FE167e: Brines MLTL or folded King ML TQWT?

[roundel325]

Title pretty much sums it up. I already have the drivers. I can't decide which to build. They are both about the same size, have similar bass extension, both need BSC, and are about the same difficulty to build. Is there any compelling reason to chose one or the other? Maybe Brines's 1600mkII is more sorted since it's a commercial design?

Edgar Meyer is one of my favorite musicians, so the bottom end is important.

Thanks.

[Dumbass]

More comes down to personal preference IMO. The Brines design has a smaller footprint. I happen to like the tapered shape of Martin's project 2, with a very reasonable footprint size.

[roundel325]

I forgot to say that MJKs non-folded ML TQWT is just too tall for my taste. If I went with the tapered pipe, it would have to be folded for asthetic reasons.

[Scottmoose]

You might as well just build Bob's MLTL and have done with it then. Martin's ML TQWT really comes into it's own when left as per the original design (I've built 4 pairs) aesthetics.

[MJK]

I agree, if the choice is a folded ML TQWT or a ML TL, I would choose the later. My vote is for Bob's 1600MkII.

[blumenco]

I put a pair in BIB's I built to 166es-r specs. they work great. real psychadelic. good speed. good all around speaker. heavy on the bass. probably would be flatter even in their simmed enclosures. I like them more in the BIB than the 166es-r because of the higher quantity of bass. also, the BIB is not known for its tiny front baffle area... making it arguably not clean enough for the 166es-r. QTS in the .3 to .4 realm I find to be best for the bib from my driver playing (enough bass for most rooms and ears). making the 168EZ and 167e good choices I beleive. 168 giving higher refinement that some people may find more or less necessary (the 167e really is a good driver).