Thought I'd restart the Fostex 166ES-R Thread for the completed projects- lets see what your done.
----------------------------------------------------------------
“I’m a great artist – I can paint an apartment in a weekend” – opps – that’s the joke about Hitler.
But that’s the extent of my painting skills – slosh a bit of emulsion on walls. So painting a bit of furniture i.e. my BLH cabinets was a bit daunting. All this was still only an experiment into BLH’s so I wasn’t going to go out and buy a decent (and expensive) spray gun and compressor. Hell I might only spray a few cabinets a year – if that.
So I went out and bought a Wagner 640 electric spray gun (no laughs please), procedure: -
1. All MDF edges firstly primed with two coat 50/50 glue/water to seal edges
2. One coat MDF primer all over with a brush, stuff I bought was too thick to spray.
3. Sand down primer
4. Two spray coats acrylic primer/sealer undercoat, each coat sanded to form base coat for finish
5. Three (just) coats sprayed Dulux Glimmer “Night Stone” first coat sanded, second wire wooled
Lessons
1. Serious spaying needs serious equipment!
2. I probably should have sanded the MDF primer coat down a lot more but the two build coats finally hid the imperfections here!
3. The Wagner just doesn’t produce a fine enough spray for this sork of work.
For this one off test it was just about acceptable but I wouldn’t use it if these were to become my main room cabinets. I would also guess it’d be useless for auto/2 pak paints.
I tried the “Glimmer” effect to see if it’d hide slight edge flaws which I knew were there – it didn’t. As everyone says – sand – sand – sand, oh and sand.
I’m being critical of myself here but overall for a beginner the final finish is quite acceptable and if I’d have worked the edges a bit more would be pretty good but only because of the “special effect” paint.
More pics - http://www.greenie512.net/greenie512/html/finished.html
----------------------------------------------------------------
“I’m a great artist – I can paint an apartment in a weekend” – opps – that’s the joke about Hitler.
But that’s the extent of my painting skills – slosh a bit of emulsion on walls. So painting a bit of furniture i.e. my BLH cabinets was a bit daunting. All this was still only an experiment into BLH’s so I wasn’t going to go out and buy a decent (and expensive) spray gun and compressor. Hell I might only spray a few cabinets a year – if that.
So I went out and bought a Wagner 640 electric spray gun (no laughs please), procedure: -
1. All MDF edges firstly primed with two coat 50/50 glue/water to seal edges
2. One coat MDF primer all over with a brush, stuff I bought was too thick to spray.
3. Sand down primer
4. Two spray coats acrylic primer/sealer undercoat, each coat sanded to form base coat for finish
5. Three (just) coats sprayed Dulux Glimmer “Night Stone” first coat sanded, second wire wooled
Lessons
1. Serious spaying needs serious equipment!
2. I probably should have sanded the MDF primer coat down a lot more but the two build coats finally hid the imperfections here!
3. The Wagner just doesn’t produce a fine enough spray for this sork of work.
For this one off test it was just about acceptable but I wouldn’t use it if these were to become my main room cabinets. I would also guess it’d be useless for auto/2 pak paints.
I tried the “Glimmer” effect to see if it’d hide slight edge flaws which I knew were there – it didn’t. As everyone says – sand – sand – sand, oh and sand.
I’m being critical of myself here but overall for a beginner the final finish is quite acceptable and if I’d have worked the edges a bit more would be pretty good but only because of the “special effect” paint.
More pics - http://www.greenie512.net/greenie512/html/finished.html
Attachments
greenie512 said:
Hi Phil,
Your cabinets look great! But, you didn't mention how they sound. Are you happy with the sound? I built the Swan D-168 for my 166esr drivers. I've only built one so far. And it's the first major woodworking project I've done since high school. (I'm now 50.) My swan is made out of ¾ inch oak plywood because I didn't want to fool around with veneer or paint. Here's a picture (hopefuly) of the internal panels. I've labeled the panels in case anyone wants to compare them to the drawing. Note that I made a slight change in the layout. I made the bottom panel the same width as the internal panels. I figured that this would make it easier to align the panels. And it gave a smoother look to the outside of the box.
Attachments
I lined the entire length of my D-168 with small "rainbow" river rock on two adjacent sides and the bottom. I only compensated for the volume of the rock on the back of panel 9 and the CC because I wasn't planning on lining the rest of the horn. However, when I yelled through the top of the bare box, it boomed and echoed like crazy. Since I have a dead room, I didn't want to use sound absorbing material. So I decided to line the rest of the horn with river rock even though I didn't account for the extra volume of the rock. The lining mellowed out the horn but it still echoes slightly when I yell through it. A little sound absorbing material (fiberglass is all that I had on hand) on the back panel of the mouth kills most of the echo. By the way, the rock added about 65 pounds to the weight of the cabinet! The rock also deadened the plywood panels. For the Swan, I think this is a good thing because the panels vibrate quite a bit and some of them are dissonant to each other. As you can see in this photo, I filled in the "vent" with urethane foam because it rang like crazy at the resonant frequency of the vent. I didn't think that this was a good thing. But, I'm a novice so what do I know
Attachments
I didn't like the looks of the D-168 so I made some slight design changes. As previously mentioned, I filled in the vent with urethane foam. So, I didn't cut a vent opening on the outside of the cabinet. I also pushed the CC all the way forward and created a false front and sides. The CC is expanded and lined with river rock. The throat is lined with river rock on two adjacent sides. I only partially compensated for the volume of the rock in the throat because I didn't compensate for the rock in the rest of the horn. Here's a photo of my nearly completed cabinet. All I need to do is to add a final finish. But, I probably won't do that until I build the other one.
So, how does it sound? Well, I've only built one so far. So I'll defer final judgment until I finish the other one. It sounds very promising, though. It is much more open than the small BR in the other channel. Plus the shrillness appears to be gone. It still might be a bit bright but I can work with that. And there's plenty of clean, tight bass. I can hardly wait to build the other one!
Sincerely,
Rich Raymond
So, how does it sound? Well, I've only built one so far. So I'll defer final judgment until I finish the other one. It sounds very promising, though. It is much more open than the small BR in the other channel. Plus the shrillness appears to be gone. It still might be a bit bright but I can work with that. And there's plenty of clean, tight bass. I can hardly wait to build the other one!
Sincerely,
Rich Raymond
Attachments
Sound results
Ray – love the look of your first cabinet. Before I finished your posting and saw the picture I’m wondering what this “river rock” sound deadening product was – I hadn’t see that on the market………. Hell, you mean RIVER ROCK.
And I though my cab were heavy at about 70 Kg each – all external panels doubled to 36mm. I had to go and buy a trolley to get them 30m from shed to lounge. You must need a hoist???
Sound – I’d read on the other threads that the 166es-r sounded shrill/no bass but I think this was in open baffles and temporary boxes. Straight into the recommended BLH’s I’m very impressed. Mine are not shrill, have good body and are wonderful on voice. For the first few days they seemed a bit boxy/chesty but that has gone.
Great on jazz, acoustic music, folk and “real” instruments can cope quite well with “light” rock (Dire Straits etc) but struggle with elctro/synth (but who care about that crap).
If I hadn’t built a pair of Seas Thor transmission line speakers 5 months ago I’d be quite happy to leave these as my main speakers. In fact they’ll hang around in the system for some time but ultimately the can not compete with the Thor’s sheer clarity and ultimate presentation.
I can see why valve freaks love these kinda speakers I have my (trannie) pre amp on half it’s normal volume with ample SPL’s.
The BHL helps with sound reinforcement and bass but I have a sub playing as well with just give it that extra edge.
Ray, could you give me a link to the Swan design so I can see a construction drawing.
Ray – love the look of your first cabinet. Before I finished your posting and saw the picture I’m wondering what this “river rock” sound deadening product was – I hadn’t see that on the market………. Hell, you mean RIVER ROCK.
And I though my cab were heavy at about 70 Kg each – all external panels doubled to 36mm. I had to go and buy a trolley to get them 30m from shed to lounge. You must need a hoist???
Sound – I’d read on the other threads that the 166es-r sounded shrill/no bass but I think this was in open baffles and temporary boxes. Straight into the recommended BLH’s I’m very impressed. Mine are not shrill, have good body and are wonderful on voice. For the first few days they seemed a bit boxy/chesty but that has gone.
Great on jazz, acoustic music, folk and “real” instruments can cope quite well with “light” rock (Dire Straits etc) but struggle with elctro/synth (but who care about that crap).
If I hadn’t built a pair of Seas Thor transmission line speakers 5 months ago I’d be quite happy to leave these as my main speakers. In fact they’ll hang around in the system for some time but ultimately the can not compete with the Thor’s sheer clarity and ultimate presentation.
I can see why valve freaks love these kinda speakers I have my (trannie) pre amp on half it’s normal volume with ample SPL’s.
The BHL helps with sound reinforcement and bass but I have a sub playing as well with just give it that extra edge.
Ray, could you give me a link to the Swan design so I can see a construction drawing.
and also
Ray, forgot to ask - where did the idea of lining cabinet in rock come from?
I know you've go lots of non-uniform curved edges now but doesn't this make for a hard/reflective and non-sound absorbant enviroment???
Interesting though - I suppose you used construction glue to fix them all - you must be a very patient man - one at a time.
Ray, forgot to ask - where did the idea of lining cabinet in rock come from?
I know you've go lots of non-uniform curved edges now but doesn't this make for a hard/reflective and non-sound absorbant enviroment???
Interesting though - I suppose you used construction glue to fix them all - you must be a very patient man - one at a time.
greenie512 said:
Hi Phil,
Well, My cabinet weighs about 125 pounds (57 kg). So the rock doubled the weight of my plywood cabinet. Maybe your MDF is actually made out of rock!
Andrew (Andrewbee) posted it in the "Fostex 166ES-R; reviews, cabinets, & notch filters" thread. He deserves the kudos for posting the link. Scroll down to find the Swan D-168. Here is the link again:
http://homepage3.nifty.com/spida/eng-page9-1-4.htm
greenie512 said:
From one of Blackie's (noisenyc) threads. (The "fostex bk-16" thread.) Thanks Blackie!
Yep. That's the whole idea. It doesn't make a whole bunch of sense to me to put sound dampening material into a horn -- the idea of a horn is to amplify the sound. But, something needs to be done to tame the frequency spikes caused by the 90 degree bends. Most Swan builders use a sound absorbing material. Maybe that's the best approach. I'm a beginner so I just don't know. But, I don't think that the frequency spikes need to be absorbed -- just redirected. The Fostex design uses the stepped mouth to tame the spikes. But, according to my experience with river rock, it's not enough to just address the mouth. However, I also found that the river rock doesn't kill the main resonant frequency resulting from the total length of the horn. So, I also had to use a little sound absorbing material on the mouth too. And I may still have some spikes to tame. I'll find out more when I build the other cabinet.
Nope. I used epoxy -- almost ¾ gallon. (3 liters.) But it was still time consuming putting all those wretched little rocks in epoxy.
-Rich
Hi Greenie512!
I am also planing to build the recommended BLH enclosure for the Fostex FE166 ES-R.
I know that audio reviews are subjective, but yours make me uncertain, because I wouldn't have thought that the Thor outperforming the Fostex FE166 ES-R with/in the factory enclosure.
Could it be that your drivers are not brake in yet?
What about to use this driver in the Jericho horn?
Greets:
Tyimo
I am also planing to build the recommended BLH enclosure for the Fostex FE166 ES-R.
I know that audio reviews are subjective, but yours make me uncertain, because I wouldn't have thought that the Thor outperforming the Fostex FE166 ES-R with/in the factory enclosure.
Could it be that your drivers are not brake in yet?
What about to use this driver in the Jericho horn?
Greets:
Tyimo
166ES-R v Thors
Tyimo, Firstly - build ther BLH's they are good speakers.
I was trying to avoid a direct A/B comparison between the BHL and TL’s as they are such different beasts. But you’ve forced my hand – so I’ve rolled out the Thors and done so.
Same CD/pre amp and power amp and cables – 166es-r connected with cat 5e and Thors with QED Profile 4 cable, personal opinions …
1. Human voice – Fostex by a mile. I though the Thors were good on voice but the 166’s are fantastic – natural and true. If you main concern is voice use these speakers, wonderful.
2. Instruments – Thors for separation and clarity, with these speakers you can clearly hear each instrument separately and pick up the finer detail in the recording. The Fostex just can not do this due to the single driver needing to cover all frequencies. This isn’t the best analogy but it’s like listening to a radio (okay, I’ve never heard a radio sound this good). The musicality of the Fostex is very good it’s just you know there’s more detail there that isn’t coming through.
3. Presentation – I’m surprised at the quality of the Fostex’s out of the box sound, producing an excellent sound stage with depth of field and width (Thors probably just as good?).
4. Listen ability?? – Well I have been listening to the 166’s for hours on end and they are certainly easy on the ear but that may be due to 2 above?
Final thoughts:
1. You get what you pay for in this world (capitalist pig!) and the Thor’s do cost 4 times the 166’s setup – are they 4 times better – well of course not. This hobby like most has a law of diminishing returns. But I still think the Thors were money well spent.
2. I can certainly see why people like these full range units and I’m very tempted to buy a valve amp to join the club (can not afford it!)
3. I wonder if a “super tweeter” would help with a bit of instrument definition on the Fostex?
4. If I won the lottery I’d build 4 sound rooms and one would have a full valve system with full range BLH speakers
If I could integrate the Fostex into the Thors for the superb voice reproduction I’d be a very happy man.
Cheers - Phil
Tyimo, Firstly - build ther BLH's they are good speakers.
I was trying to avoid a direct A/B comparison between the BHL and TL’s as they are such different beasts. But you’ve forced my hand – so I’ve rolled out the Thors and done so.
Same CD/pre amp and power amp and cables – 166es-r connected with cat 5e and Thors with QED Profile 4 cable, personal opinions …
1. Human voice – Fostex by a mile. I though the Thors were good on voice but the 166’s are fantastic – natural and true. If you main concern is voice use these speakers, wonderful.
2. Instruments – Thors for separation and clarity, with these speakers you can clearly hear each instrument separately and pick up the finer detail in the recording. The Fostex just can not do this due to the single driver needing to cover all frequencies. This isn’t the best analogy but it’s like listening to a radio (okay, I’ve never heard a radio sound this good). The musicality of the Fostex is very good it’s just you know there’s more detail there that isn’t coming through.
3. Presentation – I’m surprised at the quality of the Fostex’s out of the box sound, producing an excellent sound stage with depth of field and width (Thors probably just as good?).
4. Listen ability?? – Well I have been listening to the 166’s for hours on end and they are certainly easy on the ear but that may be due to 2 above?
Final thoughts:
1. You get what you pay for in this world (capitalist pig!) and the Thor’s do cost 4 times the 166’s setup – are they 4 times better – well of course not. This hobby like most has a law of diminishing returns. But I still think the Thors were money well spent.
2. I can certainly see why people like these full range units and I’m very tempted to buy a valve amp to join the club (can not afford it!)
3. I wonder if a “super tweeter” would help with a bit of instrument definition on the Fostex?
4. If I won the lottery I’d build 4 sound rooms and one would have a full valve system with full range BLH speakers
If I could integrate the Fostex into the Thors for the superb voice reproduction I’d be a very happy man.
Cheers - Phil
Attachments
Tyimo, forgot to say.
Yep, 166's need a lot of running-in according to Andrew and all but I'm every impressed with them after - say - 40 hours playing. But can not see final burnt in versions resolving items listed above.
This is my first trip into horn loaded country so can not comment on other designs
Yep, 166's need a lot of running-in according to Andrew and all but I'm every impressed with them after - say - 40 hours playing. But can not see final burnt in versions resolving items listed above.
This is my first trip into horn loaded country so can not comment on other designs
Hi Phil!
Thanks a lot for your detailed A/B comparison! So, now I am sure again to build this BLH.)
One more question: Which enclosure goes deeper? I know the Thor is around 50Hz and most of the Fostex BLHs too, but this new "upgraded" BLH could be lower?
Basicaly I am interested about the enclosure quality more then for the 166 ESR, because I would like to use "only" a "simple" 166ES. (if it is possible 2 driver in 1 box!)
Thanks again!
Greets:
Tyimo
Thanks a lot for your detailed A/B comparison! So, now I am sure again to build this BLH.
)One more question: Which enclosure goes deeper? I know the Thor is around 50Hz and most of the Fostex BLHs too, but this new "upgraded" BLH could be lower?
Basicaly I am interested about the enclosure quality more then for the 166 ESR, because I would like to use "only" a "simple" 166ES. (if it is possible 2 driver in 1 box!)
Thanks again!
Greets:
Tyimo
Bass
Tyimo, I would say the Thors produce the most bass but not substantially more.
I have no measuring equipment to it's a bit tricky to be precise also my listening room is very light weight construction so get little bass reinforcment from the room.
However, the standard recommended Fostex cabinet is excellent and I would suspect provided as much bass as is reasonably feasible for the design.
I'd be very interested in the final results if you are going to put two units in one box ... keep me posted.
Cheers - Phil
Tyimo, I would say the Thors produce the most bass but not substantially more.
I have no measuring equipment to it's a bit tricky to be precise also my listening room is very light weight construction so get little bass reinforcment from the room.
However, the standard recommended Fostex cabinet is excellent and I would suspect provided as much bass as is reasonably feasible for the design.
I'd be very interested in the final results if you are going to put two units in one box ... keep me posted.
Cheers - Phil
I finished my rock lined Swans a couple of weeks ago and have been trying to tune them ever since. The first thing that I noticed is that they are very sensitive to room placement. If I place them too close to the wall there is plenty (perhaps too much) bass and the lower midrange sounds a bit hollow. Currently they are about 10 inches (25 cm) away from the wall. This works when they're well toed in. (In this position the mouth of one speaker opens into a hallway instead of against the wall.) The drivers are about 12 feet (3.7 m) apart and the distance from driver to ear is about 10 feet (3 m). From what I've read, a typical placement would be toed in 10 to 30 degrees. Well, that just doesn't work in my room. (At least, when they're 12 feet (3.7 m) apart.) Currently my Swans are toed in about 60 degrees. But, I'm still fiddling with toe-in. On some CDs, they sound best on axis. By the way, I'm now driving my Swans with a Sonic Impact T-Amp. It has more than enough power!
My rock lined Swans don't have any sound absorbing material in them. If I add sound absorbing material, it sucks a little life out of them. About the only benefit of sound absorbing material is that it tightens up the bass. But, these speakers don't really need a tighter bass. And the sound absorbing material also tightens up the midrange -- which this speaker definitely doesn't need. I've only tried two types of sound absorbing material, though -- standard fiberglass insulation and Sonic Barrier from Parts Express.
I've done two modifications to the drivers -- duct seal on the back of the drivers and Dave's phase plugs. I don't think there is much improvement from the duct seal. (It deadens the sound a bit but I haven't decided yet if that is an improvement.) Dave's phase plugs made a definite (but subtle) improvement in the midrange and high end. For example, the chimes midway through Pink Floyd's "Time" were a bit overbearing before installing the phase plugs. Now they sound quite good. (In fact, the whole CD sounds awesome on these speakers.) The phase plugs also improve the off axis sound. Perhaps that's why I can get away with the extreme toe in. I'm very happy with the improvement in sound quality from the phase plugs. Plus I think that they improve the looks of the driver.
The detail of these speakers is amazing. For example, I heard a crackling sound on one of my CDs. At first, I thought there was something wrong with the driver. So, I replayed that section. It was actually the singer licking her lips! My previous speakers (now deceased Ohm F) totally missed this detail.
The bass is clean and tight. And it seems to go at least as deep (and loud) as my old Ohm Fs that had a published lower range of 37 Hz. However, if the Swans are out in the middle of the room, the bass is a bit lean.
My main complaint with my Swans is that the upper midrange is still a bit tight. (I'm being very critical, though.) Actually, the whole range is probably a bit tight. This is great for the bass. But not so good for the upper midrange. For example, the strings in Jupiter (Holst: The Planets) sound a bit strained and edgy instead of warm and relaxed. Any suggestions on opening up the midrange more? Also, I have a hard time believing that the Fostex 168ES driver would work in the same cabinet since they have different T/S parameters. Does the CC need to be changed for different drivers? (Yes, I've read MJK's articles on horns. But I would like to hear other comments.) Or perhaps I over (or under) estimated the volume of rock in the CC? Any comments from other Swan builders? Plus, there's got to be more 166esr feedback out there. Tell us your results!
Sincerely,
Rich
My rock lined Swans don't have any sound absorbing material in them. If I add sound absorbing material, it sucks a little life out of them. About the only benefit of sound absorbing material is that it tightens up the bass. But, these speakers don't really need a tighter bass. And the sound absorbing material also tightens up the midrange -- which this speaker definitely doesn't need. I've only tried two types of sound absorbing material, though -- standard fiberglass insulation and Sonic Barrier from Parts Express.
I've done two modifications to the drivers -- duct seal on the back of the drivers and Dave's phase plugs. I don't think there is much improvement from the duct seal. (It deadens the sound a bit but I haven't decided yet if that is an improvement.) Dave's phase plugs made a definite (but subtle) improvement in the midrange and high end. For example, the chimes midway through Pink Floyd's "Time" were a bit overbearing before installing the phase plugs. Now they sound quite good. (In fact, the whole CD sounds awesome on these speakers.) The phase plugs also improve the off axis sound. Perhaps that's why I can get away with the extreme toe in. I'm very happy with the improvement in sound quality from the phase plugs. Plus I think that they improve the looks of the driver.
The detail of these speakers is amazing. For example, I heard a crackling sound on one of my CDs. At first, I thought there was something wrong with the driver. So, I replayed that section. It was actually the singer licking her lips! My previous speakers (now deceased Ohm F) totally missed this detail.
The bass is clean and tight. And it seems to go at least as deep (and loud) as my old Ohm Fs that had a published lower range of 37 Hz. However, if the Swans are out in the middle of the room, the bass is a bit lean.
My main complaint with my Swans is that the upper midrange is still a bit tight. (I'm being very critical, though.) Actually, the whole range is probably a bit tight. This is great for the bass. But not so good for the upper midrange. For example, the strings in Jupiter (Holst: The Planets) sound a bit strained and edgy instead of warm and relaxed. Any suggestions on opening up the midrange more? Also, I have a hard time believing that the Fostex 168ES driver would work in the same cabinet since they have different T/S parameters. Does the CC need to be changed for different drivers? (Yes, I've read MJK's articles on horns. But I would like to hear other comments.) Or perhaps I over (or under) estimated the volume of rock in the CC? Any comments from other Swan builders? Plus, there's got to be more 166esr feedback out there. Tell us your results!
Sincerely,
Rich
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.