Well I can give you my thoughts on the Fostex Fe126en drivers. I have had them almost a year. I have had them playing in a box untreaded and then treated. I treated the cones and then the basket and magnet. The drivers are so good a voices. The bass is as go as it gets for a 4.5 inch fullrange driver for its price range. I have compaired the fostex fe126en next to the Fe108ez drivers. The Fe108ez drivers are better by night and day and I left the cones and basket normal. Now on the fe102en drivers their higher range I know tend to be soft on cymbles and bells and other sounds past 10khz. I have the ff125wk dirvers and to me they do everything the fe126en does but, are better past 10khz and cymbles and bells sound more upclose and not so far away and soft sounding. The fe126en has a better midrange in terms of voices and the liver sound. The ff125wk has a natural and relaxled sound. They say the ff125wk goes deeper and has more xmax but ,I really don't know? I can say this I have not built fostexs horn box for these drivers but, a coner loaded horn box. I also built a book shelf bass reflex front ported box. Then I spent a while rebuilding a trapazoid box for these drivers and it was all I was hoping for and more. Now I took the fe126en out and I put in the ff125wk not treated but, just as they came from fostex. Very nice alround drivers.
Here is a post I posted awhile back with pictures of the boxes I did for the ff125wk and then the fe126en drivers painted back.
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/full-range/218669-taming-harshness-fostex-ff125wk-6.html It's is the 9th post down. If you need info I can give you box size. Cheers jm.
Here is a post I posted awhile back with pictures of the boxes I did for the ff125wk and then the fe126en drivers painted back.
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/full-range/218669-taming-harshness-fostex-ff125wk-6.html It's is the 9th post down. If you need info I can give you box size. Cheers jm.
Yes good point but, I would trust my ears over a data sheet any time. They can be misleading like with me in the past. Jm
Understood. Assuming the goal is a flat response at the listening position(s), life tends to be easier with a flatter response over a peaky response, even if that measurement doesn't reflect the ultimate listening environment.
I'd rather sacrifice bass and gain a smoother response, although it's interesting that on a few Fostex, you can actually have both (but for more money).
I'd rather sacrifice bass and gain a smoother response, although it's interesting that on a few Fostex, you can actually have both (but for more money).
Why would you bother? Because FE126 does a lot of things better than FE166 -- the main advantage of the 166 over 126 -- bigger cone, more bass. Thru the critical midrange,andon the top the smaller driver has an edge.
I even pick FE126eN^2 (in FH3) over FE166eSReN (in Victor) for most listening.
dave
Thanks everyone for your feedback. The response of naturalsound and planet 10 are most appreciated. Midrange finesse is a higher priority than the bass response, though I was wondering how must bass extension a small size driver would provide. I will lock down on the 126 En for the next speaker I am building using a self designed BLH enclosure.
The Fostex 166 En in the Haruna BLH design are paired with a 2A3 SET and the overall performance is wholesome and engaging. The bass response of this enclosure design is remarkable.
The Fostex 166 En in the Haruna BLH design are paired with a 2A3 SET and the overall performance is wholesome and engaging. The bass response of this enclosure design is remarkable.
In the Fostex world, the FE83En, FE103En, FE126En, FE166En and FE206En (and some others) are more or less a "family" and the bigger drivers have better bass, while the smaller drivers tend to have better, smoother, flatter treble with better dispersion (less beaming).
Also as you go up in size, you get better sensitivity. So within that part of the Fostex family, the trade-off is roughly: how much bass do you need, vs. treble smoothness and dispersion, with what sensitivity?
I will say this I would have agreed with you a few years back about wasting my time on 4" inch fullrange drivers. Now today I go for the smaller drivers and leave the bigger drivers alone due to less top ensand more beaming. I had to buy and try to hear it for my self. I did't understand why people liked the 4.5 inch fullrange drivers intill I took the plunge. I am not trying to discard your point of view I just wanted to share my thoughts on my own journey of learning. Jm
Well, let's not beat up on Haddar too much, but when the OP specifically asks about a particular driver model, enclosure design, or combination thereof, it behooves us to address that without second-guessing his reasons, or insulting his choice.
And to add one more voice to the chorus, for a lot of folks who've had experience with a wide range of makes, types and sizes of drivers, there's much that the 3-4" units do remarkably well, particularly when supported by woofers as needed. None of us would be as arrogant to say that our personal choice or favorite would suit all users and applications - "my precious - one ranger for all"
And to add one more voice to the chorus, for a lot of folks who've had experience with a wide range of makes, types and sizes of drivers, there's much that the 3-4" units do remarkably well, particularly when supported by woofers as needed. None of us would be as arrogant to say that our personal choice or favorite would suit all users and applications - "my precious - one ranger for all"
A disappointment those
We mounted them in FH3. They make tremendous (if expensive) bass drivers. Use them to add bottom end to the FE103. We did 1st order PLLXO @100 because that was handy. I'd probably move that up a bit if actually doing a design.
dave
Hi Dave, interesting -- may I ask for your thoughts on the solution being mechanical? I thought the issue was a narrow ~5k resonance and its harmonics (because Serenechaos seemed to solve it with a passive notch, but wasn't satisfied for other reasons and crossed to a ribbon).
Serenechaos' friend J. Jackson suggested piercing the magnesium cap, but it's a gamble. I'd be among those happy owners if something could be found -- thank you in advance for any insight.
Serenechaos' friend J. Jackson suggested piercing the magnesium cap, but it's a gamble. I'd be among those happy owners if something could be found -- thank you in advance for any insight.
Notch filters are always a band-aid. The problem areas seemed to meto be a lot more wide spread than a single resonance, and problems start much lower in frequency than 5k.
One could start with treatment of the dustcap, that is an obvious candidate. A tap test would quickly confirm whether the FFxx5wk pattern could be adapted,
dave
One could start with treatment of the dustcap, that is an obvious candidate. A tap test would quickly confirm whether the FFxx5wk pattern could be adapted,
dave