is in the flare not a chamber and it also has a internal helmholz resonator. I built a Lowther A115 cabinet using a Philips 9710 driver and was very disapointed with no bass what so ever below 80 hz and that shouty 9710...
I really liked them, very dynamic and fast/punchy bass but not very deep considering the imense size.
I really liked the old FF-225K, VERY smooth in the treble too!
I have actually managed to source a pair of Veravox 5S drivers again now!
Foster 10F3 with a helper woofer/tweeter
I posted earlier here about a proposed build using a full range Fostex with an old 10” JBL LE10a woofer.
Now I have rediscovered a pair of old radio shack speakers that I had hung up years ago in our little barn before I even knew about Fostex full range drivers. I looked up, and my imagination lit up! I pulled down one of these speakers and discovered that it contained the Foster 10F3 with the horse shoe shaped steel around the little (alnico?) magnet(suggestions/corrections about magnet structure terminology would be appreciated). Guessing that these are from the late 1960's.?
I listened to one of these Solo 103 speakers, on music and test tones. The general sound is a little more real or natural than the Fostex fe126e, that I like, and have listened to a lot. The Solo 103 seems to start to roll off on the low end at about 300-400 hz, but is still pretty strong at 250hz or so. In overall tone it is quite similar to the fe126e (built about 35 years apart) . At the top end, the RS Solo 103/Foster10F3 seems to start to roll off somewhere below 10k hz. On a tone sweep it sounds very smooth from 300 to 8k.
I earlier posted about wanting to build a 2 or 3 way with a Fostex full range speaker(as mid or mid/high) covering as much of the range as possible. These 10F3's are sweet sounding but are rated at 3 watts/10watts max. I think that they must be about 90 db efficient above 350hz, guessing from how loud they sound next to my existing speakers.
3 Questions:
Here is the main question: If the lower crossover point was 500hz with 12db/octave rolloff, how much power could the system handle, if it was being limited by the power handling of the Foster 10F3? (I plan on using an 8ohm JBL LE10a from the mid 1960's, and I think it is rated for 75 watts. I believe it is about 89db efficient). I want to be able to play the system fairly loud when I get the itch.
Question: Would a resistor on the Foster 10F3 help with woofer baffle step, and thus also with power handling? How much reduction in output does a 10ohm resistor in series make?
Another question:Somewhere on one thread or another here, somebody spells out how much power it takes to reproduce given bands of the audio frequency, relative to one another-with the bass requiring much more than the mids, does anyone remember where that may be here on diyaudio?
I posted earlier here about a proposed build using a full range Fostex with an old 10” JBL LE10a woofer.
Now I have rediscovered a pair of old radio shack speakers that I had hung up years ago in our little barn before I even knew about Fostex full range drivers. I looked up, and my imagination lit up! I pulled down one of these speakers and discovered that it contained the Foster 10F3 with the horse shoe shaped steel around the little (alnico?) magnet(suggestions/corrections about magnet structure terminology would be appreciated). Guessing that these are from the late 1960's.?
I listened to one of these Solo 103 speakers, on music and test tones. The general sound is a little more real or natural than the Fostex fe126e, that I like, and have listened to a lot. The Solo 103 seems to start to roll off on the low end at about 300-400 hz, but is still pretty strong at 250hz or so. In overall tone it is quite similar to the fe126e (built about 35 years apart) . At the top end, the RS Solo 103/Foster10F3 seems to start to roll off somewhere below 10k hz. On a tone sweep it sounds very smooth from 300 to 8k.
I earlier posted about wanting to build a 2 or 3 way with a Fostex full range speaker(as mid or mid/high) covering as much of the range as possible. These 10F3's are sweet sounding but are rated at 3 watts/10watts max. I think that they must be about 90 db efficient above 350hz, guessing from how loud they sound next to my existing speakers.
3 Questions:
Here is the main question: If the lower crossover point was 500hz with 12db/octave rolloff, how much power could the system handle, if it was being limited by the power handling of the Foster 10F3? (I plan on using an 8ohm JBL LE10a from the mid 1960's, and I think it is rated for 75 watts. I believe it is about 89db efficient). I want to be able to play the system fairly loud when I get the itch.
Question: Would a resistor on the Foster 10F3 help with woofer baffle step, and thus also with power handling? How much reduction in output does a 10ohm resistor in series make?
Another question:Somewhere on one thread or another here, somebody spells out how much power it takes to reproduce given bands of the audio frequency, relative to one another-with the bass requiring much more than the mids, does anyone remember where that may be here on diyaudio?
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.