diyAudio

diyAudio (http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/)
-   Full Range (http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/full-range/)
-   -   Any audio difference between FE166 and FE167 (http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/full-range/80951-any-audio-difference-between-fe166-fe167.html)

ttan98 6th June 2006 12:12 AM

Any audio difference between FE166 and FE167
 
I understand the main difference between 166 and 167 is that the latter is shielded and some differences in Thiele and Small parameters.

Anyone has anyone make comparisons between these 2 drivers in terms of audio quality.

Using T&S parameters these 2 drivers use different box size. Making comparison using the same box size is unfair...

Any comments anyone...

Dumbass 6th June 2006 12:22 AM

In general, the FE167E would be recommended for simple vented box, while the FE166E would be recommended for rear-loaded horn. You can add series resistance to FE166E to raise Qts, but this robs efficiency.

An interesting compromise would be a Bigger Is Better enclosure:
http://www.zillaspeak.com/bib-fostex.asp

Notice that freq response for two drivers in the same cabinet is very similar. The FE167E has a slightly nicer more gradual roll-off.

FE166E has heavier magnet, one might argue this gives better transient response. If put in rear-loaded horn, this may be a valid point, but we're not talking about a simple box then.

RaphTube 6th January 2009 01:54 PM

More feedback please...
 
Hey, can we get this one going again.
I was just trying to choose between these two for something a TQWT or a TL, or something in between.

-Raphael

hm 6th January 2009 04:40 PM

hello,
take both as bipol double horn
the Posaune

http://www.abload.de/img/posaune_70115_totale6ynh.jpg

chrisb 6th January 2009 06:51 PM

Re: More feedback please...
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Raphael Shaw
Hey, can we get this one going again.
I was just trying to choose between these two for something a TQWT or a TL, or something in between.

-Raphael


a short answer would be that the FE167 is more flexible in terms of types of enclosure in which it can deliver decent to outstanding performance

If you're looking for a simple build that doesn't occupy a lot of floor space, something like an MLTL with the 167 would be a pretty safe bet. (e.g. Bob Brines' famous FT1600, etc)

There are also some enclosure designs that load the driver in a different mode, and entail more elaborate construction, (e.g. Planet10 Fonken167, Scottmoose BVRs- Chili / Kimchi Chang, BIB chamberless BLH, etc )

altogether there are just too many design philosophies and performance expectations to answer the oft asked question "that's nice, but which one is best ?", other than to say - there isn't one

Alex from Oz 7th January 2009 04:01 AM

Re: Re: More feedback please...
 
Quote:

Originally posted by chrisb

There are also some enclosure designs that load the driver in a different mode, and entail more elaborate construction
Yeah like the Decware Corner Horns - which suit the FE167E.
I've had the plans for about 12 months but the woodwork is rather intimidating for me! :bawling:

Cheers,

Alex

chrisb 7th January 2009 04:21 AM

Re: Re: Re: More feedback please...
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Alex from Oz


Yeah like the Decware Corner Horns - which suit the FE167E.
I've had the plans for about 12 months but the woodwork is rather intimidating for me! :bawling:

Cheers,

Alex


indeed - and to work properly at all they need a dedicated room with corners in just the right places - fine for someone like Steve, but a definite deal breaker for a lot of folks.

LilMik 7th January 2009 03:05 PM

hello,

imho opinion the 166e has a little bit better resolution and the highs are a bit better.

i would treat the whizzer with c37 laquer or thinned dammar. helps a lot :angel:.

both drivers are very good for the price.

cheers,
lilmik


All times are GMT. The time now is 04:58 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