I have the 168 and it can go pretty darn low. However, I've only heard it in folded pipes, never in a horn. In the Supravox folded pipe I heard, I was blown away by the bass it offers. However, I'm sure it wouldn't have the efficiency of a horn.
Looking at the 168 vs. the 108, I'm sure the 168 can offer more bass. If you look at the Fostex graphs for the 208E Sigma and the 168, there really isn't that much difference on the low end.
However, Dave may be right in that the 108 may have an edge in the mids. I've also read that the 208 has an amazing midrange, and I feel the 168 is excellent as well. Depending on your wants and needs, I don't think you'd be disappointed with any of the Sigma drivers.
Looking at the 168 vs. the 108, I'm sure the 168 can offer more bass. If you look at the Fostex graphs for the 208E Sigma and the 168, there really isn't that much difference on the low end.
However, Dave may be right in that the 108 may have an edge in the mids. I've also read that the 208 has an amazing midrange, and I feel the 168 is excellent as well. Depending on your wants and needs, I don't think you'd be disappointed with any of the Sigma drivers.
Hi one1speed
I am thinking of using the 168 in the rec BLH cabs. What did you decide to do with your 168? You seemed a little dissatisfied with it in a couple of posts - was it bass and/or dynamics? I am not sure what your needs and wants are... so it is difficult to place your comments in context.
Care to share your current thoughts and feelings on this driver, along with system and musical preferences. This might give congari and myself a little more understanding of the driver in general.
Kind regards, Raymond
I am thinking of using the 168 in the rec BLH cabs. What did you decide to do with your 168? You seemed a little dissatisfied with it in a couple of posts - was it bass and/or dynamics? I am not sure what your needs and wants are... so it is difficult to place your comments in context.
Care to share your current thoughts and feelings on this driver, along with system and musical preferences. This might give congari and myself a little more understanding of the driver in general.
Kind regards, Raymond
I'll try to help. The issues with this driver mostly are with my box design, with the real issue being that I haven't had time to build a decent, proper box. I currently have them crammed into some of TC's Bigger is Better boxes. I say they aren't correct, as they barely fit. Now if I were to take the design and enlarge the cross section, I think we'd have something. As I've mentioned many times, and above, I have heard these in the Supravox folded pipe and they sounded amazing. I would have sworn there was a sub in the room. These were driven by a high end 300B amp and a cheaper CD player. Wow.
TC thinks the 168 is a great compromise driver, meaning you won't quite get the bass of a larger driver, but there is plenty, and you really don't need a tweeter. TC also recommended the larger horn, the D-37 I believe, (don't quote me on that just yet) over the recommended horn. It's larger and he said it sounds amazing. I have read some differing opinions, as it seems that was designed for the special addition of that driver with the larger magnet. However, something to consider.
As for my system, when I first got them, I had built the Welborne 300Bs. Very nice, amazing mids and such, but I felt I was missing something on top. So, I had started to ask around about a possible tweeter. Then I came across a deal on an early addition of the Audio Zone gainclone amp. Holy crap! This totally changed the sound of the system. This is the first non-tube amp I have heard that had a soundstage that wasn't flat compared to tubes, very involving. It also had considerably more top-end extension and more bass extension.
I've been very happy with this amp and these drivers. I've had some decent speakers in the past from Meadowlark, NHT, Audio Physic and I think these are amazing.
Sorry, short on time right know and I can't seem to find time to finish this. I hope this helps.
TC thinks the 168 is a great compromise driver, meaning you won't quite get the bass of a larger driver, but there is plenty, and you really don't need a tweeter. TC also recommended the larger horn, the D-37 I believe, (don't quote me on that just yet) over the recommended horn. It's larger and he said it sounds amazing. I have read some differing opinions, as it seems that was designed for the special addition of that driver with the larger magnet. However, something to consider.
As for my system, when I first got them, I had built the Welborne 300Bs. Very nice, amazing mids and such, but I felt I was missing something on top. So, I had started to ask around about a possible tweeter. Then I came across a deal on an early addition of the Audio Zone gainclone amp. Holy crap! This totally changed the sound of the system. This is the first non-tube amp I have heard that had a soundstage that wasn't flat compared to tubes, very involving. It also had considerably more top-end extension and more bass extension.
I've been very happy with this amp and these drivers. I've had some decent speakers in the past from Meadowlark, NHT, Audio Physic and I think these are amazing.
Sorry, short on time right know and I can't seem to find time to finish this. I hope this helps.
Hi again one1speed
Thanks muchly for taking the time to respond to my questions. The info you have provided certainly helps me understand this driver a little a better.
I have read many of your other posts, along with those from TC, amongst others, which seem to indicate that the 168 is probably the best all-round compromise of the ESigmas. I am currently considering this driver, as well as the Supravox 215RTF (+ tweet) and the decidedly non-full range driver Radian coaxials: all have different "sound" and I can not hear any in advance. The 168 may win out on grounds of simplicity / ease of implementation and <$$$.
Anyhow, enough rambling. I have two questions that hopefully will consume little of your time. 1) which Supravox TQWT - IIRC it was one of the designs for a Supravox 8" driver? 2) Is the music you listen to through the driver a little more demanding than simple acoustic music? I have reasonably diverse tastes - though have no craving for weighty bass.
Thank you again for taking the time to respond - it is appreciated. Raymond
Thanks muchly for taking the time to respond to my questions. The info you have provided certainly helps me understand this driver a little a better.
I have read many of your other posts, along with those from TC, amongst others, which seem to indicate that the 168 is probably the best all-round compromise of the ESigmas. I am currently considering this driver, as well as the Supravox 215RTF (+ tweet) and the decidedly non-full range driver Radian coaxials: all have different "sound" and I can not hear any in advance. The 168 may win out on grounds of simplicity / ease of implementation and <$$$.
Anyhow, enough rambling. I have two questions that hopefully will consume little of your time. 1) which Supravox TQWT - IIRC it was one of the designs for a Supravox 8" driver? 2) Is the music you listen to through the driver a little more demanding than simple acoustic music? I have reasonably diverse tastes - though have no craving for weighty bass.
Thank you again for taking the time to respond - it is appreciated. Raymond
Raymond
I'll do the best I can. Just thought I'd check in before I ran out the door.
First, which box design, follow this link: http://www.supravox.fr/kits.htm
Then, scroll down to TQWT, it's the last in that catagory.
As for the music, I tend to listen to a pretty diverse selection as well, though often acoustic and jazz. I will throw on a little hip hop on occasion, not much on heavy metal, but some more alternative stuff. As long as it doesn't get overly complicated, I think the driver does well. Any single driver trying to produce the full spectrum can begin to fall flat if they are trying to do too much. Also note that I usually don't crank them. I'll turn them up a bit, no question. But, I'm not trying to go deaf listening to them.
Hope this helps. I'm off the board until next week. Cheers!
I'll do the best I can. Just thought I'd check in before I ran out the door.
First, which box design, follow this link: http://www.supravox.fr/kits.htm
Then, scroll down to TQWT, it's the last in that catagory.
As for the music, I tend to listen to a pretty diverse selection as well, though often acoustic and jazz. I will throw on a little hip hop on occasion, not much on heavy metal, but some more alternative stuff. As long as it doesn't get overly complicated, I think the driver does well. Any single driver trying to produce the full spectrum can begin to fall flat if they are trying to do too much. Also note that I usually don't crank them. I'll turn them up a bit, no question. But, I'm not trying to go deaf listening to them.
Hope this helps. I'm off the board until next week. Cheers!
168 vs 108
I had both in all kinds of BLH design, and in my very humble opinion, if the listening room is smallish, the FE108 is a clear winner.
I had a 108 pair that I sold for a 168 pair, that I sold again to get a new pair of 108...
There is not much difference in the bottom end (relative to room size, as always), but the mids and highs are much more smooth in the 108.
So, if you like bass, you will end up using a sub with the 168, same with the 108. But given the 108 smoothness, it's a no brainer.
I had both in all kinds of BLH design, and in my very humble opinion, if the listening room is smallish, the FE108 is a clear winner.
I had a 108 pair that I sold for a 168 pair, that I sold again to get a new pair of 108...
There is not much difference in the bottom end (relative to room size, as always), but the mids and highs are much more smooth in the 108.
So, if you like bass, you will end up using a sub with the 168, same with the 108. But given the 108 smoothness, it's a no brainer.
Re: 168 vs 108
Robert,
What size room would you consider appropriate? Mine is roughly 14 by 22. I'm concerned about the small Xmax of the 108. I'm not a loudness freak by any means, but I wonder if a pair of 108s would work OK in my room. I'd probably build the recommended blh for them.
Thanks.
Paul Ebert
robertG said:
Robert,
What size room would you consider appropriate? Mine is roughly 14 by 22. I'm concerned about the small Xmax of the 108. I'm not a loudness freak by any means, but I wonder if a pair of 108s would work OK in my room. I'd probably build the recommended blh for them.
Thanks.
Paul Ebert
My zHorn experience with the 108 vs. the 168, is that the 108 is much better with violin and female voice, the 168 with cello and male voice. The 108 is sweeter, the 168 more forgiving and clearer in the lower mid and mid bass. The 206e had the deepest cleanest bass, but did not compare to either of the mentioned E Sigmas in midrange nuance and engagement.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.