I want to replace a FE103 in a 110 cm TQWT and understand from reading around this Diatone speaker is more promising for a relaxed sound than a Fostex FE166.
Right now in 2017 I see two versions of a Diatone P610 clone on Alibaba (davidlouis store), the classic one having a magnet labeled Alnico.
1) a copy of the original with an inside small alnico, a rond piece of metal, a pair costing about $ 250. Open magnet structure.
2) A copy with a different flat ferrite-like magnet, a pair costing $ 130.
The membrane and suspension look exactly the same on the pictures. Still there is a significant change in Mms. The frequency response curve are virtually the same for both products (I mean it looks like a carbon copy; this test was made in 2015/09/01)
Such a different in the measurement of Mms surprises me, seeing the same assembly. Mms is the moving mass isn't it? 😕
The second claims a higher BL but seeing the sensitivity, this fits the first one more (1,5 dB more). Chinese ads?
Anyway,
Right now in 2017 I see two versions of a Diatone P610 clone on Alibaba (davidlouis store), the classic one having a magnet labeled Alnico.
1) a copy of the original with an inside small alnico, a rond piece of metal, a pair costing about $ 250. Open magnet structure.
Fres = 52 Hz
Qts = 0,64
Qms = 11,9
Mms = 4,1
Vas = 68L
Spl = 93,3
Bl = 3,6 newton/ampere
Qts = 0,64
Qms = 11,9
Mms = 4,1
Vas = 68L
Spl = 93,3
Bl = 3,6 newton/ampere
2) A copy with a different flat ferrite-like magnet, a pair costing $ 130.
Fres = 49 Hz
Qts = 0,47
Qms = 8,7
Mms = 6,4
Vas = 48
Spl = 91,9 dB (the less efficient of the two)
Bl = 4,7 newton/ampere (the more forcefull of the two)
Qts = 0,47
Qms = 8,7
Mms = 6,4
Vas = 48
Spl = 91,9 dB (the less efficient of the two)
Bl = 4,7 newton/ampere (the more forcefull of the two)
The membrane and suspension look exactly the same on the pictures. Still there is a significant change in Mms. The frequency response curve are virtually the same for both products (I mean it looks like a carbon copy; this test was made in 2015/09/01)
Such a different in the measurement of Mms surprises me, seeing the same assembly. Mms is the moving mass isn't it? 😕
The second claims a higher BL but seeing the sensitivity, this fits the first one more (1,5 dB more). Chinese ads?
Anyway,
- which version is better for open baffle (for sure #1, the classic)
- which version is better for TQWT (I would expect #2)
1/ It doesn't make much difference; both will still require some LF support & purely based on the stated figures, the mass corner is quite low in both cases (164.5Hz for the AlNiCo version, 208.51Hz for the ferrite) so there's unlikely to be a vast amount in it.
2/ Neither really require the extra gain BW of an ML-horn (ML TQWT) compared to, say, a simpler MLTL, but going off the data stated the ferrite motor version will want a smaller box (albeit these things are relative) so may be a more practical option.
2/ Neither really require the extra gain BW of an ML-horn (ML TQWT) compared to, say, a simpler MLTL, but going off the data stated the ferrite motor version will want a smaller box (albeit these things are relative) so may be a more practical option.
Thanks, your remarks on mass-corner led me to a BD-design pages on horn design.
Conclusion: The available bandwidth in 'a Horn' will be higher with the ferrite version. And I consider a TQWT to be some kind of horn. I designed mine in 1980 with the unit at 33% (while modern designs favor 40-45%); with my low position the horn effect (surface increase) is larger.
In my experience with the TQWT I have built in 1980, the FE103 sigma gave ample bass but not over-rich. The "horn" does get the lows out even with the Fres of the 103's being like 80-110 Hz. . I used a 2 watt SET amplifier. Go figure.
Conclusion: The available bandwidth in 'a Horn' will be higher with the ferrite version. And I consider a TQWT to be some kind of horn. I designed mine in 1980 with the unit at 33% (while modern designs favor 40-45%); with my low position the horn effect (surface increase) is larger.
Note, the comparable 'L Cao FA6 alnico' fullrangers do worse on these formula's.In my experience with the TQWT I have built in 1980, the FE103 sigma gave ample bass but not over-rich. The "horn" does get the lows out even with the Fres of the 103's being like 80-110 Hz. . I used a 2 watt SET amplifier. Go figure.
I was thinking of the driver mass corner (Fhm) in Hz = 2Fs/Qt' where Qt' = Qt + any series R in the circuit, including the output impedance of the amplifier. The lower the mass-corner frequency, the smaller the acceleration BW / available loading region is (for nominally flat response anyway).
A big 1/2 wave tuned pipe horn like the BIB would probably be my preferred option, but if you wanted a smaller box, I'd be inclined to just use an MLTL. Neither driver really needs the slightly broader gain BW an expanding line / ML-horn / TQWT provides, so unless you go to a big box like the BIB, I doubt you'd find any real advantages in the expanding type.
A big 1/2 wave tuned pipe horn like the BIB would probably be my preferred option, but if you wanted a smaller box, I'd be inclined to just use an MLTL. Neither driver really needs the slightly broader gain BW an expanding line / ML-horn / TQWT provides, so unless you go to a big box like the BIB, I doubt you'd find any real advantages in the expanding type.
Last edited:
I don’t know about a TL or Horn for these (i let Scott do those), but i have done a miniOnken for these drivers and given that a miniOnken tends to be on the small size, and the particular one for these is quite large i expect a TL or horn would be much larger yet (ie HUGE).
dave
dave
Thanks Scott,
this BIB brought me to Terry Cairn's model and this is almost like what my original build is. I also had read Martin Kings analysis in the past too. But last in first out - I forgot about it as I read so much about modern ideas of 40/45% placement that I planned reducing the existing height of 155 to 110 cm.
- So you put me back on track here! No sawing off.
Below a picture of my existing FE103Sigma Voigt/TQWT cabinets, 155* internal 15 cm wide so the Diatoneclone will fit as snug as a bug.
You can see the old Fe103's. Man, these were a charm on my old 10Y SET amplifier. Used them from 1981 till 1992; now got them back and want to refurbish them, improving on specific points (lean mid bass).
Mine have the big opening on the bottom. Yes, they do work as an organ pipe : (my sister had them since 1992 and she never turned off her Class A Yamaha, only reduced the volume to be surprised that sometimes a sound would appear, she called it her house ghosts.)
Too bad Martin Kings software sheet is not available for Mac.
this BIB brought me to Terry Cairn's model and this is almost like what my original build is. I also had read Martin Kings analysis in the past too. But last in first out - I forgot about it as I read so much about modern ideas of 40/45% placement that I planned reducing the existing height of 155 to 110 cm.
- So you put me back on track here! No sawing off.
Below a picture of my existing FE103Sigma Voigt/TQWT cabinets, 155* internal 15 cm wide so the Diatoneclone will fit as snug as a bug.
You can see the old Fe103's. Man, these were a charm on my old 10Y SET amplifier. Used them from 1981 till 1992; now got them back and want to refurbish them, improving on specific points (lean mid bass).
Mine have the big opening on the bottom. Yes, they do work as an organ pipe : (my sister had them since 1992 and she never turned off her Class A Yamaha, only reduced the volume to be surprised that sometimes a sound would appear, she called it her house ghosts.)
Too bad Martin Kings software sheet is not available for Mac.
Poor dustcaps. You can try this “fix":FE12x dustcap fix
If that doesn’t work, dustcaps can come off. I’ve posted phase plug plans & an STL for 3D printing somewhere here.
Too bad Martin no longer makes it available because with Parallels/Fusion/Virtual Box and a copy of Windows or (likely) Wine/Crossover Mac the software runs on a Mac (as long as its an Intel version, likely since a PPC would be over 10 years old — i still have a couple of those).
dave
Poor dustcap. or poor kids that do that.
It is one source of harsh sound. The other one is the dilapidated spider. Over time varnish breaks off and forms dust. Then after some time the cone will not come back, will flutter in space, dynamics is lost, spatiality gone. (that is why I like a pertinax/solid spider but there are not many units with that, seen only two).
I have put a coat of Dammar Varnish matte on the spider, diluted 1 part varnish/3 parts 99% alcohol.
On one the sound of the horn can already be heard again, when tapping lightly; the other is still dull needs a more layer.
I have two more units I treated this way with alayer. (all 4 with poked dustcaps.) I should roll the units to see what is best.
Before throwing them away I should inverse the cap with your directions!
In this old build the Technics 5HH10 was an absolute overkill, not needed at all.
It is one source of harsh sound. The other one is the dilapidated spider. Over time varnish breaks off and forms dust. Then after some time the cone will not come back, will flutter in space, dynamics is lost, spatiality gone. (that is why I like a pertinax/solid spider but there are not many units with that, seen only two).
I have put a coat of Dammar Varnish matte on the spider, diluted 1 part varnish/3 parts 99% alcohol.
On one the sound of the horn can already be heard again, when tapping lightly; the other is still dull needs a more layer.
I have two more units I treated this way with alayer. (all 4 with poked dustcaps.) I should roll the units to see what is best.
Before throwing them away I should inverse the cap with your directions!
In this old build the Technics 5HH10 was an absolute overkill, not needed at all.
After having restored the old FE103's, and 'rolling' a first round of available units, I get good bass and good sound stage - but not both channels are equal, a difference of maybe 3dB now.
But I immediately fell in love with this beautiful sound again.
So the question now becomes: is the FE126En a good replacement or should I simply buy the new FE103En?
I have seen both Scott and Dave have ample experience with the FE126. This slightly larger driver could give a bit more bass (bigger diaphragm is better?? but max excusion is half) so why not just buy the FE103?
Does it have the sigma quality ...?
My old units measure Fres of 100Hz plus minus 2.
But I immediately fell in love with this beautiful sound again.
So the question now becomes: is the FE126En a good replacement or should I simply buy the new FE103En?
I have seen both Scott and Dave have ample experience with the FE126. This slightly larger driver could give a bit more bass (bigger diaphragm is better?? but max excusion is half) so why not just buy the FE103?
Does it have the sigma quality ...?
My old units measure Fres of 100Hz plus minus 2.
Last edited:
The FE126En has some resonances that some people find painful. My treatment does a good job of working much of that out. I am not a fan of the FE103En, it is a bit wimpy. If you can find some FE103 SOL they are really quite good and way better than the FE103En. I haven’t seen the FE108 SOL, but have done a set ogf FE88 SOL. If the 2 SOLs i have seen are representative then the FE108 SOL is probably very good. Better than the FE103En and as affordable is the FF105wk. There is one particular tweak (actually a couple) — short of full EnABL — that can easily be done that help smooth them out.
dave
dave
Thanks Dave,
the FE103 Sigma (with its much bigger magnet than the 103En) does have its bright sides at times, but liveable, and its recurrent pattern in listening ("it sounds the same") is better than the real wimpy Lowther I have. The latter will like one record and hate another without me finding out where those allergic reactions stem from
So there are two reasons to look past the FE126 then, I do not want to start some cone treatment (did those in the past).
So my choice comes back to the FE103En or that Diatone Ferrite.
the FE103 Sigma (with its much bigger magnet than the 103En) does have its bright sides at times, but liveable, and its recurrent pattern in listening ("it sounds the same") is better than the real wimpy Lowther I have. The latter will like one record and hate another without me finding out where those allergic reactions stem from
So there are two reasons to look past the FE126 then, I do not want to start some cone treatment (did those in the past).
So my choice comes back to the FE103En or that Diatone Ferrite.
This weekend I have discovered the Fostex FX120 and F120A.
While the alnico version is very seductive, the FX120 will almost seamlessly fit in the box - just 1 cm to be enlarged in hole and chamfer. The F120A would require an extra 15 mm baffle thickness because of the existing TQWT internals (is 61 mm deep).
The qualities as described fit my idea of the Fostex FE103Σ Sigma (the original with double magnet).
So I ordered a pair of Fostex FX120. 🙂
albert
While the alnico version is very seductive, the FX120 will almost seamlessly fit in the box - just 1 cm to be enlarged in hole and chamfer. The F120A would require an extra 15 mm baffle thickness because of the existing TQWT internals (is 61 mm deep).
The qualities as described fit my idea of the Fostex FE103Σ Sigma (the original with double magnet).
So I ordered a pair of Fostex FX120. 🙂
albert
My repaired FE103Σ's (put some diluted DAMMAR varnish on the spider) worked off and they are now running in; one side has lower sensitivity maybe beacuse layer was thicker on the spider; but may also be lower because of an other production run. It is very hard or impossible to get the same thickness 😱
ferrite versions sounds better than the original. i cant believe it myself. smooth just like the original but with better bass extension.
here's the original p610 diatone
and heres the clone in a floorstander
here's the original p610 diatone
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
and heres the clone in a floorstander
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
The order I placed for a pair of FX120 was never delivered so after many unanswered enquiries after 8 months I got my money back from the credit card company . . .
Anyway, settled for a driver that in the end did not match with the cabinet.
Maybe should I go for the Diatone? ?
Anyway, settled for a driver that in the end did not match with the cabinet.
Maybe should I go for the Diatone? ?
You can never go wrong with the Diatone p610 clones and Id be happy to share with anyone my design to anyone who wants it. designed specifically for the P610s . Cheers!
Anyway,
which version is better for open baffle (for sure #1, the classic)
which version is better for TQWT (I would expect #2)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I had the Diatone 6.
maybe Neo magnet, not sure , can't recall.
I did not care for the Diatone.
IMHO the best 2 WBers on the market are
Tang Band 2145
DavidLouis VX8.
Both are near identical in perf, yet both look/design very different.
which version is better for open baffle (for sure #1, the classic)
which version is better for TQWT (I would expect #2)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I had the Diatone 6.
maybe Neo magnet, not sure , can't recall.
I did not care for the Diatone.
IMHO the best 2 WBers on the market are
Tang Band 2145
DavidLouis VX8.
Both are near identical in perf, yet both look/design very different.
Hey, that's a very nice offer, can you please send it to me as well, at 1229michael911@gmail.com
Thanks,
Michael
I'd appreciate it too, if you see this! pboser at the usual google electronic mail provider