Suddenly impressed

I build a pair of Dave’s Aperiodic speakers (CSS FR125) the other week and after playing in the shed and main living room, really wasn’t to struck on them. Have just plugged them in to the office system – ha – 100% better in a small room. In this environment these little guys far out play their size.

Just playing Modern Times while typing this and Bob and the band are in the room with me. These’d make a great small room system or superior computer audio. However the CSS driver are not as efficient as something like Fostex drivers, so wouldn’t think a T-amp would drive them enough.

I had access to WR125s a while back as I built a set of HT8’s for a commission but think I prefer the FR’s as a single driver.

Cheers - Phil
 

Attachments

  • zzzz.jpg
    zzzz.jpg
    32.9 KB · Views: 1,296
greenie512 said:
I build a pair of Dave’s Aperiodic speakers (CSS FR125) the other week and after playing in the shed and main living room, really wasn’t to struck on them. Have just plugged them in to the office system – ha – 100% better in a small room. In this environment these little guys far out play their size.

Just playing Modern Times while typing this and Bob and the band are in the room with me. These’d make a great small room system or superior computer audio. However the CSS driver are not as efficient as something like Fostex drivers, so wouldn’t think a T-amp would drive them enough.

I had access to WR125s a while back as I built a set of HT8’s for a commission but think I prefer the FR’s as a single driver.

Cheers - Phil


That Fonken enclosure sounds way better with the Fostex 127 driver than the FR125. Personally I don't understand the fuss over the FR125 and the previous WR125? driver, they just don't come close compared to the Fostex IMO and I wonder why people want to use them at all... Dave

:)
 
>>> That Fonken enclosure sounds way better with the Fostex 127 driver than the FR125. Personally I don't understand the fuss over the FR125 and the previous WR125? driver, they just don't come close compared to the Fostex IMO and I wonder why people want to use them at all... Dave

I may be totally off base here but having the Fostex 127e and a Tangband 4 inch Bamboo driver offers us as DIYers an option. Not that the Tangband is the same as the CSS but it is similar looking (to me anyway) and may or may not offer some similar qualities. It does sound different than the Fostex driver. It is less efficient and imo requires a tweeter for best performance. These drivers sound so different that the end result is a totally different speaker and personal preference rules. Some have preferred the TB while others the Fostex sound. I like the fact I can purchase excellent quality 4 – 5 inch drivers with different sound characteristics and enjoy them all in different ways. Both the Fostex and the TB work very well with my Sonic Impact amp even tho the Fostex are more efficient.

http://www.zillaspeak.com/Bamboo.asp

Godzilla
 
Re: Re: Suddenly impressed

DaveCan said:

That Fonken enclosure sounds way better with the Fostex 127 driver than the FR125. Personally I don't understand the fuss over the FR125 and the previous WR125? driver, they just don't come close compared to the Fostex IMO and I wonder why people want to use them at all...

I got to listen to a pair of FR125 and they were not impressive at all considering the price (double that of the FE127E). Stock FE127E and even Radio Shack 40-1197 were much much better. The FR125 has a very low efficiency and sounded horrible with tubes and even with a SE mosfet. They were ok with a chipamp, but IMO, you could do much better for the price of them. For the high end, I also thought they would benefit with a tweeter. Very high xmax (for fullrange) which seemed to introduce midrange distortion. On the plus, they look very sharp.
 

lousymusician

Member
Paid Member
2005-11-24 4:10 am
NorCal
Re: Re: Re: Suddenly impressed

gmilitano said:


I got to listen to a pair of FR125 and they were not impressive at all considering the price (double that of the FE127E). Stock FE127E and even Radio Shack 40-1197 were much much better. The FR125 has a very low efficiency and sounded horrible with tubes and even with a SE mosfet. They were ok with a chipamp, but IMO, you could do much better for the price of them. For the high end, I also thought they would benefit with a tweeter. Very high xmax (for fullrange) which seemed to introduce midrange distortion. On the plus, they look very sharp.


IMO, the Fostex and FR125's hit completely different targets. Fostex's seem to be purpose built to work with tubes; the 125's seem happiest with mid-power SS.

My FR125's live in BIB's in the corners of my bedroom, hooked up to an old Yamaha receiver tuned to the local NPR classical or jazz stations. They work very well in that setting. The SS amp takes control of the bass and makes efficiency a non-issue, and the BIB makes plenty of bass and does a surprisingly good job of controlling excursion. I don't feel a need for a tweeter, but my HF hearing is kind of shot (tinnitus), so YMMV there. I've not tried them with my SE tube amp, but I don't think it would be a good match.

I agree that they do look sharp! :)

Bill
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Suddenly impressed

lousymusician said:
IMO, the Fostex and FR125's hit completely different targets. Fostex's seem to be purpose built to work with tubes; the 125's seem happiest with mid-power SS.

Exactly.

With any SE amp (SS or tubed any size) the FR125 are going to sound bad. But if you have a typical HT receiver (or typical low damping factor amplifier), you are going to be much happier with the FR125 than the Fostex.

With the Fostex that HT receiver is working right where the notch distortion is the worst... it sounds crappy. That the FRs have lower efficiency pushes the HT receiver to a place where it is much happier and better sounding.

You cannot judge a speaker independent of the amplifier(s) it will be used with.

dave

BTW: DaveCan -- what is the reference to the Fonken refrring too? ... i don't see any Fonkens in this thread?
 
Arn't those little cabs that he built for the FR125's the aperiodic cab he's talkin about? The ones in the pic on the first post?. If not, my mistake, I just assumed they were... Also great work on both those cabs, they look really nice...

BTW, I didn't mean it as a slam against the FR125, just that for the same price you can get a 127 or 126 Fostex, and I'd still prefer to have the Fostex even with a HT amp, but that is just me.. Dave:)
 
DaveCan said:
Arn't those little cabs that he built for the FR125's the aperiodic cab he's talkin about?

Yes, but they aren't Fonkens (a Fonken by its very name has Fostex in them Fostex-ONKEN =FONKEN :)) These are called 4.5 litre Aperiodic ... no-one has come up with anything more imaginative for them

I didn't mean it as a slam against the FR125, just that for the same price you can get a 127 or 126 Fostex, and I'd still prefer to have the Fostex even with a HT amp, but that is just me..

Personally i find that what the Fostex do with a typical HT amp to be painful. You do also need to here the FR125SReN... i've purposely priced FE126eN, FE127eN and the CSS the same so that price isn't a factor.

dave
 
Secips said:
Dave,

Which amp works best with the FE127eN Fonkens. I need new tubes for my 6C33C SE amp and I figure I can get a T-amp for the same money. Stock or modded. Thanks.

An amp with higher output impedance... the small T-amps work well (our fave so far is the KingRex -- decidely worth the extra money). Small SE tube amps -- normally i'd say 5 watta unless you have a small room, but Gregg the Feejs 2 watt spud amp had them singing at the event last weekend... the Class A SS Monarchys worked well too (think Pass Zen-like -- the F2 has come highly recommended), I reularily use a set of RH84-based monoblocks, Chris flips between a set of Paramour 2s and a little PP EL84 (triode Class A)

dave

BTW i have a set of 6C33 here that i inherited and they need a home.
 
Opps – didn’t realise I’d start a heated discussion between Fostex and CSS. I started writing the rest of this reply early this morning but had to leave to help a mate lay a timber floor. So a lot of this repeats in some way what has been said but hey I typed it so I’m posting it …

Firstly let me own up and say I’m quite a Fostex fan myself, although I’ve only ever heard 3 for their drivers – the FE166es-r was brilliant, FE126e just lovely and must eventually go in a pair of Frugels and the FE167e’s which are pretty dam good too.

But just as Godzilla says we all have different tastes/hearing/preferences and there is no such beast as the perfect driver. If I won the lottery I’d have at least 3-4 listening rooms ranging from the most simple setup say valve amp (or even T amps) and single driver speaker to muscle amps and line arrays and lots of stuff between. Mad idea – well if I had the money why not??? but probably yes (mad).

I’ve only just found that I need to give the CSS FR125s enough juice to get them singing, so yes compared to the Fostex they are inefficient. Now it’s not fair to compare what you see in my original photo but the ML TQWT’s need a larger room than my little office so in that situation I prefer the aperiodics.

Yes I’d agree Dave FR125s didn’t suite my valve set up but driven with my old faithful class A Musical Fidelity A100 cranked up more than usual they sound great.

Cheers - Phil