Hi Everyone,
I am looking at 3 fullrange driver's. I have heard the ff85wk drivers very micro detailed. Mark audio's alpair 7.3 I have not heard? The super A.N. I have not heard? I am looking to use the drivers for midrange duty's and tweeter if I can get away with it? I plan on crossing the drivers at 300 hz on up. I have woofers to take care of the lower end. Which driver will give me the most natural sound? I am into voices so they have to be real sounding. Thanks Mr Daniel
I am looking at 3 fullrange driver's. I have heard the ff85wk drivers very micro detailed. Mark audio's alpair 7.3 I have not heard? The super A.N. I have not heard? I am looking to use the drivers for midrange duty's and tweeter if I can get away with it? I plan on crossing the drivers at 300 hz on up. I have woofers to take care of the lower end. Which driver will give me the most natural sound? I am into voices so they have to be real sounding. Thanks Mr Daniel
Last edited:
We have used both FF85wk & A7.3 (both EnABLed) in FASTs. We have more experience with the 1st one, and VERY good success. We believe the A7.3 should be better, but we haven't sufficient experience with it in FAST yet to confirm.
As soon as i get my main amp back i will be setting up the A7.3/SDX7 FAST for long term development.
The A7.3 can be XOed lower (160 Hz the starting point in our case), our FF85wk FASTs have been XOed at 240 (active) & 320-350 passive.
The Mark Audio costs more if that makes a difference.
Both are really good.
Keep in mind that voice fundementals can be as low as 80 Hz, and with a 300ish XO the woofer is likely handling the voice fundementals, and the XO needs to be unobstrusive -- we have used 1st order PLLXO or series XOs in all but 1 case.
dave
As soon as i get my main amp back i will be setting up the A7.3/SDX7 FAST for long term development.
The A7.3 can be XOed lower (160 Hz the starting point in our case), our FF85wk FASTs have been XOed at 240 (active) & 320-350 passive.
The Mark Audio costs more if that makes a difference.
Both are really good.
Keep in mind that voice fundementals can be as low as 80 Hz, and with a 300ish XO the woofer is likely handling the voice fundementals, and the XO needs to be unobstrusive -- we have used 1st order PLLXO or series XOs in all but 1 case.
dave
lowest vocal fundamental?
unless your name is Tim Storms?
from Wikipedia, so it must be true:
Storms's Guinness World Record for the lowest note produced by a human was certified in January 2002.[3] Storms also holds the Guinness World Record for the widest vocal range for a male. His records have been published in the Guinness World Records 2006. He broke both of these records in August 2008.[1] As of 2008, the new record for lowest note was 0.7973 Hz, and the new record for Widest Vocal Range For Any Human was ten octaves.[4]
In 2012, Storms reclaimed the record for the Lowest Note Produced by a Human. The new record is G-7, or 0.189 Hz, eight octaves below the lowest G on the piano, or just over seven octaves below the piano .[5]
unless your name is Tim Storms?
from Wikipedia, so it must be true:
Storms's Guinness World Record for the lowest note produced by a human was certified in January 2002.[3] Storms also holds the Guinness World Record for the widest vocal range for a male. His records have been published in the Guinness World Records 2006. He broke both of these records in August 2008.[1] As of 2008, the new record for lowest note was 0.7973 Hz, and the new record for Widest Vocal Range For Any Human was ten octaves.[4]
In 2012, Storms reclaimed the record for the Lowest Note Produced by a Human. The new record is G-7, or 0.189 Hz, eight octaves below the lowest G on the piano, or just over seven octaves below the piano .[5]
my thoughts exactly, but like I said - "I read it on the internet, so it must be true"
Another option
If you are looking closely at the FF85k, I wouldn't write off the FE83En as another option. I've found the FF85K to sound a bit thin and "tissy" up top, no matter what enclosures I put them in, and I tried many, including ones that I originally designed just for that driver, even considering baffle step and etc.
Call it personal preference, and also as a disclaimer I'm commercially involved with the FE83En driver (and so are Dave and Chris involved similarly with the FF85k...). But to my ears that are only 30 years old the FF85k just didn't make the cut. the FF85k just really bothers me during listening sessions above a half hour. However, I've always been very sensitive to the qualities of high frequencies and so that's a big part of my preference for the softer driver.
The highs on the FE83En are still all there information wise, but just let me listen longer.
The bass I've been able to get out of the FE83En is hitting hard down to 85/90hz and slightly below if the speakers are close to a wall.
The bass from the FF85k was comparable to the 83 in various enclosures, and maybe they go just a tad lower, and you can put them in simply tiny enclosures under 3 liters if you like. so some definite tradeoffs for sure. The lower range vocals of the 85k in an enclosure that small are hard to get to sound totally full, but this is a 3" driver we are talking about.
The Mark audio AP7.3 I have not heard, but have owned and moderately enjoyed the Alpair 6p's (however again the highs were a bit more fatiguing than the FE83En so they didnt make the cut). Commercially, I am currently in development on bass reflex cabinets for Alpair 10P and/or 12p so I can fairly well recommend those drivers. The Mark Audio cones are some of the best in the biz. I do wish they came in any metal frame option rather than ABS plastic, however. (though their plastic is of a very high quality indeed).
The AN's are probably worth a listen depending upon the model. have worked with their drivers and enjoyed them, though the model I had (cast 12) was understandably a little ragged on top. but crossed to a tweet could be pretty darned nice. The bass had TRUE potential.
Hope that alternative perspective helps!
Cheers,
Clark
If you are looking closely at the FF85k, I wouldn't write off the FE83En as another option. I've found the FF85K to sound a bit thin and "tissy" up top, no matter what enclosures I put them in, and I tried many, including ones that I originally designed just for that driver, even considering baffle step and etc.
Call it personal preference, and also as a disclaimer I'm commercially involved with the FE83En driver (and so are Dave and Chris involved similarly with the FF85k...). But to my ears that are only 30 years old the FF85k just didn't make the cut. the FF85k just really bothers me during listening sessions above a half hour. However, I've always been very sensitive to the qualities of high frequencies and so that's a big part of my preference for the softer driver.
The highs on the FE83En are still all there information wise, but just let me listen longer.
The bass I've been able to get out of the FE83En is hitting hard down to 85/90hz and slightly below if the speakers are close to a wall.
The bass from the FF85k was comparable to the 83 in various enclosures, and maybe they go just a tad lower, and you can put them in simply tiny enclosures under 3 liters if you like. so some definite tradeoffs for sure. The lower range vocals of the 85k in an enclosure that small are hard to get to sound totally full, but this is a 3" driver we are talking about.
The Mark audio AP7.3 I have not heard, but have owned and moderately enjoyed the Alpair 6p's (however again the highs were a bit more fatiguing than the FE83En so they didnt make the cut). Commercially, I am currently in development on bass reflex cabinets for Alpair 10P and/or 12p so I can fairly well recommend those drivers. The Mark Audio cones are some of the best in the biz. I do wish they came in any metal frame option rather than ABS plastic, however. (though their plastic is of a very high quality indeed).
The AN's are probably worth a listen depending upon the model. have worked with their drivers and enjoyed them, though the model I had (cast 12) was understandably a little ragged on top. but crossed to a tweet could be pretty darned nice. The bass had TRUE potential.
Hope that alternative perspective helps!
Cheers,
Clark
Last edited:
Member
Joined 2003
I agree with you Blumenco. I've tried the FF85K and was not particularly impressed, despite what "the internet" says about them . I found them to sound a bit "shouty", and lacking in the top end. They're good if a "retro" sound is what you're after, but I won't be using them again for modern hifi. They were my first and only Fostex purchase, unfortunately has turned me off trying Fostex again.
Try the Vifa TG9 or TC9. I've just received a pair of TG9 and they are very impressive. Not really a good comparison, but I wanted to hear them make some noise, so I put them in a poly filled cup. Side by side cup comparison with the Fostex, they walk all over the Fostex. Sure you need twice as much power since they're a 4 ohm load, but if your crossing to a woofer for the low end, who cares? It has 5 times the xmax, so dump in some more power and enjoy!
For only $20 the Vifa TG9 is easily one of the best. In a few weeks time I'll have them mounted in some cabinets and playing right along with a 10" woofer covering the low end.
. I found them to sound a bit "shouty", and lacking in the top end. They're good if a "retro" sound is what you're after, but I won't be using them again for modern hifi. They were my first and only Fostex purchase, unfortunately has turned me off trying Fostex again.Try the Vifa TG9 or TC9. I've just received a pair of TG9 and they are very impressive. Not really a good comparison, but I wanted to hear them make some noise, so I put them in a poly filled cup. Side by side cup comparison with the Fostex, they walk all over the Fostex. Sure you need twice as much power since they're a 4 ohm load, but if your crossing to a woofer for the low end, who cares? It has 5 times the xmax, so dump in some more power and enjoy!
For only $20 the Vifa TG9 is easily one of the best. In a few weeks time I'll have them mounted in some cabinets and playing right along with a 10" woofer covering the low end.
indeed so - I certainly find no issues with the WK - I currently have a pair at each home and work desktop computers, and we've used them in at least a couple of different FAST type systems with very satisfactory results
FWIW, in a direct comparison between the two models a while back at Bud Purvine's place (a pair of Clark's little 83 BR, and my own build of approx same size with 85WK), I found the 83s a little dry compared to the 85WKs. I'm also using a pair of A6Ms as rear surrounds in a small 5.1 system, with Alpair7s in the front row.
While I prefer the A6P and new 10P to their metal coned siblings for nearfield / small room , I certainly don't find the Alpair metals or the 85WKs to have issues in the uppermost range that younger listeners or those with higher sensitivity might. Perhaps the combination of age, industrial damaged hearing and raging tinitus masks a major degree of what others might find or have measurements to prove is "wrong" or at least intolerable to them.
Fair enough - I guess gentlemen could agree to disagree as to which of any of these drivers we think might / should appeal to the widest population of listeners, based on our own "facts"/biases. Fortunately, with the embarrassment of riches from which DIYer and small commercial builders have to chose, we don't need to elect a singular winner in any given category.
Re Mark's injection molded resin baskets, we can let him describe if the material is more than just ABS plastic (and he's certainly not the only manufacturer to use plastic baskets ), but after getting over the issues with working with the larger frames - compared to say a Fostex - AFAIC, the positive attributes of their performance far outweighs those minor inconveniences.
Note: Chris is really listening to FF85wKeN.
The older FF85K had a rise starting at about 15k that the bat ears did not like. The new FF85wk gave up some ultimate HF extention (25k vs 32k) to flatten the top end.
dave
From the perspective of a 30 yr old without commercial interests and having heard both in FAST systems I'd take the 85. The 83 is fine but has some draw backs.
Now to properly assessment things for the masses and not let subjectivity into the mix, then I would mention that measurements of my 83 speaker shown some midrange problems that were clearly audible. I haven't measured the 85 but the spec sheet seems to not have any glaring concerns.
Now to properly assessment things for the masses and not let subjectivity into the mix, then I would mention that measurements of my 83 speaker shown some midrange problems that were clearly audible. I haven't measured the 85 but the spec sheet seems to not have any glaring concerns.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.