diyAudio

diyAudio (http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/)
-   Full Range (http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/full-range/)
-   -   Is the FE 108EZ a bad Driver? (http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/full-range/72673-fe-108ez-bad-driver.html)

LilMik 26th January 2006 05:38 PM

Is the FE 108EZ a bad Driver?
 
hello all,

i want to build the 108ez recommended enclosure, but a german maganzin (klang & ton) recently tested the driver and said that it is useless for hifi. the driver has nasty resonances in the mids and a 10db hole from 700hz to 2000hz.

phreaps the driver was broken? is the 108ez really that bad? if the dip is really that big, it can't be good at all.

where can i find measurements of the 108ez. i could not find that much with google.de. is someone here who has the driver and can measure the frequency response?

looking at mr. pass measurement (you can find the articel at sixmoons.com, it's called "firstwatt, an introduction to the concept") the frequency response looks fine.

:help:
lilmik

seanzozo 26th January 2006 09:45 PM

I expect that klang & ton is given to hyperbole. My measurements of the FE-166 correspond VERY nicely both to Mr. Pass's and to Fostex's own measurements.

I don't see why the FE108 would be any different. Pass does show a 5db dip from 800-1500.

Note that Stereophile also tested a 108 equipped speaker. so you can find some measurements there

Sean

Scottmoose 27th January 2006 08:37 AM

No, the Fostex FE108ESigma is not that bad. Actually, it's got one of the best mid-ranges you're ever likely to come across. Klang & Ton don't know what they are talking about if that's how they classify it. They've also come up with some complete nonsense about quarter-wave loading recently from what I hear, so I reckon the best policy would be to ignore everything they say.

This isn't just subjective opinion by the way, though plenty of people will give you their evaluation that it's one of the best drivers they've ever heard (within its limitations: let's be honest, a 4" driver is never going to be a bass-monster). As you cite yourself, Nelson Pass has measured them, likes them, and his measurements agree very well with the Fostex published data. I've heard them in a few guises, and they always sound very good, and measure well (providing they are in a properly designed enclosure). Have a look here at just one commercial example: Terry Cain's IM BEN double-horns. All $4,500 of them. Terry is not known for poor-sounding designs -I don't think he'd be using it for no good reason! http://www.cain-cain.com/IM-BEN/index.html By the way, if you haven't run across Terry before, he's a big supporter of the Fostex recommended enclosure designs they provide free on their site. Comforting to know, coming as it does from someone who produces horns like those in the above link!

Best
Scott

LilMik 27th January 2006 06:29 PM

2 Attachment(s)
hello again,

sorry, i made a mistake :cannotbe: . it was not the magazin "klang & ton", it was the german magazin "hobby hifi". they said the 108ez is unusable.

searching this fourm up and down, i found a nearfield measurement of a 108ez in an 2 liter sealed box. look at the picture. scary :eek: . on the other hand, look at the frequency response from 7000hz and upwards. i really don't think the 108ez has a frequenzy response like this.

josephjcole made the nearfield measurement. here is the thread, it is post number 6 --> http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showt...706&highlight=

how does fostex smooth there measurements. if you use 1 octave or 1/2 octave, a small but sharp dip may disappear or look hamrless, if you smooth over 1/16 octave, it can look very bad.

greetings from germany
lilmik

Dumbass 27th January 2006 06:57 PM

I have to distrust that measurement.

I mean, AFAIK Joe likes those drivers! (He has them in really cool potter enclosures.)

Nelson Pass 27th January 2006 07:05 PM

I haven't measured the 108EZ, but there's no way
that it has that dip. It's an enclosure or measurement
artifact.

seanzozo 27th January 2006 09:00 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by LilMik

how does fostex smooth there measurements. if you use 1 octave or 1/2 octave, a small but sharp dip may disappear or look hamrless, if you smooth over 1/16 octave, it can look very bad.

That is an issue

UNsmoothed responcse of my kestrel hotrods look better than my FE166 horns. smooth them a little and they look comparable from 70hz up.

NO one that has listened thinks the kestrels sound better from 70hz up. Thats why they are in the hobby room and the fostexes in the main room.

Sean

Scottmoose 27th January 2006 09:42 PM

Sorry, I don't buy that graph at all. Could be anything, but I've never seen or heard a 108 with a giganitic hole like that.

So it wasn't K&T, but Hobby Hifi? Yet another nail in the coffin of German hifi magazines then. They'll be getting as bad as the UK mags next.

Scott

navin 28th January 2006 05:09 AM

how does one compare the 108 vs other 4" fullrange drivers like the JX92 or the one from TB.

Scottmoose 28th January 2006 09:20 AM

JX92S is the only driver I know of the size that's comprehensively better. But then, it should be: a) Ted Jordan designed it, and B) it's about 3 times the price. The Tang Bands? The problem with Tang Band is that they are very inconsistant. Their current 4" bamboo cone job (the higher priced one) is supposed to be excellent, probably the equal of the Fostex in some ways, and beats it in the bass (looks good too), but they keep chopping and changing about, and not all of their drivers are of the same quality. Anyone want to take a bet that it's replacement will be inferior to the current version? Damning with faint praise: I love the magnet on those things and have a pair on order for some TQWTs I'm planning.

Best
Scott


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:51 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