I'm afraid I don't know what any of those mean except what they mean to me, which is not applicable to anyone else. However, FWIW I designed FHXL with the Alpair 10M/P as the 'default' unit, with a moderate amount of flexibility to accept other drive units. The 166 will work, but as far as load is concerned it is not optimal. Note that like all other back-loaded enclosures, however extreme they may be (reflex, TL, horn or whatever) it only functions over a relatively narrow BW, above which it has little influence other than providing a stable platform for the driver so anything from about 300Hz upward, edge diffraction apart is inherent to the drive units.
From a bald technical perspective the 10P is a more advanced driver design than the Fostex, and personally I prefer to avoid whizzer cones if possible. Still, we all like different things so YMMV as always.
From a bald technical perspective the 10P is a more advanced driver design than the Fostex, and personally I prefer to avoid whizzer cones if possible. Still, we all like different things so YMMV as always.
Last edited:
To expand a bit on Scott's comment:
Even though the Fostex could "work well enough" in the XLs for some folks, I'd go for the 10Ps myself - particularly if you aren't running a flea-power SE amp. I personally find the forward presentation and "enhanced detail" of the FExx6 series a bit fatiguing. I have heard the FF165WK work quite will in the XLs, and while it's cut from a different cloth than the 166s, I still prefer the Alpairs.
As the through hole diameters aren't exactly the same ( FE166 - approx 144mm, A10P=139mm), and the Alpairs need rebating for flush mounting, it wouldn't be an easy drop in swap. If you wanted to try both, it's fairly easy to build any of the FH family with removeable driver mounting plates accommodate the swapping.
I've heard both A10P and 10.3 and the FF165WKs in FHXL, and would actually give the 10.3 an edge in terms of the 3 parameters you describe, while I find the 10P a bit warmer
Even though the Fostex could "work well enough" in the XLs for some folks, I'd go for the 10Ps myself - particularly if you aren't running a flea-power SE amp. I personally find the forward presentation and "enhanced detail" of the FExx6 series a bit fatiguing. I have heard the FF165WK work quite will in the XLs, and while it's cut from a different cloth than the 166s, I still prefer the Alpairs.
As the through hole diameters aren't exactly the same ( FE166 - approx 144mm, A10P=139mm), and the Alpairs need rebating for flush mounting, it wouldn't be an easy drop in swap. If you wanted to try both, it's fairly easy to build any of the FH family with removeable driver mounting plates accommodate the swapping.
I've heard both A10P and 10.3 and the FF165WKs in FHXL, and would actually give the 10.3 an edge in terms of the 3 parameters you describe, while I find the 10P a bit warmer
That's part of my conundrum. I use Fostex in my FH3's and really like them. The "enhanced detail" works really well in my system. Granted, if I do hook my speakers up to a receiver, then the ED is harsh, but my Meridian/Icepower setup has a more laid back sound to it that works really well with the Fostex in the FH3. I get none of the sibilance or harshness that I've noticed when connecting Fostex drivers to a receiver or bright amp. I get the feeling that the "preference" for the MA drivers is because they are more forgiving of upstream equipment. I did briefly put the MA drivers a "quickie" Pensil box and they didn't seem to have any of the "air" in the soundstage that the Fostex drivers had.
The problem of course is that all Fostex speakers aren't the same, so what I like about the 4" Fostex might get harsh on the 6" version....hard to say.
As you point out, part of my concern is the difficulty swapping them out due to widely different mounting points. Don't want to put all the work in and then "bung-it-up" with driver swaps.
I guess the best question I can ask is, whether the FH3 w/Fostex vs MA has the same sound characteristics (relatively) as the fe166en vs MA in the FH XL?
The problem of course is that all Fostex speakers aren't the same, so what I like about the 4" Fostex might get harsh on the 6" version....hard to say.
As you point out, part of my concern is the difficulty swapping them out due to widely different mounting points. Don't want to put all the work in and then "bung-it-up" with driver swaps.
I guess the best question I can ask is, whether the FH3 w/Fostex vs MA has the same sound characteristics (relatively) as the fe166en vs MA in the FH XL?
I'd like to proffer a perfectly wrapped reply as an early Christmas present, but wouldn't really want to extrapolate my experience with the Fostex /MA drivers in the FH3 to the XLs.
The only other observation I'd make is to repeat that I find the 10.3 to have a bit of a leg up on the 10P in terms of inner detail and "air" . While I'm not using them in an FHXL, I find the 10.3 a better choice than the 10P for centre channel in my 7.1 surround system, which currently has MA drivers in the 7 channels, but the only papers are A12PW woofers in the front MTMs and CHP70s in front height surrounds.
It'd be nice to have a poll of the drivers used in all three models in the FH family, along with preferences by those folks who've tried different makes/models in the same enclosure design - and how much the amps driving them factored into that calculus. I think my own are well documented, but just to recap - while the FF85WK is probably my current favorite Fostex when used within its limitations - I've yet to build/hear an enclosure design in which I didn't prefer the Alpair - generally the metal version. As always, YMMV
The only other observation I'd make is to repeat that I find the 10.3 to have a bit of a leg up on the 10P in terms of inner detail and "air" . While I'm not using them in an FHXL, I find the 10.3 a better choice than the 10P for centre channel in my 7.1 surround system, which currently has MA drivers in the 7 channels, but the only papers are A12PW woofers in the front MTMs and CHP70s in front height surrounds.
It'd be nice to have a poll of the drivers used in all three models in the FH family, along with preferences by those folks who've tried different makes/models in the same enclosure design - and how much the amps driving them factored into that calculus. I think my own are well documented, but just to recap - while the FF85WK is probably my current favorite Fostex when used within its limitations - I've yet to build/hear an enclosure design in which I didn't prefer the Alpair - generally the metal version. As always, YMMV
Last edited:
If I may add my .02 here, I recently completed a build of the FHXL's. They were a kit sent from Victoria BC. I, too, labored over which Alpair driver to use but, in the end, chose the 10.3 if for any reason Madisound Speakers was selling them (and may still be) for $86 each.
I initially considered the 10P as I thought the 10.3, with its metal driver, would have the propensity to sound etched or harsh. I have to say that any preconceived notions of the 10.3's sounding etched or harsh were quickly put to rest within the first few notes of music being plated through them. Quite the contrary in fact.
I cannot speak for the 10P, but in my room, with my gear, the FHXL's with 10.3 drivers sound silky smooth and detailed. I have about 100 hours on them and they continue to amaze. I have no regrets going with the 10.3 drivers and cannot recommend them highly enough.
The FHXL is a superbly designed and capable loudspeaker. I consider myself very fortunate to own a pair. I don't think you can go wrong with either choice of Alpair driver, really. Cheers!
I initially considered the 10P as I thought the 10.3, with its metal driver, would have the propensity to sound etched or harsh. I have to say that any preconceived notions of the 10.3's sounding etched or harsh were quickly put to rest within the first few notes of music being plated through them. Quite the contrary in fact.
I cannot speak for the 10P, but in my room, with my gear, the FHXL's with 10.3 drivers sound silky smooth and detailed. I have about 100 hours on them and they continue to amaze. I have no regrets going with the 10.3 drivers and cannot recommend them highly enough.
The FHXL is a superbly designed and capable loudspeaker. I consider myself very fortunate to own a pair. I don't think you can go wrong with either choice of Alpair driver, really. Cheers!
Yes, for whatever the reason that Madisound has that price still listed for both the A10.3 and the newer Pluvia11 - a competent enough driver - I'd highly recommend the former. As said before, I've had the opportunity to compare both models of A10 and the FF165WK in the XLs, and prefer either of the Alpairs
Just finished them. Not broken in yet. The drivers I had were the copper 10.3's. Overall I like them. Not fair to really evaluate them yet, as they have 1hr on them, but they do seem to have less "air" than the FH3 w/Fostex. Massive increase in smoothness, midrange and bass. These I could live with w/o a sub. Very nice speakers. I'll probably get the itch later to make a pair w/the fe166en's and see how they compare.
Overall the soundstage is more forward, and has a less 3d feel to it the the FH3's next to them, but 2d imaging is very good. I'll let them break in before really judging the 3d sound.
Overall the soundstage is more forward, and has a less 3d feel to it the the FH3's next to them, but 2d imaging is very good. I'll let them break in before really judging the 3d sound.
Attachments
I was quite taken aback with the bass of the XL's; it is quite generous and well proportioned. Definitely no sub needed with them.
I am intrigued by your definition of 3D sound in regards to the FH3's with the Fostex drivers. I have always wanted to try a Fostex or Lowther based speaker. Perhaps the FH3 is the way to go with one of them.
What are you using to drive them?
I am intrigued by your definition of 3D sound in regards to the FH3's with the Fostex drivers. I have always wanted to try a Fostex or Lowther based speaker. Perhaps the FH3 is the way to go with one of them.
What are you using to drive them?
Without any break in, it's not fair to compare them head to head yet. The XL's need a chance to loosen up first before judging the imaging. The FH3's are fully broken in, and on a good recording, some sounds happen way behind the far wall, some in front. One one or two tracks, they actually throw sounds directly to the right or left of the listener. They do some spooky stuff.
Setup is Meridian 565 preamp, NHT ICEPower digital amp, Sony 9000es for SACD, and Apple TV for lossless, using the internal DAC's in the Meridian.
Setup is Meridian 565 preamp, NHT ICEPower digital amp, Sony 9000es for SACD, and Apple TV for lossless, using the internal DAC's in the Meridian.
Zman, I can see where that statement holds weight. A smaller driver acts like a point-source and, therefore, has the ability to disappear better than a bigger counterpart.
This is my first foray into the world of full range single-driver loudspeaker and I am mightily impressed already. If it can get any better from here I welcome it with open ears!
This is my first foray into the world of full range single-driver loudspeaker and I am mightily impressed already. If it can get any better from here I welcome it with open ears!
Jjcarr,
Just had a read of your experiences with FH3/Fostex. I have FH3/Fe126En in my case with ACA, I find very similar to you in terms of the spooky ability to place instruments around the sound stage etc. The transient response is really remarkable to me, and at low volume the setup is particularly satisfying. A couple of other things I find...
Sometimes I turn the wick up a bit to a medium volume level. The sound doesn't necessarily become more satisfying, unlike previous 2 way budget systems I owned. If anything, there is ever so slightly more confusion / unraveling of the sound. Not sure why. Might be ACA changing harmonic structure as power increases or modulation of treble frequencies by the driver? Maybe more effects from the room playing a part? Dunno. Still great though.
Second, rock music sounds tonally a bit odd and lacking in low umph. A bit strange, because I know the system can dish out a lot more bass than it does with that genre. It doesn't really like it. No problem. I listen to mainly jazz/easy listening.
Third, the system is lovely on church music, organ and choir. Bass notes are not loud, but deep stuff is there and the ambience and layering of voices is superb, detailed and natural.
Might be of interest to somebody.
Just had a read of your experiences with FH3/Fostex. I have FH3/Fe126En in my case with ACA, I find very similar to you in terms of the spooky ability to place instruments around the sound stage etc. The transient response is really remarkable to me, and at low volume the setup is particularly satisfying. A couple of other things I find...
Sometimes I turn the wick up a bit to a medium volume level. The sound doesn't necessarily become more satisfying, unlike previous 2 way budget systems I owned. If anything, there is ever so slightly more confusion / unraveling of the sound. Not sure why. Might be ACA changing harmonic structure as power increases or modulation of treble frequencies by the driver? Maybe more effects from the room playing a part? Dunno. Still great though.
Second, rock music sounds tonally a bit odd and lacking in low umph. A bit strange, because I know the system can dish out a lot more bass than it does with that genre. It doesn't really like it. No problem. I listen to mainly jazz/easy listening.
Third, the system is lovely on church music, organ and choir. Bass notes are not loud, but deep stuff is there and the ambience and layering of voices is superb, detailed and natural.
Might be of interest to somebody.
Based on the deficiencies you describe, you might really like the XL's. Impact, oomph, and bass are way ahead of the FH3. The FH3's are great, but now that I've built both, the XL's win, hands down.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.