Hi Mattes,
Thanks for the help mate, really good of you. there are a few things that I am a little wary of with the fertin, one is the linearity. I would prefer the option of no filtering and just to make do with the minor imperfections of the chosen driver to minimise the circuitry.
What are they like without filtering? I couldn't help notice that the FR graphs where with filtering.
secondly I would prefer to use a driver with a strong, award winning brand behind it.
Fertin would be incredibly attractive but I would like my product to be boosted by anothers brand strength.
As an "artisan" company it is unlikely they will gain the awards that Voxativ are able to and I believe that a driver producer should be engineers first and foremost. That said they seem like very highly engineered drivers!
plug and play simplicity would always be an advantage too, rather than a driver that is difficult to setup
What they sound like is most important of course.
When you say that you have heard the voxativs and feastrex's would you say that you preferred the Fertin over them both?
Could you give a brief description of any noted differences between them?
Did you find the voxativ or feastrex whizzer audible?
Thanks so much for your help.
cheers Dan
Thanks for the help mate, really good of you. there are a few things that I am a little wary of with the fertin, one is the linearity. I would prefer the option of no filtering and just to make do with the minor imperfections of the chosen driver to minimise the circuitry.
What are they like without filtering? I couldn't help notice that the FR graphs where with filtering.
secondly I would prefer to use a driver with a strong, award winning brand behind it.
Fertin would be incredibly attractive but I would like my product to be boosted by anothers brand strength.
As an "artisan" company it is unlikely they will gain the awards that Voxativ are able to and I believe that a driver producer should be engineers first and foremost. That said they seem like very highly engineered drivers!
plug and play simplicity would always be an advantage too, rather than a driver that is difficult to setup
What they sound like is most important of course.
When you say that you have heard the voxativs and feastrex's would you say that you preferred the Fertin over them both?
Could you give a brief description of any noted differences between them?
Did you find the voxativ or feastrex whizzer audible?
Thanks so much for your help.
cheers Dan
Hi Dan,
seems that you have already made up your mind, and that is good! You´re right, Fertinacoustics will never reach that kind of reputation and awards that Voxativ has gained.
The 21M8EX and also the other models are definitely NOT plug and play... at least not for me. The owner likes to listen to his constructions without any filtering, I prefer to have my fullrange drivers filtered below 300 Hz and to have corrections in the frequency response, not too much, just to steer a little bit towards more neutrality. But that´s just me... I even prefer passive filters, have tried several digital approaches, but was never happy in the end. Many prefer their drivers unfiltered in large boxes, and that´s how the Fertinacoustics are demonstrated in France, with valve amplifiers in an acoustically stout room, and of course it sounded good, otherwise I wouldn´t have bought the drivers...
I never had the opportunity to make a real 1 to 1 comparison between the Fertinacoustics, the Feastrex (which one?) and the Voxativ (which one?). My impressions are therefore very subjective, but the speed, detail and "unshoutyness" of the Fertinacoustics made up for my choice.
The only 1 to 1 comparisons which I really made, as I have the drivers and have heard them in at least very similar open baffles with the same bass driver in the same location with the same amp, cables and records, are the B 200, the TB 1808, the EMS LB8MkII and the Fertinacoustics 21M8EX.
Sadly, I don´t have the ressources to buy another expensive pair of drivers... and as far as I know, Feastrex is history since several years ago Mr. Teramoto left the company, but of course others might have more information.
Best regards
Mattes
seems that you have already made up your mind, and that is good! You´re right, Fertinacoustics will never reach that kind of reputation and awards that Voxativ has gained.
The 21M8EX and also the other models are definitely NOT plug and play... at least not for me. The owner likes to listen to his constructions without any filtering, I prefer to have my fullrange drivers filtered below 300 Hz and to have corrections in the frequency response, not too much, just to steer a little bit towards more neutrality. But that´s just me... I even prefer passive filters, have tried several digital approaches, but was never happy in the end. Many prefer their drivers unfiltered in large boxes, and that´s how the Fertinacoustics are demonstrated in France, with valve amplifiers in an acoustically stout room, and of course it sounded good, otherwise I wouldn´t have bought the drivers...
I never had the opportunity to make a real 1 to 1 comparison between the Fertinacoustics, the Feastrex (which one?) and the Voxativ (which one?). My impressions are therefore very subjective, but the speed, detail and "unshoutyness" of the Fertinacoustics made up for my choice.
The only 1 to 1 comparisons which I really made, as I have the drivers and have heard them in at least very similar open baffles with the same bass driver in the same location with the same amp, cables and records, are the B 200, the TB 1808, the EMS LB8MkII and the Fertinacoustics 21M8EX.
Sadly, I don´t have the ressources to buy another expensive pair of drivers... and as far as I know, Feastrex is history since several years ago Mr. Teramoto left the company, but of course others might have more information.
Best regards
Mattes
Thanks for all the help mattes,
I love some of your unique designs Horst. I always wonder how a rear loaded horn could be called minimum distortion when it is taking the sound wave down a long convoluted path before it rejoins the frontwave, therefore surely creating a timing error that would admittedly only be noticeable on the "fastest" bass notes. Phase aligning must be tricky also? I would have thought front loaded horns to be more accurate in this regard.
I am a bit sceptical of hornloading the Manger. I would personally cut off at over 170Hz minimum as it has a high Fs of 85 i believe (from memory) and manger themselves cut of at 330Hz.
Dan
I love some of your unique designs Horst. I always wonder how a rear loaded horn could be called minimum distortion when it is taking the sound wave down a long convoluted path before it rejoins the frontwave, therefore surely creating a timing error that would admittedly only be noticeable on the "fastest" bass notes. Phase aligning must be tricky also? I would have thought front loaded horns to be more accurate in this regard.
I am a bit sceptical of hornloading the Manger. I would personally cut off at over 170Hz minimum as it has a high Fs of 85 i believe (from memory) and manger themselves cut of at 330Hz.
Dan
griffon
i made the Lure 1994, since i dreamed about omni without highs.
lure
Thats why i made the double horns look the measurement and impedanz never seen it in living room measurement, Kangling kl.mess
the point is below~ 1,5 kHz the driver played by invers montage, the driver is indirect so you listen the room reflexion, the first wave is important, later reflexion filling up the first, the distance between the driver short as possible here 17 cm~ 2kHz, the first room reflexion of the front driver up to 2 kHz is supported by the near back driver, sorry my english is to small to explain it better, listen is the best way to find out
i made the Lure 1994, since i dreamed about omni without highs.
lure
Thats why i made the double horns look the measurement and impedanz never seen it in living room measurement, Kangling kl.mess
the point is below~ 1,5 kHz the driver played by invers montage, the driver is indirect so you listen the room reflexion, the first wave is important, later reflexion filling up the first, the distance between the driver short as possible here 17 cm~ 2kHz, the first room reflexion of the front driver up to 2 kHz is supported by the near back driver, sorry my english is to small to explain it better, listen is the best way to find out
Attachments
Hi Dan,
just wondering how things worked out with your plug-and-play approach? No offense intended of course, just wondering...
as I have a hard time imaginating a Voxativ or any other fullrange driver with a light straight paper cone without correction, mechanical or electrical. But of course, that´s just me.
In contrary, I can fully understand your scepticism against BLH, personally I never succeeded with those, and in the end gave up the resonant enclosure/line/aircolumn approach nearly completely, at least for myself, sometimes I build smaller TMLs for friends, like in the attached picture.
All the best
Mattes
just wondering how things worked out with your plug-and-play approach? No offense intended of course, just wondering...
as I have a hard time imaginating a Voxativ or any other fullrange driver with a light straight paper cone without correction, mechanical or electrical. But of course, that´s just me.
In contrary, I can fully understand your scepticism against BLH, personally I never succeeded with those, and in the end gave up the resonant enclosure/line/aircolumn approach nearly completely, at least for myself, sometimes I build smaller TMLs for friends, like in the attached picture.
All the best
Mattes
Attachments
BLHs can perform quite well when properly implemented, i.e. needs to have a low enough acoustic XO [Fhm] to keep it out of the telephone BW [250 Hz-up], so at worst we need a 250 Hz Fhm and preferably < Fhm*0.707, which will require some [significant] series resistance to allow really powerful motors [Qes'] to optimally perform; with he theoretical ideal being high output impedance tube amps, receivers, preferably with variable DF tone controls.
Fhm = 2*Fs/Qes'
Qes' = Qes + any added series resistance: mh-audio.nl - Home
GM
Fhm = 2*Fs/Qes'
Qes' = Qes + any added series resistance: mh-audio.nl - Home
GM
Hi GM,
you´re right, it´s of course feasable to do a decent BLH, and modern simulation software makes it a lot easier than it was 30 years ago. Many are happy with their BLHs, and that´s pefectly fine.
It´s just that I regard amplification through resonance as a compromise - loudspeaker building is always a set of compromises, and everybody has to choose his personal ones - which I for myself have tried to avoid in the last years. For small and cheap speakers, I prefer the TML compromise over the BR compromise.
Yes, loud is beautiful!!!
All the best
Mattes
you´re right, it´s of course feasable to do a decent BLH, and modern simulation software makes it a lot easier than it was 30 years ago. Many are happy with their BLHs, and that´s pefectly fine.
It´s just that I regard amplification through resonance as a compromise - loudspeaker building is always a set of compromises, and everybody has to choose his personal ones - which I for myself have tried to avoid in the last years. For small and cheap speakers, I prefer the TML compromise over the BR compromise.
Yes, loud is beautiful!!!
All the best
Mattes
If you must.And I have heard most of them including the Goodmans Axiom 80 which is probably as good as any-this driver sounds excellent for the species-very close to the Axiom 80 and $14 Australian. About $11 US.
https://www.altronics.com.au/p/c2000a-redback-200mm-8-inch-8-ohm-10w-dual-cone-pa-speaker/
https://www.altronics.com.au/p/c2000a-redback-200mm-8-inch-8-ohm-10w-dual-cone-pa-speaker/
Any more impressions regarding Cube Audio speakers? I am thinking about buying Fc8 or F8 Magus drivers...
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.