I have a couple of Class-T amps and was wondering on an ideal speaker to exploit their low power output.
I wondered if anyone has tried Class-T with the Cain & Cain Abby speakers ?
The costs are all wrong by conventional models i.e a $20 amp with $1500 dollar speakers but I was just curious how this combination sounds ?
I wondered if anyone has tried Class-T with the Cain & Cain Abby speakers ?
The costs are all wrong by conventional models i.e a $20 amp with $1500 dollar speakers but I was just curious how this combination sounds ?
I have used optimized T amps with the FE168Sigma and was astounded at the sound. totally taken aback by the level of openness and musicality. Anyone who experienced otherwise likely was using an unworked driver....I would have to say that in my experience T amps have uncommon synergy with the 168Sigma, and also the 166esr.
Several people use them with the Hornshoppe Horn which has the FE108Sigma. Synergy between the two is well documented. As always, YMMV, don't know about the FE166 or FFK? models. I know several people auditioned the BEN with a ClariT amp and were very impressed, and many use T amps with Fostex based speakers.
Several people use them with the Hornshoppe Horn which has the FE108Sigma. Synergy between the two is well documented. As always, YMMV, don't know about the FE166 or FFK? models. I know several people auditioned the BEN with a ClariT amp and were very impressed, and many use T amps with Fostex based speakers.
I actually am using one of the Audio Zone gainclone pototypes with the 168E Sigmas. Wow! It truly is stunning, even eerie sometimes. I had been using 300B monos and while I really like tubes, I tend to be falling for the Audio Zone.
I've been planning to build some new speakers, but this amp has slowed that process as it sounds just amazing!
On that note, the Sonic Impact isn't in the same league. I have one that I've left stock, and while it's nice and balanced, it doesn't compare to either the 300Bs or the Audio Zone. I'd say the sound is more sterile and the soundstaging doesn't even begin to compare. While a worthy experiment, it far exceeds it's price point, but doesn't compare to better amps. However, it could be something much nicer if modded.
I've been planning to build some new speakers, but this amp has slowed that process as it sounds just amazing!
On that note, the Sonic Impact isn't in the same league. I have one that I've left stock, and while it's nice and balanced, it doesn't compare to either the 300Bs or the Audio Zone. I'd say the sound is more sterile and the soundstaging doesn't even begin to compare. While a worthy experiment, it far exceeds it's price point, but doesn't compare to better amps. However, it could be something much nicer if modded.
"However, it could become something much nicer if modified."
--too true. Properly implemented mods to the smaller T chips make them monsters. the little plastic TA2024 can run with about any lower powered amp out there, having heard and owned a bunch of them. Not quite SET in the highs, comes scary close. Direct-coupled to great drivers like the FE168Sigma, 166esr, Visaton B200, I can say first hand, the results are unreal.
I would love to hear the Audio Zone Amp as well. Another product from "Boeing Audio."
To the original question, yes, the T amps and Fostex Sigmae are a flat-out killer combo. If DIY'ing, google Fostex and Moai for the 24L aligment by Nagaoka.
--too true. Properly implemented mods to the smaller T chips make them monsters. the little plastic TA2024 can run with about any lower powered amp out there, having heard and owned a bunch of them. Not quite SET in the highs, comes scary close. Direct-coupled to great drivers like the FE168Sigma, 166esr, Visaton B200, I can say first hand, the results are unreal.
I would love to hear the Audio Zone Amp as well. Another product from "Boeing Audio."
To the original question, yes, the T amps and Fostex Sigmae are a flat-out killer combo. If DIY'ing, google Fostex and Moai for the 24L aligment by Nagaoka.
I believe Peter Daniel works at Boeing in Toronto. I read where they had some access to its millworks for fine metalworking like chassis, etc.
I would also be curious to know what alignment your FE168 Sigma is in...more about your system with the Audio Zone and these drivers. Sounds Very interesting.
I would also be curious to know what alignment your FE168 Sigma is in...more about your system with the Audio Zone and these drivers. Sounds Very interesting.
Should be a good pairing -the FE166E or FF165K (A deeply under-rated driver) with the Class T jobs. Just watch out for rising distortion levels as power-output increases. Not much of a problem with circa 95db 1w / 1m though!
Cheers
Scott
Cheers
Scott
Thanks for the info, quite interesting. The amp is pretty special, I've had quite a few amps over the past few years and this is a keeper.
I've got my drivers in TC's bigger is better boxes. (tall folded pipes) Not ideal, as they are built for a smaller driver, but they work. And with the new amp, they actually sound good in these boxes. My goal is to put the Fostex's in a sealed cab (or O.B.) with a larger woofer for the lower end of things, crossed around 200hz or so. I also have some supertweeters I may try for a little extra air on top.
As for the rest of the system, Audio Note CD 2.1x, Thorens TD160 with SME and Shure cart, Grado phono pre, FT Audio LW1 passive buffered pre. IC's are primarily 47 labs OTA with Eichmann Bullet Plugs, (best IC's I've heard, including some pricey players). I also have two Yamaha servo'd 8" subs. I have some power bits, which help, hoping to mod the pre at some point and rewire the tone arm.
This is far from perfect, but is sounding better with the recent changes. New speaks and some room treatment of some sort and I may have something.
Cheers!
I've got my drivers in TC's bigger is better boxes. (tall folded pipes) Not ideal, as they are built for a smaller driver, but they work. And with the new amp, they actually sound good in these boxes. My goal is to put the Fostex's in a sealed cab (or O.B.) with a larger woofer for the lower end of things, crossed around 200hz or so. I also have some supertweeters I may try for a little extra air on top.
As for the rest of the system, Audio Note CD 2.1x, Thorens TD160 with SME and Shure cart, Grado phono pre, FT Audio LW1 passive buffered pre. IC's are primarily 47 labs OTA with Eichmann Bullet Plugs, (best IC's I've heard, including some pricey players). I also have two Yamaha servo'd 8" subs. I have some power bits, which help, hoping to mod the pre at some point and rewire the tone arm.
This is far from perfect, but is sounding better with the recent changes. New speaks and some room treatment of some sort and I may have something.
Cheers!
Actually, from recent conversations I've had with Terry elsewhere, he reckons the FE168ESigma is a good match for these cabinets, though their Q is a little low. I've used the FE166E with them, which worked well, and the FF165K (best so far), as well as a few other non-Fostex models. I've tried increasing the depth and reducing the height with another rough pair of cabinets -didn't make much difference to the (excellent) in-room response, so I'll probably stick with the original, which seems to work well with quite a few sub 6 1/2" drivers.
Best
Scott
Best
Scott
The internal amp in my daughters circa 1983 sony TV died so I bought a sonic T amp and a pair of Fostex 127's. I just built the standard BR enclosures and hooked everything up to a Tosh 4960 DVD player so she could watch movies. I didn't give it much thought till one day she was out of town and I loaded some blues guitar CD and sat down for a listen. I am still stunned at how well this combo sounded. I have never heard guitar sound this good.
So now I am looking to build another Fostex/SI combo for my room.
So now I am looking to build another Fostex/SI combo for my room.
Scott
The reason I say the cabs are a little small, is I can barely squeeze the driver into the hole, as the width of the cab is too narrow. If I were to build these again, I'd increase the width and depth a bit. In addition, TC recommended that you chop the back of the cabs down a little, so they angle from the front in order to open the mouth up. He said it seems to help.
Cheers!
The reason I say the cabs are a little small, is I can barely squeeze the driver into the hole, as the width of the cab is too narrow. If I were to build these again, I'd increase the width and depth a bit. In addition, TC recommended that you chop the back of the cabs down a little, so they angle from the front in order to open the mouth up. He said it seems to help.
Cheers!
one1speed,
Scottmoose and I had discussed the 168 in the BIB a couple months ago; I went through the too large driver (flange) issue as well, and was not entirely happy with the less than ideal Q of the driver, nor the fact that it stuck out about a 1/4" or so on both sides.... Does anyone have an idea of what Q range would be a better substitue, or suggestions for current drivers for BIB, while we are on the topic?
Scottmoose and I had discussed the 168 in the BIB a couple months ago; I went through the too large driver (flange) issue as well, and was not entirely happy with the less than ideal Q of the driver, nor the fact that it stuck out about a 1/4" or so on both sides.... Does anyone have an idea of what Q range would be a better substitue, or suggestions for current drivers for BIB, while we are on the topic?
I'll add a couple thoughts here. Once broken in, I think the drivers sounds far too good in the BIB box. Note that I did cut a round baffle to mount the driver on, similar in style to what TC does, but not nearly as nice. But it does help the driver to mount in the box. With the newer gainclone amp I'm using, I find the bass quite satisfying. One other thought may be to add series resistance to raise the Q a bit. But personally, I don't mind the balance as it stands. I am using two 8" servoed subs with this set up crossed in fairly low.
I posted this before, but the driver sounds amazing in the Supravox TQWT box. I've heard it in one built by TC. It's not supposed to work, but sounds amazing! Lots of real bass.
I posted this before, but the driver sounds amazing in the Supravox TQWT box. I've heard it in one built by TC. It's not supposed to work, but sounds amazing! Lots of real bass.
Interesting indeed. TC had mentioned this to me, but I couldn't get my head around that one. Specifically, do you mean the load for the SUpravox 165LB? I only ever tried the 168Sig in the 24L "Moai" load, and I didn't think it served this driver well enough. I think alot of people walk away from this one, under about 1000 hours cook time, the 168 is quite forgettable, but AFTER that, it is pretty hard to beat, and especially with T amps and GC's. So, which Supravox, and I shall build and report.
Here you go. I'm not sure if it's on the US site, I always get it from the French site. Let us know how you like it, I'm still contemplating this one with subs versus the 2-way type of system.
When I chatted with TC about it, he had another set of these cabs around, must have built a couple pair when he built the first pair I heard. Someone had used the FE206E in the second pair and was reporting great results. Again, it shouldn't work, but...
http://www.supravox.fr/kits.htm
note: Scroll down under TQWT to "TQWT pour les 215," the last link in that section with the rear, side ports. Enjoy!
When I chatted with TC about it, he had another set of these cabs around, must have built a couple pair when he built the first pair I heard. Someone had used the FE206E in the second pair and was reporting great results. Again, it shouldn't work, but...
http://www.supravox.fr/kits.htm
note: Scroll down under TQWT to "TQWT pour les 215," the last link in that section with the rear, side ports. Enjoy!
That was what I didnt get: I would have thought that the TQW for the 165LB would be ~more appropriate. In fact the Q of the LB was ~closer"" not that that seems to be the issue here. Size was, as I recall.
The bigger 215 one is pretty damn big. I still can't see the 168Sig having enough jam to make that thing work. I may have something coming that could be even better still. 200mm, Q=.45, more Xmax, higher SPL, (97), and apparently sounds even BETTER with T amps.
The bigger 215 one is pretty damn big. I still can't see the 168Sig having enough jam to make that thing work. I may have something coming that could be even better still. 200mm, Q=.45, more Xmax, higher SPL, (97), and apparently sounds even BETTER with T amps.
I'm not at liberty to discuss it at this point, but I do think the TQWT 215 might be "filled" by it nicely, quite possibly better than any Supravox
. Tommy Tube on Audio Salem has the 206E in one TC built, and truly loves it, ....back on topic, -he powers it with the 30 watt Teac-modified-into-Wunderamp by Vinnie Rossi.... Quite a nice alignment the 215, very close in size to the Fostex Rx horns for the 166esr which unfortunately are relegated to my garage.
which is frustrating, as they wouldnt be making it upstairs at any rate.. Seems my long addiction to nice big speakers isn't well served by life in my seaside pavilion, and I am beginning to get too old to re-think, it seems, -to be interested in all this "small" stuff. In speakers, B=B
. Tommy Tube on Audio Salem has the 206E in one TC built, and truly loves it, ....back on topic, -he powers it with the 30 watt Teac-modified-into-Wunderamp by Vinnie Rossi.... Quite a nice alignment the 215, very close in size to the Fostex Rx horns for the 166esr which unfortunately are relegated to my garage.
which is frustrating, as they wouldnt be making it upstairs at any rate.. Seems my long addiction to nice big speakers isn't well served by life in my seaside pavilion, and I am beginning to get too old to re-think, it seems, -to be interested in all this "small" stuff. In speakers, B=B
Hi again Dan how's it going? Sorry I haven't been in touch for a while, but not much to report around here for a while (too busy to build anything worth talking about!) -Between .3 and .45 would be my choice. That new driver we've been discussing privately should be rather impressive -I'm looking forward to that one!
Yes, I've advocated a small baffle in the past for the Sigma in the BIB box for this very reason of driver size. My roughed up pair for these drivers were 66" x 7" x 18" (External HxWxD). A little series resistance would be good, though I was surprised how warm they sounded out of the box, so to speak. With a low Q driver, I'd keep So relatively low, increase it to around S0 = Sd or fractionally less for a higher Q driver. The FF165K (I've measured its Q at around 0.39 -way off the 0.2 mentioned in its spec. sheet by Fostex) seems ideal, though I'd like a little more HF extension. The good old FE167E should be worth a shot too amongst others.
I haven't heard Terry mention the idea of cutting away the rear baffle at an angle before -sounds interesting; I'll have to try that one out.
Cheers for now
Scott
Yes, I've advocated a small baffle in the past for the Sigma in the BIB box for this very reason of driver size. My roughed up pair for these drivers were 66" x 7" x 18" (External HxWxD). A little series resistance would be good, though I was surprised how warm they sounded out of the box, so to speak. With a low Q driver, I'd keep So relatively low, increase it to around S0 = Sd or fractionally less for a higher Q driver. The FF165K (I've measured its Q at around 0.39 -way off the 0.2 mentioned in its spec. sheet by Fostex) seems ideal, though I'd like a little more HF extension. The good old FE167E should be worth a shot too amongst others.
I haven't heard Terry mention the idea of cutting away the rear baffle at an angle before -sounds interesting; I'll have to try that one out.
Cheers for now
Scott
- Status
- Not open for further replies.