With adequate bass support, and provided SPL requirements won't exceed the X-max limits, it couldn't hurt to try this one
http://homepage.mac.com/tlinespeakers/FAL/box-plans/mFonken-0v999-map.pdf
http://homepage.mac.com/tlinespeakers/FAL/box-plans/mFonken-0v999-map.pdf
chops said:
http://www.humblehomemadehifi.com/Solo103.html
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
dave
GM said:
does BW=back wave? any BLH designed as you described? not to hijack the thread but that we're on the subject of HD, what extent of horn delay/spawn BVR(iris), and hiro BLH? am looking into design options for fostex 166esr and would like to minimize HD. a front horn loading/active sub had been mentioned elsewhere. any and all help is appreciated.
I guess it could, but normally BW = 'band-width'. Many vintage corner horn designs have short path-lengths, but they were designed for larger drivers, so one would have to be designed for the 166esr. Any of the BVRs are short enough.
I don't recall seeing specs of the 166esr, but any of the so-called horn drivers will either have to be driven with a high output impedance amp or have significant series resistance to lower its mass corner enough to work well in a short path-length BVR/BLH. That, or have a high cut-off and use an appropriate BP sub system.
Don't know of any FLH + sub system designs for the 166esr.
GM
I don't recall seeing specs of the 166esr, but any of the so-called horn drivers will either have to be driven with a high output impedance amp or have significant series resistance to lower its mass corner enough to work well in a short path-length BVR/BLH. That, or have a high cut-off and use an appropriate BP sub system.
Don't know of any FLH + sub system designs for the 166esr.
GM
After plenty of thought, I think I will finish off with either a pair of Solo103's, or maybe, just maybe, something of my own design very similar to what I'm using now, except with actual wood and dual ports in a so-called MTM fashion. I will also incorporate a bypassable 100Hz 1st order HP filter to save these little drivers from getting too much out of hand in the lower octaves.
What I am thinking of doing in the not-so-distant future is going with a 6" or 8" Fostex, but I need to find out which of these larger drivers are going to give me 99% of the crisp "air" in the treble like the 103 does. I am not going to use tweeters at all... I refuse to.
My main goals with the larger drivers is higher efficiency, higher output with very very little distortion and much better dynamics as I plan on only using small digital tri-path amps with a max of maybe 10-13 watts. Also, I still want to keep the enclosures to a bookshelf style as I will be incorporating bass cabinets for them that will double as stands for them.
Any input will be greatly appreciated. Thanks! 😉
What I am thinking of doing in the not-so-distant future is going with a 6" or 8" Fostex, but I need to find out which of these larger drivers are going to give me 99% of the crisp "air" in the treble like the 103 does. I am not going to use tweeters at all... I refuse to.
My main goals with the larger drivers is higher efficiency, higher output with very very little distortion and much better dynamics as I plan on only using small digital tri-path amps with a max of maybe 10-13 watts. Also, I still want to keep the enclosures to a bookshelf style as I will be incorporating bass cabinets for them that will double as stands for them.
Any input will be greatly appreciated. Thanks! 😉
chops said:
The Solo is a heckuva cute little design, and with proper XO and LF support should give you great results. Don't be tempted to revise dimensions or configuration too much, and if by "acutal" wood you mean solids, be aware of stability issues. I've found that in small enclosures such as this, the structural integrity and bracing is significant to the system's tonality, so changes in dimensions of any of the parts, particularly the internal bracing could cause all sorts of grief.
Well, good luck getting any of the "standard" series of 6" Fostex to deliver even close to that percentage of the HF performance you enjoy from the 103s. And as for the 8", without a tweeter of some sort, I think you'd be even further disadvantaged.
Having said that, the 2 that immediately come to mind are the FF165K and FE167E. As you describe below, you plan on implementing a 2-way system with woofers presumably powered separately. No doubt that would alleviate the heavy lifting in the lower octaves that would otherwise prescribe against a bookshelf sized enclosure for "wideband" performance from these.
You'll certainly notice gains in sensitivity, dynamics and "scale" over the 103s with such a system.
Look forward to lots of advice on this one
chrisb said:
What I meant by actual wood was NOT cardboard. LOL I'll be using BB ply for the enclosures, or at least grade A birch ply. I've used the grade A before (that what my 3-ways are made out of) and it's actually good quality stuff.
The three I am closely looking at are the 167E, 168E Sigma, or 207E. If there's no real advantage to the Sigma driver over the other two, I may drop that one from the list.
As for the bass system, that's going to be a bit of a challenge because I will not settle for anything less than the speed and accuracy of the light-weight Fostex drivers. They will also have to be efficient as I'm only going to be using between 50-60 watts total for them. I'm thinking some kind of mini line array.
That's what I'm hoping on, on both accounts! 😀
Charles - of the three you listed, I'd suggest the 167E - if bandwidth limited, it can work quite well in a bookshelf sized enclosure.
A little while ago, we built a custom HT system using this driver for the front row (L/C/R). Since they could be crossed over fairly high to a pair of CSS 6" woofers per side, the enclosure volume could be whittled down pretty small.
I've temporarily misplaced the drawings, but IIRC, the center channel box was 10litres, the L&R possibly larger.
Certainly something like the factory recommended 15litre box or the Parts Express 3/4 cu ft pre-fab boxes could work quite well. Aside from the former, the only enclosure I've heard them in is the floor-standing sized Fonken, which have no trouble filling a very large open plan living space at my sister's home with a 60w Denon receiver or 25W Jolida 302 EL34 triode amp. I could live with a pair of those for my modest "2.0"
video system ( heck even my wife said "sure" - it's just a matter of time)
A little while ago, we built a custom HT system using this driver for the front row (L/C/R). Since they could be crossed over fairly high to a pair of CSS 6" woofers per side, the enclosure volume could be whittled down pretty small.
I've temporarily misplaced the drawings, but IIRC, the center channel box was 10litres, the L&R possibly larger.
Certainly something like the factory recommended 15litre box or the Parts Express 3/4 cu ft pre-fab boxes could work quite well. Aside from the former, the only enclosure I've heard them in is the floor-standing sized Fonken, which have no trouble filling a very large open plan living space at my sister's home with a 60w Denon receiver or 25W Jolida 302 EL34 triode amp. I could live with a pair of those for my modest "2.0"
video system ( heck even my wife said "sure" - it's just a matter of time)
How about the 207E? It's "rated" to 20kHz, and I read somewhere that adding a bypass cap on it can definitely make it reach that 20kHz with ease. Plus, if I can get the 207E to dig down into the 60Hz range in a bookshelf sized enclosure, that would make things a little easier for the bass drivers.
Also, I would prefer to keep the design vented in some way so I can keep aperiodic loading as an option. Going sealed would cause the driver to roll off too early, having the need to bring the bass drivers up higher which is something I'd rather not do.
And speaking of bass, I'm thinking something in the realm of mini line arrays. Multiple smaller drivers working as one to be more efficient, more dynamic, extend deep into the bottom octaves, and perform quite well and quite loud with little work, power and distortion.
The drivers I'm considering for bass duty are the M-130X and M-165X from GR Research (5 drivers per channel). Both are well known for working great in line arrays and digging really deep. Both are considerably less expensive than the CSS SDX7's as well, which is an important aspect. However, one thing to point out is that they all utilize the XBL2 motor technology.
Also, I would prefer to keep the design vented in some way so I can keep aperiodic loading as an option. Going sealed would cause the driver to roll off too early, having the need to bring the bass drivers up higher which is something I'd rather not do.
And speaking of bass, I'm thinking something in the realm of mini line arrays. Multiple smaller drivers working as one to be more efficient, more dynamic, extend deep into the bottom octaves, and perform quite well and quite loud with little work, power and distortion.
The drivers I'm considering for bass duty are the M-130X and M-165X from GR Research (5 drivers per channel). Both are well known for working great in line arrays and digging really deep. Both are considerably less expensive than the CSS SDX7's as well, which is an important aspect. However, one thing to point out is that they all utilize the XBL2 motor technology.
chops said:
italics mine - that could be a tall order - Mr Hoffman might get in your way
ditto - small, vented enclosure for the 207E, tuned for 60Hz or so - - could be an interesting challenge.
The sealed enclosure's more gradual roll off might well work to your advantage.
mini line-arrays for the bottom, that is?
If you're crossing over as low as 60, a single pair of 6 - 8" in a push-push configuration per side could work quite well.
How deep do you really want to go? The total driver cost, build complexity and amplifier requirements could easily cost multiple times that of the wide-band portion of the system, for one extra octave.
chrisb said:
Well he better get out of my way! LOL
All kidding aside, I just read in another thread that the 206 may be a better option for an extended top end, but requires more complex enclosures for bass. since I'm not too concerned about bass reproduction for the FR driver, this may be a non-issue for me.
I'm not looking for a "small" bookshelf design. If it ends up needing to be 24" tall and 16-20" deep and nearly a foot wide, then that's fine by me. What I'm looking for if a full bodied vocal range, midrange and solid treble performance. If I can get flat down to 80Hz and something like -3dB or so at 60Hz, that would be great. Honestly, I think it can be done within similar dimensions that I mentioned above.
Yes, a mini line-array for the bottom, 4 or 5 drivers per side.
As I said before, multiple drivers like this will be a lot more efficient, will have much wider dynamics, will require less power and will produce a lot less distortion. I'm sure you know quite well the pluses of line-arrays.
I want to go as deep as I can, and without a sub. That means I want these babies to get down to at least 20hz if not lower, which they should be able to do in-room.
I listen to a lot of pipe organ music as well as modern goth, industrial music. Also listen to a lot of jazz, some blues, and a lot of other things in between. So you see, I have a reason for bass reproduction as low as feasibly possible. 😀
chops said:
Ah, the male penchant for bigger must be better...
You are going to need some 35+ litres for this one.
dave
planet10 said:
No, I'm just want to be able to get the most out of a single driver before crossing over to the bass drivers to fill in the rest. I want them to have a natural, full sound, not thin and lacking with disconnected voices.
Also, 35L would not be a problem. In fact, that's somewhat small considering what I was thinking of. If I were to go with an enclosure something like 24"H x 18"D x 12"W, using 0.75" BB, I'd be looking at 2.25cf, or roughly 64L.
However, as I said above, if the 206E will get me a little better top end, I would be inclined to go with it over the 207E. Most likely, I will also be running these fullrange with just the bass units crossed over to fill in. This is the way I've been running the little 103E's and they haven't given me any grief yet, so I figure the larger drivers can do just as well fullrange, if not better.
The only reason I mentioned incorporating a passive 100Hz crossover on a finished 103E enclosure is the fact that I would probably let one of my brothers use them, and they play their stuff a bit louder than I do, especially one of them. 🙄
BTW, I want to show my two latest upgrades...
A new Pioneer Elite PD-D6-J CD player that I got a few days ago, and just an hour ago, a brand new KingRex Pre-Amp.
I am extremely impressed with the Pioneer, and so far am also very impressed with the KingRex right out of the box!
A new Pioneer Elite PD-D6-J CD player that I got a few days ago, and just an hour ago, a brand new KingRex Pre-Amp.
I am extremely impressed with the Pioneer, and so far am also very impressed with the KingRex right out of the box!
- Status
- Not open for further replies.