I protest respectfully, IMO the FF165wk is a poor sounding driver even my old MA5's and TBW4-655's better them by quite a margin.
Last edited:
How come? I mean it is not even really fullrange, the freq. response is catastrophic and I listened to them and found them horrifyingly bad.
Well,
a/ It's modified, not a stock driver, as Dave points out, and
b/ It will not be universally accepted that your assessment is the last word on the driver. It was not designed to be flat to 20KHz, is quite widely liked, does not in fact measure particularly badly in comparison to many equivalents, and seems to sell well for its distributors.
a/ It's modified, not a stock driver, as Dave points out, and
b/ It will not be universally accepted that your assessment is the last word on the driver. It was not designed to be flat to 20KHz, is quite widely liked, does not in fact measure particularly badly in comparison to many equivalents, and seems to sell well for its distributors.
dave
At least it looks much better now, good work!
IMO, MA6 outclasses them by a zentillion lightyears. In Germany they demonstrate the 165 vs Tangband and MA to show how better the new firms are. Besides that the 165 was tested by Klang & Ton, so it is not just my word.
somethings, even when a humorous hyperbole are worth coming out of "retirement" for -- perhaps you mean Centillion? - do we have the technology to accurately measure on such an imaginary scale of spacetime?
- Zentillion is something else Zentillion - BluWiki - 2015 Bluwiki
I've not heard the exact combo in Dave's photo, but the 165WK is not all that hurtful a driver - some Lowthers I've heard on the other hand ....
and, pray tell exactly what drivers are the MA5 or MA6 to which you refer?
- Zentillion is something else Zentillion - BluWiki - 2015 Bluwiki
I've not heard the exact combo in Dave's photo, but the 165WK is not all that hurtful a driver - some Lowthers I've heard on the other hand ....
and, pray tell exactly what drivers are the MA5 or MA6 to which you refer?
Last edited:
A few additional points:
-Simply stating Klang+Ton have had the 165 in for review does not support the contention that the driver is 'horrifyingly bad'. Please provide us with the year / month and page number of the review, and where they state it to be 'horrifyingly bad' compared to direct size equivalents which have the same design objectives. If it is being compared to drivers of dissimilar size and / or dissimilar design objective, then the comparison is meaningless since like is not being compared with like.
-If MA5 and MA6 mean the Alpair 10 (approx. 5in) and Alpair 12P (approx. 6in), then the former has only 53%, and the latter only 88% of the radiating area of the FF165wk. If MA5 and MA6 mean the Alpair 5 and Alpair 6, those units have only about 17% and 22% of the radiating area, respectively. TB could mean any of their myriad drivers of course, so just stating the name of the manufacturer and not the model frankly isn't very useful.
-As noted, the 165 appears to sell well and to be generally quite well liked, judging from the relatively few complaints that seem to appear on the boards. This suggests that, while far from perfect, many users are satisfied with what it does.
-Simply stating Klang+Ton have had the 165 in for review does not support the contention that the driver is 'horrifyingly bad'. Please provide us with the year / month and page number of the review, and where they state it to be 'horrifyingly bad' compared to direct size equivalents which have the same design objectives. If it is being compared to drivers of dissimilar size and / or dissimilar design objective, then the comparison is meaningless since like is not being compared with like.
-If MA5 and MA6 mean the Alpair 10 (approx. 5in) and Alpair 12P (approx. 6in), then the former has only 53%, and the latter only 88% of the radiating area of the FF165wk. If MA5 and MA6 mean the Alpair 5 and Alpair 6, those units have only about 17% and 22% of the radiating area, respectively. TB could mean any of their myriad drivers of course, so just stating the name of the manufacturer and not the model frankly isn't very useful.
-As noted, the 165 appears to sell well and to be generally quite well liked, judging from the relatively few complaints that seem to appear on the boards. This suggests that, while far from perfect, many users are satisfied with what it does.
To avoid misinterpretation, my last comment should have been more specific - "exact combo" referred to the 165WK in the raw plywood FHXL enclosures in Dave's photos (which I built) - I have heard those drivers in at least 2 other systems, and could probably live with them quite comfortably. Fortunately I don't let measurements get too much in the way of the degree of my listening enjoyment - I've found some drivers/systems that look excellent on paper to be rather un-involving, but I don't think there's a metric for that.
YMMV as ever Chris. 
I find this a little ironic since the 165 isn't a particular favourite of mine, and I've found the wk series Fostex units rather disappointing in design terms. But nor do I see any call to describe it as 'horrifyingly bad' -especially sans support. I've seen, heard and measured worse. It is what it is -a bit average really. I'd rather have an MA unit, the 12P for preference since a little bit of me went into that driver. But it's not really a fair comparison; the 12P is a smaller unit with a long-throw suspension designed for extended BW. The 165 is a larger unit with short throw and designed to have more limited HF extension. You pays your money...
I find this a little ironic since the 165 isn't a particular favourite of mine, and I've found the wk series Fostex units rather disappointing in design terms. But nor do I see any call to describe it as 'horrifyingly bad' -especially sans support. I've seen, heard and measured worse. It is what it is -a bit average really. I'd rather have an MA unit, the 12P for preference since a little bit of me went into that driver. But it's not really a fair comparison; the 12P is a smaller unit with a long-throw suspension designed for extended BW. The 165 is a larger unit with short throw and designed to have more limited HF extension. You pays your money...
W4-655? I'm afraid not. I've made > 11,200 posts on this forum in the past decade or so, and I can't remember all of them. However, I've just run a brief search & it appears I've never used the term 'w4-655' or 'w4 655'. A brief search on Google however indicates that it's a nominal 4in unit with phase plug.
No, they were not targeting 'flat' output to 20KHz with the FF165wk. Like its FF165K predecessor they were aiming for about 10KHz - 12KHz with a rolloff above. Fostex are generally quite consistent in terms of the BW they aim for, and the drivers in a new range usually have a similar response trend to their immediate predecessors (confirmed by one of their designers). A notable exception was the shift from the Sigma to the current ESigma range, but this saw a major change in driver typology, away from the twin-cone to the single HP style that is still current.
It's unfortunate that context and design objectives for a particular unit are not often mentioned in reviews, or even in many forum comments. It would save a lot of time if they were.
No, they were not targeting 'flat' output to 20KHz with the FF165wk. Like its FF165K predecessor they were aiming for about 10KHz - 12KHz with a rolloff above. Fostex are generally quite consistent in terms of the BW they aim for, and the drivers in a new range usually have a similar response trend to their immediate predecessors (confirmed by one of their designers). A notable exception was the shift from the Sigma to the current ESigma range, but this saw a major change in driver typology, away from the twin-cone to the single HP style that is still current.
It's unfortunate that context and design objectives for a particular unit are not often mentioned in reviews, or even in many forum comments. It would save a lot of time if they were.
Last edited:
"W5-1880... oh, how horrid!"
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/full-range/173179-tang-band-w5-1880-a.html
"It appears to be a relatively deep cone profile, so in combination with that big roll surround off axis performance isn't likely to be great. And I hate those Micky Mouse neodymium motors; there is absolutely no need to employ them other than for the sake of fashion."
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/full-range/173179-tang-band-w5-1880-a.html
Sorry it was the W5-1880
W5-1880 is a nominal 5in driver with 50% of the radiating area of the 165, so obviously no sensible comparison between them can be made. In re the 1880, I've had a pair through here, and my view remains unchanged. Its off-axis performance wasn't great, nor was the motor especially distinguished.
Last edited:
You're right the pseudo-fullrange Fostex 165wk manages only 10kHz and the Tangband gets easliy to 20kHz.
In my ears ALL Fostex drivers I heard (108, 166, 126, 165 and 1 or 2 more I can't remember) sound horrifyingly bad (sigma or not). I never heard a problematic sounding Tangband driver, that's my opinion and that's it.
The W4-655/W4-1320 in combination with 300B's sounds nothing short of sensational.
The W8 series has speed and detail Fostex never achieved.
The W5 series has linearity which Fostex only can dream of.
BTW, the Fostex 165wk falls of with 10dB at 10kHz at 30 deg., ohh that's great...LOL
Stop calling speakers "horrid" without even hearing it, just an advice.
Last edited:
Used the wrong data set. Which doesn't alter the rather salient facts that they are two standard size brackets apart, were not designed to the same criteria, nor the same duties, so comparing the two is utterly meaningless. What you appear to be arguing is that two drivers of completely different sizes that were designed for different things are in fact, different. Yes. They are.
Now please take your opinions on drive units to an appropriate place and stop derailing the FHXL thread.
Now please take your opinions on drive units to an appropriate place and stop derailing the FHXL thread.
Last edited: