Hello!
After building Half Chang speakers with Fostex FE206 en, I am looking for a
new project.
The Half Chang's do sound great but they miss a bit of low end considering the size of them.
I am thinking about something a bit smaller and the Fostex FF165wk looks
interesting to me.
Would they fit a (folded) Voigt pipe? Or would it be possible to re-design the
frugel-horn to fit the FF165wk?
I use a 10W single ended tube amp.
Room size is about 18,5 m2 and 52 m3.
leo
After building Half Chang speakers with Fostex FE206 en, I am looking for a
new project.
The Half Chang's do sound great but they miss a bit of low end considering the size of them.
I am thinking about something a bit smaller and the Fostex FF165wk looks
interesting to me.
Would they fit a (folded) Voigt pipe? Or would it be possible to re-design the
frugel-horn to fit the FF165wk?
I use a 10W single ended tube amp.
Room size is about 18,5 m2 and 52 m3.
leo
Perhaps part of your disappointment from the FE206E in Chang is that they were originally targeted for FE207E - the appropriate enclosure of that catalog's vintage for the 206 would have been Sachiko "Olson Manifold Horn" - granted a much more detailed build and larger cabinet.
To answer the question re modifying FH3 - in short, an experienced dental surgeon might be able to stuff this 6" driver in the enclosure, but not without severely hamstringing the performance - and I doubt you want to be underwhelmed by this next build.
Terry Cain's original Abby (now Lovecraft Designs) was optionally outfitted with the earlier FF165K (in fact a buddy of mine had both 165s and 167s for his) - presumably the WK would work well enough in a similarly dimensioned "classic" Voigt pipe.
More likely is that something like a floorstanding MLTL such as Brine's M12-FF165, or a "pensilesque" would likely deliver the implied desirable compromise of bass weight/extension, relatively simple build and domestically acceptable form factor. But, to echo GM, to squeeze the most juice from the bottom octaves with this class of drivers - bigger is (probably) better - and there are several such designs from which to choose.
To answer the question re modifying FH3 - in short, an experienced dental surgeon might be able to stuff this 6" driver in the enclosure, but not without severely hamstringing the performance - and I doubt you want to be underwhelmed by this next build.
Terry Cain's original Abby (now Lovecraft Designs) was optionally outfitted with the earlier FF165K (in fact a buddy of mine had both 165s and 167s for his) - presumably the WK would work well enough in a similarly dimensioned "classic" Voigt pipe.
More likely is that something like a floorstanding MLTL such as Brine's M12-FF165, or a "pensilesque" would likely deliver the implied desirable compromise of bass weight/extension, relatively simple build and domestically acceptable form factor. But, to echo GM, to squeeze the most juice from the bottom octaves with this class of drivers - bigger is (probably) better - and there are several such designs from which to choose.
Chrisb, I'm not disappointed with the Chang. I actually love them except from the bottom end. I don't want real heavy bass, just a little bit more, but (if possible) with a smaller
footprint.
What I meant about re-modifying FH3 is to somehow upscale the concept of FH3 to fit
a 6" driver. I don't know if this is possible and I don't know how to do it, but somehow
it seems like an interesting option to me.
leo
footprint.
What I meant about re-modifying FH3 is to somehow upscale the concept of FH3 to fit
a 6" driver. I don't know if this is possible and I don't know how to do it, but somehow
it seems like an interesting option to me.
leo
That same question has been asked so MANY times. We tried from the start with no success. 4-5" is the sweet spot it seems
dave
For the FH3? yes - certainly a better option than attempting to shoe-horn any 6" driver in that enclosure.
As your room is of moderate dimensions, this size of driver could well be a sweeter choice overall.
Keep in mind that of the Fostex drivers, one that was on the original short list of candidates for the FH3 was the FE126En - although the FE108EZ and perhaps even FX120 & F120A could work. One that we know for sure doesn't "sound favorite" (to use a Woden-ism), and at frequency range well above the bandwidth at which the rear horn load is of benefit, is the FE138ESR
Scott might be willing to address that question again, or perhaps Dave could delve in the archives for earlier replies and post as a sticky here, or on the FH site?
Last edited:
There is always the Metronome.
The most wife friendly loudspeaker on the planet.
I don't have the means to dimension an enclosure any more but maybe Scott or Dave could help with that.
The Metronome
The most wife friendly loudspeaker on the planet.
I don't have the means to dimension an enclosure any more but maybe Scott or Dave could help with that.
The Metronome
+1 to Steve's suggestion!
I have built 3 pair of Mets so far. (and there may be news soon of another...)
I just have trouble understanding your issue w/ bass from the FE206e HC. I built a pair of those, and they have great bass AFAIC. Now I did put a BSC filter on them, and they are driven by a SS HT receiver (way far from the last word in SQ). I have observed significant differences in speaker performance with different amps. E.G., I have a Dynakitparts.com ST-35 which delivers less bass than any of my SS vintage receivers-- but its SQ more than makes up for that.
But, ah, Mets! Slim, small foot print, high WAF--and great sound.
Cheers, Jim
I have built 3 pair of Mets so far. (and there may be news soon of another...)
I just have trouble understanding your issue w/ bass from the FE206e HC. I built a pair of those, and they have great bass AFAIC. Now I did put a BSC filter on them, and they are driven by a SS HT receiver (way far from the last word in SQ). I have observed significant differences in speaker performance with different amps. E.G., I have a Dynakitparts.com ST-35 which delivers less bass than any of my SS vintage receivers-- but its SQ more than makes up for that.
But, ah, Mets! Slim, small foot print, high WAF--and great sound.
Cheers, Jim
Thank you Jim. I also do have a BSC on them, but I never tried a solid state amp with them. I should try it one day.
As for the Mets, they look interesting enough. I think I'll just build both
enclosures; the Mets and the TQWT I suggested before. The only way to
really find out, isnt it.
Now there's one question regarding the Mets
If I look at the tables on the Frugal site, it says 167e fit the same box as 207e; but then if I click the drawings it gives different sizes for 167e and the
207e.
Which one should be the starting point in my case (ff165wk).The Metronome
leo
Hi Leo,
If you are using the FF165wk, then you will do better with either of the following:
I ran a few models of the FF165wk in Mets using MJK's MathCAD worksheets. Results are in the thread "The Metronome" page 88 post #879:
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/full-range/85410-metronome-88.html
Another solution (also derived from running MJK's worksheets) can be found in The Metronome on p 95, post #948. IIRC, this solution has a bit less ripple in the SPL plot.
The design is somewhat forgiving, and there probably is no single, perfect solution. Besides, your room is going to affect performance so much that I expect you would be hard pressed to hear any consistent and significant difference between these designs if you moved them from one room to another.
Keep us posted!
Jim
If you are using the FF165wk, then you will do better with either of the following:
I ran a few models of the FF165wk in Mets using MJK's MathCAD worksheets. Results are in the thread "The Metronome" page 88 post #879:
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/full-range/85410-metronome-88.html
Another solution (also derived from running MJK's worksheets) can be found in The Metronome on p 95, post #948. IIRC, this solution has a bit less ripple in the SPL plot.
The design is somewhat forgiving, and there probably is no single, perfect solution. Besides, your room is going to affect performance so much that I expect you would be hard pressed to hear any consistent and significant difference between these designs if you moved them from one room to another.
Keep us posted!
Jim
Last edited:
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.