Basic questions about Fostex drivers

zachary · 26th November 2004, 03:45 PM

Hello everyone,

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?

Thank you!!
Zach

MarkMcK · 26th November 2004, 03:59 PM

Zach,

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.

Best,

Mark

dvdwmth · 28th November 2004, 05:36 PM

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.

kepa1 · 30th November 2004, 12:26 PM

hi,

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.

bye

BTW the fe108s now replaces the fe103s

Timn8ter · 30th November 2004, 07:41 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by zachary
Hello everyone,

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?

Thank you!!
Zach

The Fostex full-range drivers tend to rely on some fashion of horn-loading to achieve adequate bass response. As a result the cabinets tend to be largish. My experience with full range drivers that have a large Xmax is that cone control becomes an issue and need to be used in smaller enclosures with an amp that can provide a reasonably high damping factor. My question is; How much more floor space does a FE166 or FE167 ML-TL (ala Bob Brines or Martin King) require compared to a smaller enclosure on a stand? Fostex does sell drivers for making HT speakers and has published plans on-line. These are, however, two-way BR designs.
http://www.fostexinternational.com/d...fw85k_tboy.pdf
http://www.fostexinternational.com/d...fw137_2way.pdf
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.

Bill Fitzpatrick · 1st December 2004, 01:38 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by MarkMcK

E-mail me directly and I would be willing to share.

You won't share openly?

OTMOPO3OK · 1st December 2004, 11:04 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Timn8ter

I would recommend the FE167E in a ML-TL for the mains and a FE167E in a BR for the center. I've used the FE207E with a super tweeter in a ML-TL for mains and it handles the task quite well.

Hello Timn8ter,
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.

Timn8ter · 1st December 2004, 11:22 PM

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.

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.

MJK · 2nd December 2004, 12:14 AM

Tim,

On your Alegria Audio site :

http://www.alegriaaudio.com/

I saw the following circuit sketch :

http://www.alegriaaudio.com/207BSC.htm

It is amazing how similar it looks to a sketch on my site :

http://www.quarter-wave.com/Project05/BSC_Circuit.pdf

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.

Timn8ter · 2nd December 2004, 02:47 AM

I'm sorry you feel that way Martin. Your name is all over my website. For example:
http://www.alegriaaudio.com/prod03.htm
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.

26th November 2004, 03:45 PM	#1
zachary diyAudio Member Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Greater Cincinnati Area	Basic questions about Fostex drivers Hello everyone, 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? Thank you!! Zach

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Some basic questions about Q	wigginjs	Multi-Way	8	20th October 2004 07:22 PM
basic questions for new guy	jlh28	Everything Else	1	12th January 2004 12:49 AM
Basic LED Questions	lgreen	Parts	22	19th December 2003 06:26 PM
Basic Questions	DarkMage	Multi-Way	2	5th November 2003 02:51 PM
Basic Questions	wnichol	Solid State	4	16th November 2001 04:59 AM

New To Site?	Need Help?
Register to Participate Search Privacy Statement Contact Us	Frequently Asked Questions Did you forget your password? Mark Forums Read


	Please consider donating to help us continue to serve you. Ads on/off / Custom Title / More PMs / More album space / Advanced printing & mass image saving

26th November 2004, 03:59 PM	#2
MarkMcK diyAudio Member Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Ohio	Zach, 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. Best, Mark

28th November 2004, 05:36 PM	#3
dvdwmth diyAudio Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Toronto	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.

30th November 2004, 12:26 PM	#4
kepa1 diyAudio Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Paris	hi, 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. bye BTW the fe108s now replaces the fe103s

1st December 2004, 11:22 PM	#8
Timn8ter diyAudio Member Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Seattle, WA	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. 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.

2nd December 2004, 12:14 AM	#9
MJK Account disabled at member's request Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Clifton Park, NY	Tim, On your Alegria Audio site : http://www.alegriaaudio.com/ I saw the following circuit sketch : http://www.alegriaaudio.com/207BSC.htm It is amazing how similar it looks to a sketch on my site : http://www.quarter-wave.com/Project05/BSC_Circuit.pdf 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.

2nd December 2004, 02:47 AM	#10
Timn8ter diyAudio Member Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Seattle, WA	I'm sorry you feel that way Martin. Your name is all over my website. For example: http://www.alegriaaudio.com/prod03.htm 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.