I am planning to build a fullranger of some kind, possibly using the FE206 or 207. There are some slightly contradicting opininions as to the better of the 206 or 207.
I also have some problems deciding wether to go MLTL or TQWT.
The BIB thread has grown out of all proportions, and sorting out the differences in opinions are by now close to impossible.
A BIB for a 206 seems to get quite high, as my ceiling height is appx 230 cm ( and a few) , with exposed beams...A 206 BIB in this environment will be too dominant, I'm afraid. Acceptance from she-who-has- to-be obeyed concerning the living room is of course another matter
Can anyone try to describe the diffences in response between a TQWT and e.g the MJK MLTL for the 206?? Scott?
I also have some problems deciding wether to go MLTL or TQWT.
The BIB thread has grown out of all proportions, and sorting out the differences in opinions are by now close to impossible.
A BIB for a 206 seems to get quite high, as my ceiling height is appx 230 cm ( and a few) , with exposed beams...A 206 BIB in this environment will be too dominant, I'm afraid. Acceptance from she-who-has- to-be obeyed concerning the living room is of course another matter
Can anyone try to describe the diffences in response between a TQWT and e.g the MJK MLTL for the 206?? Scott?
Not much is the qick answer, if you're refering to the difference between an MLTL and an ML TQWT like, say, Martin King's Project 2 design. They'll sound very similar indeed.
TQWTs (non mass-loaded) are basically horns -all the same physics applies, so it's chalk and cheese really comparing them to mass-loaded designs. The ML types will usually be somewhat flatter in terms of the response, though less sensitive due to needing a correction circuit. If you're going for a resonant cabinet BTW, rather than a horn like the BIB, I'd suggest the 207 as the better driver as it will need less correction. Then again, the 206s larger magnet should provide a whisker more detail, so YMMV. Either are superb drivers. Martin's MLTL is an excellent project, and can be upgraded to Lowthers in future too.
If you want a good cross between the two camps, I can heartily endorse my friend Ed's folded TQWTs for the FE206E. You'll find the design here: http://www.vitalstates.co.uk/ go to the Vofo tab at the bottom of the page. These cabinets combine a bit of both types. They have the correction circuit and length Martin King suggests for a tapered line, with the horn feel of a TQWT. Ed's measured them in-room with Clio & that's a decent response for an in-room plot IMO. A larger room will give a bit more extension. They kick you in the upper chest when asked too -a little more than the MLTLs I've built. Bit more ripple, but not much.
Alternatively, why not build a BIB with 6 1/2in drivers? Bit shorter at ~70in tall so it'd go into your room better than the very tall 8in types. And bass or loudness capability will not be lacking. Try the 166 or 168ESigma.
TQWTs (non mass-loaded) are basically horns -all the same physics applies, so it's chalk and cheese really comparing them to mass-loaded designs. The ML types will usually be somewhat flatter in terms of the response, though less sensitive due to needing a correction circuit. If you're going for a resonant cabinet BTW, rather than a horn like the BIB, I'd suggest the 207 as the better driver as it will need less correction. Then again, the 206s larger magnet should provide a whisker more detail, so YMMV. Either are superb drivers. Martin's MLTL is an excellent project, and can be upgraded to Lowthers in future too.
If you want a good cross between the two camps, I can heartily endorse my friend Ed's folded TQWTs for the FE206E. You'll find the design here: http://www.vitalstates.co.uk/ go to the Vofo tab at the bottom of the page. These cabinets combine a bit of both types. They have the correction circuit and length Martin King suggests for a tapered line, with the horn feel of a TQWT. Ed's measured them in-room with Clio & that's a decent response for an in-room plot IMO. A larger room will give a bit more extension. They kick you in the upper chest when asked too -a little more than the MLTLs I've built. Bit more ripple, but not much.
Alternatively, why not build a BIB with 6 1/2in drivers? Bit shorter at ~70in tall so it'd go into your room better than the very tall 8in types. And bass or loudness capability will not be lacking. Try the 166 or 168ESigma.
I've been through a similar exercise recently, but for a full-range speaker based on the Jordan JX92S.
Originally, I intended to build one of Peter Milletts ML-TQWP designs (http://www.pmillett.com/jx92s.htm) using this driver, as the predicted performance looks so good.
To start with, I put the design into the appropriate MJK worksheet, to verify the response. But then, I tried experimenting with an ML-TL design using the MJK 'ported box' worksheet. To my surprise, I found I could get an almost identical response to the ML-TQWP, but using only half the cabinet volume. (The Q of the port output was much the same for both designs too).
It seems that the closed, pointed end of the ML-TQWP doesn't really contribute much to the overall response, but it is the wide section of the TL combined with the mass-loading port which dominate. I found that the required line length for the ML-TL was roughly half the total length of the ML-TQWP, and also that the port dimensions were very similar.
Originally, I intended to build one of Peter Milletts ML-TQWP designs (http://www.pmillett.com/jx92s.htm) using this driver, as the predicted performance looks so good.
To start with, I put the design into the appropriate MJK worksheet, to verify the response. But then, I tried experimenting with an ML-TL design using the MJK 'ported box' worksheet. To my surprise, I found I could get an almost identical response to the ML-TQWP, but using only half the cabinet volume. (The Q of the port output was much the same for both designs too).
It seems that the closed, pointed end of the ML-TQWP doesn't really contribute much to the overall response, but it is the wide section of the TL combined with the mass-loading port which dominate. I found that the required line length for the ML-TL was roughly half the total length of the ML-TQWP, and also that the port dimensions were very similar.
It will be. Line tuning of a QWR is a function of both length and taper. Expanding lines need to be considerably longer than a straight one. MJKs ML TQWT is lovely though -one of the most flexible cabinets I know of as it'll take anything in the 6 - 8in Fostex and AN FR range with the exception of the F200a, with only a few minor mods. Expanding lines do offer some variations not seen on the graph -they tend to have a touch more subjective punch in the mid-bass -possibly compression due to the throat, even when mass-loaded. Not much in it though -MLTLs are usually the best bet as they're smaller and easier to build, unless you happen to like the TQWT look. No point, IMO, building a folded mass-loaded TQWT. Might as well just build an MLTL -simpler, less woodwork, and works just as well, sometimes better.
OTOH, although traditional, non mass-loaded TQWTs an absolute pain in the posterior to design, get it right, and they are well worth a listen. Good ones are few and far between though for this very reason. A folded one of those is fine as it's a completely different ball-game to the ML designs -an end-loaded horn.
For anyone wanting a cabinet for the JX92S BTW: GM's 2 MLTLs are well-neigh unbeatable. Until you go for serious horn loading of course, in which case a hyperbolic with about 15ft of line length should do the job nicely.
OTOH, although traditional, non mass-loaded TQWTs an absolute pain in the posterior to design, get it right, and they are well worth a listen. Good ones are few and far between though for this very reason. A folded one of those is fine as it's a completely different ball-game to the ML designs -an end-loaded horn.
For anyone wanting a cabinet for the JX92S BTW: GM's 2 MLTLs are well-neigh unbeatable. Until you go for serious horn loading of course, in which case a hyperbolic with about 15ft of line length should do the job nicely.
I also guess the choice between 206 and 207 is one of sensitivity. The 207 in fostex DBR enclosure is just above 90db, at least on the graphs they provide and I'm pretty sure valve amps will feel better with the 206.
Scottmoose: Do you have a quantitative idea of the sensitivity of both 207 and 206 in MK MLTLs? For the 207, will this enclosure be "better" than the DBR?
Scottmoose: Do you have a quantitative idea of the sensitivity of both 207 and 206 in MK MLTLs? For the 207, will this enclosure be "better" than the DBR?
From my experience, there is a significant difference in the sound between an MLTL and a TQWP (or a voight pipe). While the MLTLs sound boxy and confined, the TQWPs have a lovely open sound, and none of the boxy quality. They literally disappear.
If you don't want the tall BIBs in your loving room, you can always fold the line to make it look small. It will be no bigger than a midsize floostander. Search google for voight tapered pipe... plenty of info.
If you don't want the tall BIBs in your loving room, you can always fold the line to make it look small. It will be no bigger than a midsize floostander. Search google for voight tapered pipe... plenty of info.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.