Basic questions about Fostex drivers
I am new to the Fostex line, but like the full-range and especially the high efficiency.
I have a few questions though:
1. The Xmax on their drivers is REALLY small (similar to Lowther I guess, but at a substantially lower price), how do they achieve the base/lower ranges? How will these speakers sound compared to drivers with a larger more typical Xmax?
2. Are any Fostex drivers suitable for a small enclosure box for use in a 5.1 HT setup? If so, which one(s) would you recommend?
3. Are there any recommended/tested Fostex HT designs available online?
I have started work on one of the Fostex full-range drivers. I have some preliminary test results that might interest you.
E-mail me directly and I would be willing to share.
check out the enclosure recommendations for the fe103 on madisounds fostex page. There's a smallish BR box there. I couple of other drivers have BR designs too. I built it but I cant comment on the sound because I used the radioshack driver which is not at the same level as the fostex.
i build the acr fe103s (which is a replica of the fostex) in BR - 6 litres, after i read a 5.1 thread in a french forum where people got very enthusiast about it.
it's true they sound very good, detailed, open, with a very good image.
my system is just a 2.1 : lately i've had a bassbox with a beyma 10lw30 in it. it adds the bass that was lacking with the fostex alone and listening isn't painful anymore.
beware to chose a fast woofer to go with the fostex because they are really fast too (avoid the peerless stuff).
also, on the first days i was disappointed about the sound but within a week the speakers opened up.
i'm sure you'll find plenty of info on this site. check the full range driver web site also.
BTW the fe108s now replaces the fe103s
Re: Basic questions about Fostex drivers
If you like Fostex full-range drivers and want to use them in a HT setting I would recommend the FE167E in a ML-TL for the mains and a FE167E in a BR for the center. The subwoofer is up to you. I've used the FE207E with a super tweeter in a ML-TL for mains and it handles the task quite well.
Re: Re: Basic questions about Fostex drivers
How would you compare 167E to 207E in ML TLs. say for 50% Music, 50% theater. Is Beaming from larger mains a problem for HT? Does beaming from 167E & 207E differ a lot. I understand that beaming for CC is actually very good.
Another thing: i see u did not recommend SuperTweeter for 167E but did for 207E. Do 167E sound more extended? How is the camparison of bass? If you were to do it all over again which driver would you chose?
As for me i was thinking 207E+ST MLTL and 167E MLTL(F3=50-60Hz) for center, 127MLTL(F3=60-70hz) for surround. Maybe u'll change my mind now.(i did not want to make surround smaller than 127E since i use it for DVD-Audio sometimes and i cross my sub as low as i can because i can hear where the bass is coming from)
Thank you, if you can tell me some other things i should note it would be good.:cool:
I think the whizzer cone helps with the beaming issue. The 207 has more bass but is that important in HT when you have a sub? The 207 ML-TL will give you about 10Hz lower bass response than the 167. The 167 does have better HF response than the 207 so I didn't see the need for a super tweeter but there are many that don't see the need for a ST for the 207 either. I always recommend using the same drivers (if not the same speaker) for the mains and center. Remember that the majority of audio information in HT comes through the center channel. If you like the idea of the larger driver go for 3 207s. The Fostex recommended BR enclosure for the 207 isn't that big IMO but I guess that may depend on the size of your TV. :D If you want to be true to DVD-A then all five speakers should be the same and in a perfect world able to handle 20 - 20kHz. :xeye:
On your Alegria Audio site :
I saw the following circuit sketch :
It is amazing how similar it looks to a sketch on my site :
If you guys are going to steal information off of a copyright labeled site, at least have the decency to give the designer credit or redraw it so it is not so obvious.
For the rest of you reading this post, this is one prime example of why I have decided to not release any more free upgraded MathCad worksheets (they exist), any more free speaker designs (they are coming), and have changed the way I document my work so that it is not so clear how I get from point A to point B (as evident in my recent baffle step calculation write-up). To be fair to Tim, there are a number of other examples on the Internet of people using my MathCad worksheets for commercial purposes against my wishes. But the others have at least done some of the work themselves, redrawn the figures in their own format, and given credit for the MathCad worksheets.
I'm sorry you feel that way Martin. Your name is all over my website. For example:
Since you feel that I'm not giving you enough credit I will make the appropriate changes. Furthermore, I have not sold anything that has been produced through the use of your MathCAD worksheets and in fact contacted you when I did take to market a design that was based on your work. Please note that I am not selling the plans you refer to, only the parts to make them. I apologize for not giving you more credit.
|All times are GMT. The time now is 09:37 AM.|
vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2016 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright ©1999-2016 diyAudio