Hello all,
In 1 month and a half, i'll be moving to my new home. My current audio stuff will settle into a dedicated room.
Since I can't live without some music, I'll have to find new loudspeakers for my living room!
House buying => tight budget
Room is 20m2 and 3m20 high => a "not-so-small" loudspeaker is ok
Living room and kids practices => loudspeaker should be robust, need relatively small power, and have woofer(s) high enough vs. small kid hands
Hifi usage => no need for abyssal bass
This made me think about full range speakers, loaded with a back-horn, with comfortable efficiency, a not-too-expensive woofer. All the stuff being able to work pleasantly without a super-tweeter nor a subwoofer.
Is that a correct line of thinking, or do I miss my guess?
So, here is what I'm thinking of:
http://www.fostexinternational.com/docs/speaker_comp/pdf/fe166erev.pdf
http://www.fostexinternational.com/docs/speaker_comp/pdf/recom_enclose/166e_enclrev.pdf
Unfortunately, I wasn't able to find opinions (and measures) for this speaker. Can anybody help?
A big issue remains: my ears never experienced that kind of thing... Dunno I will enjoy it ?!?
Anyway, I got plenty of time to think of it. Most probably, things won't get serious till winter...
Seeya!
Yoghourt
In 1 month and a half, i'll be moving to my new home. My current audio stuff will settle into a dedicated room.
Since I can't live without some music, I'll have to find new loudspeakers for my living room!
House buying => tight budget
Room is 20m2 and 3m20 high => a "not-so-small" loudspeaker is ok
Living room and kids practices => loudspeaker should be robust, need relatively small power, and have woofer(s) high enough vs. small kid hands
Hifi usage => no need for abyssal bass
This made me think about full range speakers, loaded with a back-horn, with comfortable efficiency, a not-too-expensive woofer. All the stuff being able to work pleasantly without a super-tweeter nor a subwoofer.
Is that a correct line of thinking, or do I miss my guess?
So, here is what I'm thinking of:
http://www.fostexinternational.com/docs/speaker_comp/pdf/fe166erev.pdf
http://www.fostexinternational.com/docs/speaker_comp/pdf/recom_enclose/166e_enclrev.pdf
Unfortunately, I wasn't able to find opinions (and measures) for this speaker. Can anybody help?
A big issue remains: my ears never experienced that kind of thing... Dunno I will enjoy it ?!?
Anyway, I got plenty of time to think of it. Most probably, things won't get serious till winter...
Seeya!
Yoghourt
Fostex fe166E backhorn
Can't comment on this particular type, but I built this Fostex one:
<see attachment>
Sounds very well with my 2*9 watt tube amp.
Can't comment on this particular type, but I built this Fostex one:
<see attachment>
Sounds very well with my 2*9 watt tube amp.
You should take a look at what Cain & Cain are doing with
the Abby loudspeaker and Martin Kings quarter wave project.
Both of these are fairly small footprint and work quite well.
the Abby loudspeaker and Martin Kings quarter wave project.
Both of these are fairly small footprint and work quite well.
I've not heard the 166, but the 167 is very good, so i'd expect it to be a good one (i haven't met a Fostex yet i don't like).
The Fostex enclosures are really more akin to a stepped tapered pipe than a back horn. I've never built or heard one -- and reports by those that have are generally favorable -- but on asthetics i'd be looking at a real horn.
The 167 works well in an ML-TL (see Bob Brines' site)
dave
The Fostex enclosures are really more akin to a stepped tapered pipe than a back horn. I've never built or heard one -- and reports by those that have are generally favorable -- but on asthetics i'd be looking at a real horn.
The 167 works well in an ML-TL (see Bob Brines' site)
dave
Bob Brine's mass loaded transmission line:
http://www.geocities.com/rbrines1/Pages/FE167E-MLTL/Main.html
Cain & cain abby, seems like a TQWT with physical compensation of baffle step:
http://cain-cain.com/abby/index.html
hkoetz: looks a lot like FE 168 ES recommended enclosure. Two DIYers fellow on a french forum built the alternative D37 back-horn enclosure for their 168ES, and enjoy very much this load like you 🙂
Nelson: seems like TLs ans TQWTs are much more mature than evoked in my version of Dickason's book! For the straight-standing TQWT you evoked, I have to check my WAF 😉 A french guy
Dave: I'm not sure I have understood
You say that fostex enclosures work more like a succesion of transmission lines than a folded horn? That would explain all those constant-section in the plans, which seems to me fairly different from a ever-increasing section of a classical horn.
I've juste surfed on:
http://www.madisound.com/fostex.html
At the end of the page, there is a link where they nearly demolish fostex BH enclosures! They say it's only good for classical and concert hall music... Dunno if it's "good advice" or "good nullshit"!
Geee, life is not simple!
http://www.geocities.com/rbrines1/Pages/FE167E-MLTL/Main.html
Cain & cain abby, seems like a TQWT with physical compensation of baffle step:
http://cain-cain.com/abby/index.html
hkoetz: looks a lot like FE 168 ES recommended enclosure. Two DIYers fellow on a french forum built the alternative D37 back-horn enclosure for their 168ES, and enjoy very much this load like you 🙂
Nelson: seems like TLs ans TQWTs are much more mature than evoked in my version of Dickason's book! For the straight-standing TQWT you evoked, I have to check my WAF 😉 A french guy
Dave: I'm not sure I have understood
You say that fostex enclosures work more like a succesion of transmission lines than a folded horn? That would explain all those constant-section in the plans, which seems to me fairly different from a ever-increasing section of a classical horn.I've juste surfed on:
http://www.madisound.com/fostex.html
At the end of the page, there is a link where they nearly demolish fostex BH enclosures! They say it's only good for classical and concert hall music... Dunno if it's "good advice" or "good nullshit"!
Geee, life is not simple!
Yoghourt said:Dave: I'm not sure I have understood
I've never actually plotted it out, but they are a series of straight pipes with increasing cross-section .
dave
i use the 166e in back horns (unfortunately, . i don't have plans available )
that said, they are very nice drivers with one defect (most fostex drivers have this defect) , .. a peak somewhere in the upper mid- treble, .. which can be fatigueing to some individuals
bass is enough for acoustic stuff but these cones tend to break up on heavy stuff. the strenght of these (and most single driver speakers) is midrange and overall coherency , .. can't explain it but it is unmistakable, ..even to lead ears like me 🙂
that said, i like them very much. ..i think i would like the 8" 206e better though (though i haven't had the chance to listen to them)
BTW: i wouldn't pay much attention to that link blasting horn enclosures
BTW: from a recent post on AA, ..the reason fostex sigma enclosures (apparantly nagaoka derivatives) are a series of increasing rectangular sections are for
1. ease of construction
2. apparantly allows a greater horn length in a smaller package => more bass ? , .. though there ought to some trade-offs in distortion
that said, they are very nice drivers with one defect (most fostex drivers have this defect) , .. a peak somewhere in the upper mid- treble, .. which can be fatigueing to some individuals
bass is enough for acoustic stuff but these cones tend to break up on heavy stuff. the strenght of these (and most single driver speakers) is midrange and overall coherency , .. can't explain it but it is unmistakable, ..even to lead ears like me 🙂
that said, i like them very much. ..i think i would like the 8" 206e better though (though i haven't had the chance to listen to them)
BTW: i wouldn't pay much attention to that link blasting horn enclosures
BTW: from a recent post on AA, ..the reason fostex sigma enclosures (apparantly nagaoka derivatives) are a series of increasing rectangular sections are for
1. ease of construction
2. apparantly allows a greater horn length in a smaller package => more bass ? , .. though there ought to some trade-offs in distortion
zobsky said:
Something we've managed to tweak out of the RS40-1197, and Fostex FE103A. I'm pretty sure the same tricks would work on the FE108S. A set of FE108ES are breaking in now.
dave
Yoghourt said:
I have a nice design for a folded TQWT that we have built several
copies of, and will be testing more just as soon as we finish
running all our driver through the KleinHorns. This will be
published shortly after the KleinHorn comes out (real soon now).
I also have a really nice bookshelf for these drivers, believe it
or not, designed around WAF but with real bottom end.
(Yeah Yeah, that's what they all say....) 😎
Yoghourt said:
My WAF is not a french guy. Seems like I messed in typing that "a french gave me a similar piece of advice about TQWT"Nelson: I'll have enough place for "more serious" enclosure (that is, bigger) than a bookshelf. Does your TQWT project has a name?
(Hard to suggest something seriously without knowing)
Milky way?
Don't ask: I'am already out :lol:
Milky way?
Don't ask: I'am already out :lol:
That Abby speaker looks really nice.
Does anyone know how it looks inside.
Is there a folded horn or does the enclosure
work as a horn by its one shape?
Those speakers would be a nice little project to make.
They would look great connected to a set of Zen Amps.😉
Steen.
Does anyone know how it looks inside.
Is there a folded horn or does the enclosure
work as a horn by its one shape?
Those speakers would be a nice little project to make.
They would look great connected to a set of Zen Amps.😉
Steen.
It's not a horn:
http://www.t-linespeakers.org/projects/martin/MLTQWT
As explain in the above site, this kind of speaker require "baffle step compensation", in order to cope with a little bass attenuation under 300Hz.
While Martin King chose to do it with electronics, Cain&Cain chose to do it physically. That's just my guess...
http://www.t-linespeakers.org/projects/martin/MLTQWT
As explain in the above site, this kind of speaker require "baffle step compensation", in order to cope with a little bass attenuation under 300Hz.
While Martin King chose to do it with electronics, Cain&Cain chose to do it physically. That's just my guess...
The Abby is a TQWT. A friend is getting a set (he fell in love with some 45s and needed more efficient speakers), so i'll get a chance to get a good listen.
Most boxes need baffle-step compensation of one type or another.
dave
Most boxes need baffle-step compensation of one type or another.
dave
- Status
- Not open for further replies.