Re: European prices for FE206ES-R fixed
I must say that (out of my memory) the measurements looks very similar to the Nagaoka D-57. The same height, width and throat area. Even the CC seems to be about the same volume.
(I'm currently trying out the D-57 with the FE-206E right now. I'll get back about those when I know more)
/Peter
validator said:
I must say that (out of my memory) the measurements looks very similar to the Nagaoka D-57. The same height, width and throat area. Even the CC seems to be about the same volume.
(I'm currently trying out the D-57 with the FE-206E right now. I'll get back about those when I know more)
/Peter
Horn-lovers should go into raptures over this driver. For those wanting to try something else; here's an ML TQWT. Actually, it's my old standby, Martin King's Project 2 ML TQWT, which yet again works wonders with only a small modification to the vent sizes.
60" tall
10" deep
2.5" wide at top
14.5" wide at bottom
Driver 30" from top
4" x 2" (WxD) port 3" up from the base.
0.25lbs ft^3 stuffing.
4 ohms series resistance applied. (all measurements are internal)
If you want another 10Hz or so of bass, increase the cabinet depth to 14" and the width at the base to 16.5". OK, this sacrifices efficiency for a nominally flat anechoic response and pretty deep bass, but it's still over 90db efficient which means 5w should take your head off.
Cheers
Scott
60" tall
10" deep
2.5" wide at top
14.5" wide at bottom
Driver 30" from top
4" x 2" (WxD) port 3" up from the base.
0.25lbs ft^3 stuffing.
4 ohms series resistance applied. (all measurements are internal)
If you want another 10Hz or so of bass, increase the cabinet depth to 14" and the width at the base to 16.5". OK, this sacrifices efficiency for a nominally flat anechoic response and pretty deep bass, but it's still over 90db efficient which means 5w should take your head off.
Cheers
Scott
Attachments
dithering
Hi - thinking seriously about placing an order
I am currently running an FE207e in Martins virtual design - actually have an image posted in his gallery -"stephen small"- and although I would expect to ultimately build a BLH for these drivers - would they work at all in that standard cabinet?
bye the way - I do really like the FE207's - but the baffle step correction circuit had really done a lot - so with my Dynaco ST-35 amp clone at 12+ watts I don't mind losing some efficiency.
Steve in N.Van - aka sapdog
Hi - thinking seriously about placing an order
I am currently running an FE207e in Martins virtual design - actually have an image posted in his gallery -"stephen small"- and although I would expect to ultimately build a BLH for these drivers - would they work at all in that standard cabinet?
bye the way - I do really like the FE207's - but the baffle step correction circuit had really done a lot - so with my Dynaco ST-35 amp clone at 12+ watts I don't mind losing some efficiency.
Steve in N.Van - aka sapdog
Scottmoose said:
Hi Scott,
Comparing 206-ESR to the 206E.
It would be very intresting to see what difference the driver would make in the recommended horn.
You seem to be quick and nimble with Martins WS, so may I please ask if you could do the simulation that you did with the ESR and the Fostex recommended horn for the ESR, but with the std 206E instead of the ESR.
Regards
Peter
FE207E in FE206ES-R enclosure. As you can see, not actually a great deal of difference between any of the three Fostex drivers in this horn -the frequency response is almost identical. However, the response curve is not everything: that gigantic magnet on the ES-R (BTW: am I the only one a bit diappointed that it doesn't seem to share the fancy materials the FE166ES-R magnet had? Lathanum-cobalt wasn't it? Probably no difference whatsoever, but good for the old feel-good factor!) should provide more detail.
I also had a quick look at the FE207E in the standard FE206E horn (which incidentally, I think is apallingly ugly). The results were so vile I'm not even going to bother posting them. I haven't tried modelling any of these drivers in the FE208ESigma backhorn though, which is even more handsome than the FE206ES-R horn in my oppinion, though it might not couple to the floor quite as well. That said, these should allow a bit of creativity -FE206ES-R double back-horn anyone?
These should be fairly accurate, though they don't take the room into account, or the level of stuffing that you apply to the compression chamber: they assume raw, unstuffed enclosures, as the amount of stuffing tends to depend on the room.
Best
Scott
I also had a quick look at the FE207E in the standard FE206E horn (which incidentally, I think is apallingly ugly). The results were so vile I'm not even going to bother posting them. I haven't tried modelling any of these drivers in the FE208ESigma backhorn though, which is even more handsome than the FE206ES-R horn in my oppinion, though it might not couple to the floor quite as well. That said, these should allow a bit of creativity -FE206ES-R double back-horn anyone?
These should be fairly accurate, though they don't take the room into account, or the level of stuffing that you apply to the compression chamber: they assume raw, unstuffed enclosures, as the amount of stuffing tends to depend on the room.
Best
Scott
Attachments
Scottmoose said:
Thanks a lot Scott!
It looks very similar to the FE206ES-R. I guess the hole at 340Hz is because the front radiation and back radiation beeing out of phase and of (approx.) equal level. Some stuffing in the CC/throat or change of CC volume may take care of that and perhaps reduce some other irregularities in the FR.
I'm trying out some measurement software (Good freeware! TombStone at
http://www.tolvan.com/ ) to see what difference stuffing can make. I realize that I should move outdoors to get reliable measurements but the climate of Stockholm doesn't allow me to do that for the moment.
Peter
Hi folks,
I think I malformed my question.
What I was interested in was how would the FE206es-r response be in Martin's MLTL design for the FE206e/FE207E cabinet. I ask this because that is what I am currently running - and before I manage to select and build a new BLH cabinet for the new driver - I will probably want to test it out and break it in in the cabinet that I have already built.
Obviously I can adjust the port length, stuffing density and the BSC circuit - but not the fundamental cabinet dimensions.
MLTL virtual cabinet for FE206e & FE207e
regards,
steve
I think I malformed my question.
What I was interested in was how would the FE206es-r response be in Martin's MLTL design for the FE206e/FE207E cabinet. I ask this because that is what I am currently running - and before I manage to select and build a new BLH cabinet for the new driver - I will probably want to test it out and break it in in the cabinet that I have already built.
Obviously I can adjust the port length, stuffing density and the BSC circuit - but not the fundamental cabinet dimensions.
MLTL virtual cabinet for FE206e & FE207e
regards,
steve
Sorry Steve (on the bright side, it was interesting though wasn't it?)
Calculated in latest version of the worksheets (as yet unavailable). 5" port length assumed. 5 ohms series resistance required to bring driver into line. probably won't need that much due to room-gain -3-4 ohms should be sufficent.
Best
Scott
Calculated in latest version of the worksheets (as yet unavailable). 5" port length assumed. 5 ohms series resistance required to bring driver into line. probably won't need that much due to room-gain -3-4 ohms should be sufficent.
Best
Scott
Attachments
Has anyone looked at the plans for the BLH from Fostex? I noticed that the dimensions for the location of the piece that divides horn on the 2nd and 3rd folds. This piece has top dimensions of 272mm and side measuring 369mm. I can`t determine where it should be attached to the back of the horn. I am new to this, but I can read plans, and I`m not sure if there is something I`m not seeing. Got the drivers on order and itching to cut some wood. Thanks for any insight.
OK, this is what I've found out.....
Lets start by defining that the first section is the section that is 60mm (x300) and the third section is 90mm(x300).
If you compare the Fostex design and the Nagaoka D-57 it looks like this:
Note that section 3 is wider and 4 is narrower in the Fostex design. I don't know if this is intentional. If you add section 3 and 4 widths you will get the same value for both designs (199mm i.e. #34 minus board thickness is the same on both designs)
If you set the distance between #8 and #10 (section 2) to 70mm you will get 149mm between #12 and #10. This is exactly the same distance as on the D-57. This is what I would go for.
/Peter
Lets start by defining that the first section is the section that is 60mm (x300) and the third section is 90mm(x300).
If you compare the Fostex design and the Nagaoka D-57 it looks like this:
Code:
Section Fostex Nagaoka D-57
1 60 60
2 ? 70
3 90 85
4 109 114
5 145 145If you set the distance between #8 and #10 (section 2) to 70mm you will get 149mm between #12 and #10. This is exactly the same distance as on the D-57. This is what I would go for.
/Peter
Fostex FE206ER-S
If the drawings are to scale it looks like it shoud be closer to 80 to 85cm, but I won`t bet on that. Your approach is more scientific than my "eyeballing." I spoke to a guy @ Madisound and he thought there might be additional information and possibly other plans for this driver. I`m anxious to get started, but I just finished the Fostex factory recommended horn enclosure for the FE206E, so I`ll be patient and see what`s coming around the bend. The standard FE206E sounds great in the horn cabinet and I`m not done adjusting them to my room.
If the drawings are to scale it looks like it shoud be closer to 80 to 85cm, but I won`t bet on that. Your approach is more scientific than my "eyeballing." I spoke to a guy @ Madisound and he thought there might be additional information and possibly other plans for this driver. I`m anxious to get started, but I just finished the Fostex factory recommended horn enclosure for the FE206E, so I`ll be patient and see what`s coming around the bend. The standard FE206E sounds great in the horn cabinet and I`m not done adjusting them to my room.
As implied in one of my earlier posts, here's some possible dimensions for a Bigger Is Better box with these drivers, assuming 0.75" build material:
10" external width, 17.5" depth, 70" tall, driver at 39" from the base, as in the original TC enclosure (you could go to 80", but the driver would end up too high). Terminate internal baffle 7.625" from the base and the front and rear walls. Will need some fairly high resistance wire, but with decent toe-in, should work pretty well.
Best
Scott
10" external width, 17.5" depth, 70" tall, driver at 39" from the base, as in the original TC enclosure (you could go to 80", but the driver would end up too high). Terminate internal baffle 7.625" from the base and the front and rear walls. Will need some fairly high resistance wire, but with decent toe-in, should work pretty well.
Best
Scott
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.