FE108EZ or 168? - 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 2nd January 2006, 08:10 PM   #1
vexator is offline vexator  Italy
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Puglia
Default FE108EZ or 168?

Hello all!
this is my first on this rich forum.

I just finished to build my first full-range, the FE87E with back loaded horn... magic sound! My 2A3 gets high.

Right now, I'm thinking to build a new full-range and I've thought about the FE168EZ, but I've seen that up the 5KHz this driver is "hysterical", too much... instead the 108 is quieter then its big brother.

What do u think?
  Reply With Quote
Old 2nd January 2006, 11:36 PM   #2
diyAudio Member
 
Scottmoose's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: UK
Welcome!

As for the FE168ESigmas response looking a trifle hysterical above 5Khz: it is. However, that's not quite the whole story. It depends how large a room you have, how loud you listen and a host of other factors that will determine which would ultimately be the most suitable for you. Also, above 5Khz, human hearing isn't actually that great, in the same way it's not so hot at low frequencies. As GM points out elsewhere, as our hearing is amplitude based, we key off the peaks, so providing they aren't excessively large / far apart etc, it can sound fine (psycho-acoustic masking is the fancy term I believe). Very few people have any complaints about the sound the 168 provides.

A quick few views. The FE108ESigma is considered to have one of, if not the, best midranges around, and is very good at the top end too, but bass is effectively non-existent -subs mandatory for full-range, unless you don't much care about frequencies under, say, 70-80Hz. The FE168ESigma comes close in the midrange and top, but adds a welcome dose of bottom-end heft to the mix. Depends how you load them really. The Fostex Factory horn designs for both drivers (scaled versions of the same enclosure) are excellent. The 108 has the much-loved Buschorn option too, and a Swan (slightly modified), whilst there's lots of ways you can load the 168.

Me? I'd go for the 168 as it has more heft at the low end, it can shift more air, and you have more options of how to load it (30Hz is not beyond their powers in some enclosures), but the 108 is truely lovely. If you can let us know your room size, if you have sub[s], what music you listen to etc, we can probably assist a little more.

Best
Scott
__________________
Community site www.frugal-horn.com Commercial site www.wodendesign.com
  Reply With Quote
Old 3rd January 2006, 02:55 PM   #3
johnb is offline johnb  Sweden
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Northen Europe
A question, if using subs what is the point of going trough the effort and building horns since a br or any other enclosure would be much more simple.

Sorry for the thread hi jack
  Reply With Quote
Old 3rd January 2006, 03:15 PM   #4
diyAudio Member
 
Scottmoose's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: UK
Good question. Like anything in life, it's not quite that simple. If only it was.

Efficiency is one reason. Depends on what amp you're using. Excursion is another: these drivers don't have much, so they will tend to work better in a horn enclosure than a BR, MLTL etc, though naturally, they will work in those as well, albeit the volume they can produce might be limited. In a large room, horn-loading is probably a must for many low excusion drivers, as it's the only way they can shift enough air. That applies to frequencies above 70Hz or so as well as below. In a small room, at quiet levels, there's no reason why a 108 shouldn't work on an open baffle, and quite a few people have tried just that. Zero bass performance of course, but supposedly everything over 250Hz was to die for.

As Martin (King) points out, ironically, most horns are actually hybrids -quarter-wave resonators in the bass-regions, transfering to horn loading higher up. Nothing wrong with that; if they didn't, you'd need a titanic-sized horn mouth, like Nelson's Klein-horn (have a look on www.passdiy.com if you haven't seen them. But get a brandy first. You'll need it.). Also, a decent, properly designed horn can obviate the frequent necessity for baffle-step compensation. I intend revisiting horns later this year, when I finally get my greasy paws on the latest version of Martin's BLH worksheet. There's potential there to be reaped, but they can be a pig to get working well.

Cheers
Scott
__________________
Community site www.frugal-horn.com Commercial site www.wodendesign.com
  Reply With Quote
Old 3rd January 2006, 03:23 PM   #5
johnb is offline johnb  Sweden
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Northen Europe
Thank you, I am planing on a system for a small room with subs and maybe the Fe127e in the fostex recomended BR, will that require a BSC or should i go with the designs in the "Master tread" of the reference speaker to avoid a BSC.

John
  Reply With Quote
Old 3rd January 2006, 04:14 PM   #6
diyAudio Member
 
Scottmoose's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: UK
The Fostex enclosure could probably do with a circuit to tame things down a touch unless you have the enclosures rammed up against a rear wall, in which case they likely won't even need that. The values wouldn't be very large if you did need it. As you're in a small room, you should be fine, unless you're running something daft like a 500miliwatt spud amp.

Scott
__________________
Community site www.frugal-horn.com Commercial site www.wodendesign.com
  Reply With Quote
Old 3rd January 2006, 04:50 PM   #7
diyAudio Member
 
Godzilla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: New York
>>> question, if using subs what is the point of going trough the effort and building horns…

>>> properly designed horn can obviate the frequent necessity for baffle-step compensation…

Back horn will pump up the lower mids in an attempt to balance out rising response of many (most) full range drivers. This adds additional efficiency as well as moves more air than just the driver alone. If back horn is done correctly, there is a liveliness to the sound… a jump factor… a realism… that drivers alone don’t seem to produce (as effortlessly).

I have the Fostex 168S (old with wizzer) and built a back horn for them and didn’t like (bk161). But the driver is really made for a simple ported box. Regardless, I heard the contribution the back horn cabinet makes. I also built a back horn cab (bk101) for the 1197 and heard its contribution too… tho I wasn’t crazy about that speaker either. LOL.

As for the 127e… it’s a cool driver that sounds very similar to both the older 168s and the radio shack 1197. It works great in a ported box and I plan to build another box for them similar to what’s described in that ‘reference project’ thread you mention. The 127e is a little forward sounding but I plan to keep them very near the wall. Don’t want to use a circuit of any kind. The driver is a bit forward sounding so you must like that type of sound.

Peace,
Godzilla
  Reply With Quote
Old 3rd January 2006, 05:37 PM   #8
TomekZ is offline TomekZ  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Wisconsin
About the current E Sigma 168 vs. 108. I've played with both in back horns placed in small and large rooms. In a small room and more near field, the 108 is very sweet and smooth on top, the 168 a little rough on top. Mids are pretty close, with the 108 favoring female voice, the 168 male voice. And esp., as mentioned, the 168's have much fuller bass and more efficiency. I overall most like the warm fuller sound of the 168.
  Reply With Quote
Old 4th January 2006, 09:15 AM   #9
vexator is offline vexator  Italy
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Puglia
Hi all!
Thank you very much for your replays!
My room isn't so big, I think the 108s could work well. In other hand the 168 is very expesive, in Italy yet, in Germany (or USA) it has a fairest cost.

I'll think...

what do you think about the fostex recommended enclusure (for 108 o 168)?

yours,
  Reply With Quote
Old 4th January 2006, 09:43 AM   #10
diyAudio Member
 
Scottmoose's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: UK
Depends who you ask!

Me, I like them. The Sigma enclosures are good, at least in my experience (the regular FE series enclosures on the other hand, aren't so hot). If you went for the FE168ESigma, this alternative might interest you: http://melhuish.org/audio/DIYTQ8.html
Just increase the width by 1", and decrease the height by 4" (the larger driver needs the extra room). Zilla's boxes look great to me too, although they were for the original, non 'E' Sigma, so I'm not sure if the newer driver would work so well.

The FE108ESigma should do well in the factory enclosure or a Buschorn, which seem to be the favourite loads. I like the looks of the factory design myself, and it's probably easier to build -lots of parts, but only right-angles involved.

Best
Scott
__________________
Community site www.frugal-horn.com Commercial site www.wodendesign.com
  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
L-pad for FE108EZ wixy Full Range 1 17th May 2008 03:15 PM
FE108EZ and FE168EZ LilMik Full Range 21 21st September 2006 08:37 AM
FE108EZ as a Midrange audioferret Full Range 18 15th November 2005 05:04 AM
Old enclosure for FE108ez -=Zepplock=- Full Range 7 11th October 2005 05:30 AM


New To Site? Need Help?

All times are GMT. The time now is 02:17 PM.


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