Fostex FE 167E flat enclosure fot HT - 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 18th January 2007, 11:17 AM   #1
diyAudio Member
 
promitheus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Germany
Question Fostex FE 167E flat enclosure fot HT

Hello,

I want to make a home theatre set of 5 speakers using the Fostex FE167E. The 15Lt bass reflex enclosures are my choice.
The FE167E are 85mm deep.

I want to make the thinest possible enclosures but I dont know how much space the speakers need behind them so the they function correcty.

Can I just go to minimum and make the enclosure as deep as the speakers, which would meen that the magnet would almost touch the back of the enclosure or do they need more room?

Can I place the bass reflex on top, the side or bottom?
What woud be best?
  Reply With Quote
Old 18th January 2007, 06:33 PM   #2
chrisb is offline chrisb  Canada
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: victoria BC
Attempting to get the full frequency range that the 167's are capable of in that shallow an enclosure, I think you're asking for major problems with strong early reflections.

If you're aiming for minimal aesthetic intrusion into the room, and if the equipment locations will be permanent, why not consider a false wall installation?

There's another thread detailing a rather stealthy in-wall HT set-up with CSS FR125's that looks interesting:

http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showt...03#post1110803

I agree with John that "designers" like the look of the TV above the fireplace as an artistic statement, but I doubt they spend much time actually watching such a set-up. Unless you're an NBA player, I think the neck strain will get to you real quick.

The depth required by even the shallowest of the video components, which the predominance of flat-screens these days generally means the cable box or HT receiver, would likely be more than enough to accommodate a more optimally dimensioned speaker enclosure.
In fact, I could easily envision a pair of BIBs (top vented), either built in or with a separate bridging cabinet for the electronics and TV,
  Reply With Quote
Old 18th January 2007, 07:03 PM   #3
frugal-phile(tm)
diyAudio Moderator
 
planet10's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Victoria, BC, NA, Sol III
Blog Entries: 5
It is possible, but as Chris says, you are going to be fighting early reflections. Cone treatment would help there, but trying to get as much depth as possible and making the back irregular would help.

With the PAWOs (shallow FE127 cabinet), the difference adding the 3/4' suprabaffle makes is very audible.

dave
__________________
community sites t-linespeakers.org, frugal-horn.com, frugal-phile.com ........ commercial site planet10-HiFi
p10-hifi forum here at diyA
  Reply With Quote
Old 20th January 2007, 04:46 AM   #4
navin is offline navin  India
diyAudio Member
 
navin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Mumbai (Bombay), India
Send a message via MSN to navin Send a message via Yahoo to navin
Quote:
Originally posted by planet10
It is possible, but as Chris says, you are going to be fighting early reflections. Cone treatment would help there...
dave
what if he applied a layer of deflex or other sound absorbing or reflecting material the the back of teh cabinet? It might allow for a cabinet that might be a bit slimer than normally used. Also if the front baffle was angled it could help.

I am not advocating that the cabinet be so slim that the magnet almost touch the rear of the speaker but the object, I think, is to see how slim one can make the cabinet without hainvg serious problems.
__________________
...still looking for the holy grail.
  Reply With Quote
Old 20th January 2007, 06:29 AM   #5
frugal-phile(tm)
diyAudio Moderator
 
planet10's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Victoria, BC, NA, Sol III
Blog Entries: 5
Quote:
Originally posted by navin
what if he applied a layer of deflex or other sound absorbing or reflecting material the the back of teh cabinet? It might allow for a cabinet that might be a bit slimer than normally used. Also if the front baffle was angled it could help.
That is going to help -- particularily irregular geometry -- but keep in mind that effectiveness is frequency related (lower freq need larger trregulatity of thickness of sound absorbing material.

dave
__________________
community sites t-linespeakers.org, frugal-horn.com, frugal-phile.com ........ commercial site planet10-HiFi
p10-hifi forum here at diyA
  Reply With Quote
Old 20th January 2007, 10:23 AM   #6
diyAudio Member
 
bobhayes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Bungawalbyn, NSW
I'll have to disagree with some on this one. the Fostex designed FE166E horn enclosure has a very close back wall, and the 168E sigma enclosure has little more room.
The magnet assembly on these speakers is large enough to prevent most direct reflections anyway. I think the basket and spider of the driver itself will show more reflections to the cone than the cabinet wall. As long as the aspect ratio (width to height) of the box isn't too high, which would effect box losses, and hence tuning frequency, I can't see the shallow box having too much of a negative impact.
I agree too a certain degree that a deeper box will breath better, but a shallow one should work.
Use a good quality fill material, preferably long fibre wool, to kill any standing waves.
Yes, you can place the port on the top, side or wherever you like, but it's a good idea not to have it too far away from the driver.
  Reply With Quote
Old 20th January 2007, 10:43 AM   #7
diyAudio Member
 
promitheus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Germany
Well thats what I thought too.
The recommended enclosures have very little depth behind the speaker unit.
In the FE166E enclosure the speaker is only 85mm away from the back panel and the speaker is 73,2mm deep. Thats only about 1cm difference.
The FE167E is 85 mm deep because of the magnetical shielding so if the back of the enclosure is at 95mm thats even better as 85mm in the FE166E enclosure right?
Also to note that these speakers are for home theatre use so probably will be cut at 70-80 Hz anyway.
  Reply With Quote
Old 20th January 2007, 10:55 AM   #8
Colin is offline Colin  United Kingdom
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Ted Jordan also advocates shallow enclosures (his VTL, for example), suggesting that the reflections will be higher in freq and easier to suppress with damping. The VTL has about a quarter inch behind the driver, the back wall lines with thick felt and a cutput for the vent in the magnet. He takes a similar approach fo the JXR6 enclosure, made up of ply frames. From the playing round I've done with tall, narrow enclosures, I definitely think it's worth going for more space around the sides of the drivers.
  Reply With Quote
Old 20th January 2007, 04:38 PM   #9
frugal-phile(tm)
diyAudio Moderator
 
planet10's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Victoria, BC, NA, Sol III
Blog Entries: 5
Quote:
Originally posted by bobhayes
the Fostex designed FE166E horn enclosure has a very close back wall, and the 168E sigma enclosure has little more room.
I don't know about those 2, but the FE103 & FE206 recommended boxes do have a problem with the proximity of the back wall.

dave
__________________
community sites t-linespeakers.org, frugal-horn.com, frugal-phile.com ........ commercial site planet10-HiFi
p10-hifi forum here at diyA
  Reply With Quote
Old 20th January 2007, 10:44 PM   #10
diyAudio Member
 
bobhayes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Bungawalbyn, NSW
How are the sonics affected by the proximity of the rear wall? All I can think of is that an eigentone corresponding to this distance may be a little more noticable due to it being in the ears most sensitive frequency range.. Wouldn't some stuffing break up the reflections?
I suppose that if there was a peak in the free space response of the driver at the same frequency as the standing wave in the enclosure, it may become more of a problem, but that could happen for any dimension of the cabinet if not accounted for in the initial design.
Quote:
I don't know about those 2, but the FE103 & FE206 recommended boxes do have a problem with the proximity of the back wall.
Is the problem accentuated by the minimal use of damping material in most horn enclosures? I know that dynamics are addictive, so there becomes a real balancing act between the perceived speed and liveness, and a smoother response.
I reckon that if there was a peak in the free space response of the driver at the same frequency as the standing wave in the enclosure, it may become more of a problem, but that could happen for any dimension of the cabinet if not accounted for in the initial design.
I think for the application promitheus has in mind, a bit of stuffing wouldn't hurt!
  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
Fostex FE168ez flat spiral horn KimBOlesen Full Range 3 29th December 2008 04:55 PM
HEMP FR6.5C vs Fostex 167e Tripmaster Full Range 71 5th December 2008 06:39 PM
FOSTEX FE126 in Fostex BR Enclosure nafunga Full Range 3 29th July 2008 07:21 PM
coral flat 8 enclosure question then_dude Full Range 2 11th March 2007 02:10 PM
Fostex 167E based system complete regal Full Range 6 25th August 2005 10:59 AM


New To Site? Need Help?

All times are GMT. The time now is 01:12 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