LOWTHER vs FOSTEX -Opinions please

[Graham Maynard]

Opened a new thread for the transformer bass circuit.

Cheers ...... Graham.

 

[marec]

Re: Re: LOWTHER vs FOSTEX -Opinions please

i

Scott (scottmoose) paid them quite a compliment last week
he said they where as far removed from main stream hi fi as you could get



steve

I guess I'm getting lost here...

Have we abandoned Peter Walker's "Closest approach" and gone for "As U Like it" now?

Rgds

 

[Scottmoose]

Who said that most mainstream hifi is 'the closest approach'?

 

[marec]

Who said that most mainstream hifi is 'the closest approach'?

Certainly not me! 🙂

However, comments such as "Most Natural" or "Live sounding" might have meant more to me, if that was what you meant...

Rgds

 

[Scottmoose]

Not really, no.

 

[britbug]

I have had fostex Fe166, and Lowther DX2 in a number of implementations.

The DX2 is better than the fostex in all areas, but the fostex is great value and of high performance. No idea on 206 though.

Currently I have the DX2 in open baffle, with tone tubby 12 inchers and a 1st order (dare I say it here) crossover. Near straight copy of Jon VanderHalen's setup but crossed at 400. Need to Lpad down the DX2 a few DB, but the sound is marvelous. needs a sub tho.

I would guess the Fe166 would just slot in without any attenuation, and yet you could still upgrade as and when.
You could also try any other number of woofers, and Martin King has published a clear and comprehensive guide to doing this with Fe166

Try the approach, it is very good

 

[Nelson Pass]

How did you manage the phase so far?

By trying all the tools in the box. Referencing full-range drivers and
woofers in open baffles and setting aside the subjective, I find that
the best sounding setups usually have something in common - they are
reasonably flat through the crossover region, both drivers are wired in
phase, and they independently have the same approximate -6 dB point
in the acoustic output.

It's not trivial to achieve this. You play with the number of poles in the
filters, the frequency of each pole, and the Q of the filter. Independent
adjustment of these can compensate for baffle and driver effects. If you
don't get what you want, you add equalization and phase shifters.

Of course there is no guarantee, but I have managed some OB systems
with real subtlety to the transition, and I know that it can be done.

😎

 

[Vix]

... and I know that it can be done.

😎

😎

Thanks. Yours and Martin's work will shed some light upon dark areas of OB. I am still fiddling with my OB's (for around one year) and I am still not there. The most recent crossover points that I've tried are: LP at 80 Hz 12 db/oct LR HP at around 400 Hz at 12 db/oct LR, drivers wired in phase. Doesn't sound bad. I'll listen it like that for a few days, and maybe try something different then.

Cheers,

Vix

 

[Nelson Pass]

If your baffles are relatively small (say 2' X 4') you can try the trick of
using a high Q high pass on the full range. It worked very well for me
crossing at 150 Hz with a +3 dB bump.

😎

 

[hubsand]

Audio Nirvana drivers

There seems to be little objective information about the Audio Nirvana Fostex-a-likes, but I just built a pair using one of their cast and pressed drivers in each cabinet and they sound better than I thought. It would be interesting to swap a pair of FE207s into the same box to compare them . . .

Also, they're significantly improved by a supertweeter!

 

[Scottmoose]

Usually decent enough drivers, horrible cabinet designs, completely different specs to the 207, so you're certainly going to get a different sound as you're comparing apples & oranges. Hippos & rhinos. Lions and tigers. Boomslangs and pythons. Hapes and humans. Males and females... 😉

 

[chrisb]

Usually decent enough drivers, horrible cabinet designs, completely different specs to the 207, so you're certainly going to get a different sound as you're comparing apples & oranges. Hippos & rhinos. Lions and tigers. Boomslangs and pythons. Hapes and humans. Males and females... 😉

"one of these things is not like the other..."

 

[hubsand]

The cabinet designs are certainly, er . . . unconventional, inasmuch as they fly in the face of current 'everything matters' thinking by claiming that when it comes to cabinets pretty much nothing matters!

Bigger, smaller, damped, undamped, tubed, ported, wood, concrete, lycra - whatever. Having followed the instructions first time around, I'm toying with building a 'Mark II' version: same drivers, different boxes – but which?

Transplanting a pair of Fostex into the old cabinet would make an interesting comparison. In fact, wouldn't it be great if someone had built a 'reference' cabinet for an 8" FR driver and wrote a review comparing available options?

The inspiration for the SuperTweeter came from the JohnBlue 8" full range designs. In complete contrast to the Audio Nirvana 'team', JB designer Tommy Wu claims that cabinet design is critical for a FR driver: maybe 50% of the sound.

 

[Scottmoose]

"one of these things is not like the other..."

😀

The cabinet designs are certainly, er . . . unconventional, inasmuch as they fly in the face of current 'everything matters' thinking by claiming that when it comes to cabinets pretty much nothing matters!

True. That's the problem. Because it does matter. 🙄

It's what I call the 1970s Longbridge approach to speaker design. (put on exaggerated Birmingham accent here of a worker at the Rover plant in 1978) '...that's alright, that'll do, it's better than my house...'

 

[d to the g]

>>> dB 91.37

I hate companies that stretch the truth too far!

Thanks for doing the research!

Please note that Visaton measures their sensitivity at 2.83V at 1 m, and they state so right in the technical data section.

 

[GM]

Well, while the BW average SPL they publish is probably good for marketing purposes, it's worthless for speaker design, comparisons, etc. unless you only plan to either couple it to a huge BLH or BW limit it to its beaming/break-up modes BW, neither of which is the most common alignment for a wide BW driver.

Personally, I compare/design based on calc'd efficiencies since this most accurately reflects typical box efficiency capability, ergo the finished speaker's, or ~91.12 dB/W/m based on Dave p10's measured specs (90.81 dB/W/m published), so his eff. measurement is a much more realistic one IMO.

GM

 

[Vix]

If your baffles are relatively small (say 2' X 4') you can try the trick of
using a high Q high pass on the full range. It worked very well for me
crossing at 150 Hz with a +3 dB bump.

😎

Yes, baffles are relatively small 500x1200 mm (although my wife would disagree). The trick: Ok, so I assume that I will use a high Q high pass on the fullrange, cross it at 150 Hz. What about the low pass? Should i leave it where it currently is, (80Hz low pass -6db at 12 db/oct Linkwitz-Riley, hence low Q=0.5), or should I change it as well?

Sorry for OT, I know the above question does not have much to do neither with Fostex nor Lowther (unless you decide to biamp them and use them in the OB) but I couldn't help myself....

 

[Nelson Pass]

You will have to adjust to taste. I recall using the 80 to 100 Hz range.

 

[Vix]

Thanks! 😎

 

[Godzilla]

Can I get down to 100hz using an old style Fostex 168S (with wizzer) on a small open baffle?

http://www.fostexinternational.com/docs/speaker_comp/pdf/fe168sigma.pdf

Or am i better off using the Eminence Alpha 6?

http://www.partsexpress.com/pdf/290-400s.pdf

I would mate this to a powered subwoofer. I want to hear what OB is all about!

Nelson, will you be including the Alpha 6 in your sealed box plus subwoofer experiment?

TIA,
Godzilla

PS, the best way to appreciate Fostex drivers is not to compare them to Lowther.