Fe167e Br - Page 2 - diyAudio
Go Back   Home > Forums > Loudspeakers > Full Range

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
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 11th August 2005, 09:25 AM   #11
diyAudio Member
 
Bob Brines's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Hot Spring Village AR
Quote:
Originally posted by regal
So it would be better to use Bob's MLTL full range with a sub at 40hz
instead of the BR high passed at 80hz (sub low passed 80hz)?
How do you intend to do the cross-over? At these low frequencies, an active XO or DSP is required.

A Fostex FE167E in a 25 liter BR will have f3 ~60Hz. Alone it is good to ~50Hz with doubling below that. You will "hear" down to 40Hz, but it is faked and sounds funny. Alone, it will not play loud without serious distortion. IMO, you must cross it no lower than 100Hz.

A Fostex FE167E in a proper MLTL is good to 40Hz stand-alone. The bottom end is a little soft, but very listenable for acoustic instruments. Anything but 5-string bass guitar, C-extended double bass and organ. However, running the MLTL full-range but crossing in a sub a 40Hz gives you a new experience. The low acoustic range is much firmer and you can go as low as the sub allows.

IMO, given a proper active cross-over, BR's and subs will give a cleaner sound because of reduced IM distortion and greater overal SPL. If you are going to run the mains full-range, then go with the MLTL. This also gives you the option of much better balance when running without a sub.

Bob
  Reply With Quote
Old 11th August 2005, 04:19 PM   #12
regal is offline regal  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: MD
I plan on using the active crossover from my reciever unfortunately it is set at 80hz.

Funny a previous post metnioned Led Zeppelin, I do intend on listening to Led. I am willing to give up some loudness. I am still in awe at the way a guitar sounds on the 127E's
  Reply With Quote
Old 11th August 2005, 10:47 PM   #13
diyAudio Member
 
Scottmoose's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: UK
You'll like what the 167s are going to do for your ears then...
__________________
Community site www.frugal-horn.com Commercial site www.wodendesign.com
  Reply With Quote
Old 30th August 2005, 09:52 PM   #14
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Minnesota
Default fe167e folded ml tqwt

i think on the second post there was a link to a FE167e ML TQWT design which is folded.

does this design have BSC and if not what would be a good starting point?

i have a pair of 167's and unsure which way to go.

BR for simpleness or the TQWT way...
__________________
It is not you... you are it.
  Reply With Quote
Old 30th August 2005, 10:01 PM   #15
Dumbass is offline Dumbass  British Antarctic Territory
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: British Antarctic Territory
Quote:
Originally posted by AudioGeek
i think on the second post there was a link to a FE167e ML TQWT design which is folded.
does this design have BSC and if not what would be a good starting point?
Martin's Project 2 BSC would be a good place to start:
http://www.quarter-wave.com/Project02/Project02.html
Recall that Bob's design is simply a folded version of Project 2. If you want to "roll your own" or simply double-check the values, he has a generic article on calculating component values:
http://www.quarter-wave.com/General/BSC_Sizing.pdf
Quote:
Originally posted by AudioGeek
i have a pair of 167's and unsure which way to go.
BR for simpleness or the TQWT way...
IMO the TQWT isn't considerably more complex to build. It is, of course, considerably more voluminous and also more difficult to design.
  Reply With Quote
Old 30th August 2005, 10:13 PM   #16
regal is offline regal  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: MD
Default Re: fe167e folded ml tqwt

Quote:
Originally posted by AudioGeek
i think on the second post there was a link to a FE167e ML TQWT design which is folded.

does this design have BSC and if not what would be a good starting point?

i have a pair of 167's and unsure which way to go.

BR for simpleness or the TQWT way...

If you are woodworking challenged like me a BR + sub is the way to go. By highpassing the BR you also have the advantage of greater power handling and clearer midrange vs a TL
  Reply With Quote
Old 30th August 2005, 10:24 PM   #17
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Minnesota
Default so if eventually with sub?

if eventually i wanted to build 2 10" subs then a BR would be way to go?

should i just roll the bass off with a passive x-over or electronic x-over?

still use a BSC on the 167 if roll of bass anyways??

what to do......
__________________
It is not you... you are it.
  Reply With Quote
Old 31st August 2005, 03:23 AM   #18
frugal-phile(tm)
diyAudio Moderator
 
planet10's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Victoria, BC, NA, Sol III
Blog Entries: 5
Default Re: so if eventually with sub?

Quote:
Originally posted by AudioGeek
if eventually i wanted to build 2 10" subs then a BR would be way to go?
If used with a sub, the box ideally should be sealed or aperiodic. A BR can be made aperiodic by stuffing the port.

dave
__________________
community sites t-linespeakers.org, frugal-horn.com, frugal-phile.com ........ commercial site planet10-HiFi
p10-hifi forum here at diyA
  Reply With Quote
Old 31st August 2005, 06:25 AM   #19
Dumbass is offline Dumbass  British Antarctic Territory
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: British Antarctic Territory
Quote:
Originally posted by planet10
If used with a sub, the box ideally should be sealed or aperiodic. A BR can be made aperiodic by stuffing the port.
Or sealed by completely plugging it up!

You make an excellent point. With stereo 10" drivers, shouldn't be too hard to integrate them, they ought to go up plenty high enough. If you're already putting in a bi-amped woofer, why bother with venting the full-ranger?

In fact, this system is exactly the proposal given by Doc Bottlehead and Paul Joppa (except they choose the FE166E driver, should work even better with FE167E):
http://www.bottlehead.com/loosep/S.E.Xy%20speakers.html
  Reply With Quote
Old 31st August 2005, 12:30 PM   #20
regal is offline regal  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: MD
If you go sealed with the 167E's then you have to cross in the subs at 150hz. This is probably too high to be mono. To go stereo on the subs you have to have a separate active crossover. Recievers only have a mono sub output.

I have found that you still need BSC because the bass drops off from the BS starting around 200hz.

I would be interested to know if a passive crossover would work, it would probably be expensive with the size of the components and you would need a sub that could play pretty high because the xover couldn't be as steep as with an active xover.
  Reply With Quote

Reply


Hide this!Advertise here!
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
FE167E, Zobel and/or BSC Jeb-D. Full Range 8 25th October 2007 04:58 PM
WTB : Fostex FE167E Cacophonix Swap Meet 0 11th April 2007 10:49 PM
Aw ****. SI + Fostex FE167E disconnec Class D 8 29th September 2005 12:53 AM
what to do with FE167e's? AudioGeek Full Range 8 27th February 2005 07:16 PM


New To Site? Need Help?

All times are GMT. The time now is 10:54 AM.


vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright 1999-2014 diyAudio

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2