Scottmoose said:
Thank's that nice. I built them for a couple of years. If don't find an other box charges that i prefer, i will redo Back horn but fostex ones these time and with multilayer plywood. I look to BIB boxes to but size is definitiv to big for me. Pearhaps will i try bin with FE127 or FE108EZ, but i'm a little bit anxious about the matching with à 10W 6080 PP tube amp.
Marc
The 168ES is a good substitute for the 167 in the FT-1600MkII cabinet. Here is a mathcad modeled FR plot:
Bob
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
Bob
Scottmoose said:
I lengthened the port tupe to 6" and stuffed the pipe its full length. Otherwise, the basic cabinet is unchanged.
Working out the countour filter should be interesting. the 168ES has all of the problems the the Lowther drivers have -- rising response, 2kHz hump, dual top-end humps.
Bob
Those Supravox TQWT's are hugely too big for 168ES's. You say you actually heard this combo? And it actually had bass? Must have been placed in a corner. I get this for a FR plot:
Bob
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
Bob
How did you run the sim Bob, if you don't mind my asking? Because this is what I got from a quick (& rough) model in ML TQWT, albeit with just the first section stuffed. I've probably messed up somewhere along the line, but I can't find where.
Approx length 70in, driver at 35.6in, So = 1.4in x 11.8in, Sl = 11in x 11.8in, vent radius 6in, length 0.75in.
As it stands, I agree that the cab is too large for a target alignment (though a damned site too small for the drivers it's actually intended for) -but I still reckon better too large a box than too small. GM's influence I suspect -you can't get rid of what isn't there in the first place.
Cheers
Scott
Approx length 70in, driver at 35.6in, So = 1.4in x 11.8in, Sl = 11in x 11.8in, vent radius 6in, length 0.75in.
As it stands, I agree that the cab is too large for a target alignment (though a damned site too small for the drivers it's actually intended for) -but I still reckon better too large a box than too small. GM's influence I suspect -you can't get rid of what isn't there in the first place.
Cheers
Scott
Attachments
Scott, I suspect your graph is more accurate, only because there were gobs of bass. This was in a rather large room with very high ceilings and the speakers were sitting out into the room a bit from the rear wall. Or front wall, depending on how you look at it.
I heard it through a 300B amp and suspected that the bass was almost a bit loose, as you said, as if the box was a bit large.
I'm certainly not saying it's better than the MLTL, (or BIB for that matter) just an option to consider. I do wonder if it could be tweaked for a more perfect fit.
I heard it through a 300B amp and suspected that the bass was almost a bit loose, as you said, as if the box was a bit large.
I'm certainly not saying it's better than the MLTL, (or BIB for that matter) just an option to consider. I do wonder if it could be tweaked for a more perfect fit.
ChrisMmm said:Hi,
I ran the FE168Es in Bob's 1600 II cabs while I was building my BIB cabs. The 1600 MLTLs were built for the FE167 (167s now back in the MLTL cabs). The FW168s sounded fine in the MLTL cabs with good bass extension. They also work very will in BIB cabs
Cheers
Thant's for experience report. I will try Bob's 1600II. Have you lined the cabinet with Hardi Backer or something else?
Marc
Yes, an equivelant of Hardi Backer. Actually a great, simple and cheap way to dampen cabinet walls. Been building speakers for many years and you continue to learn new tricks of the hobby - the Hardi Backer one is a great idea and so much easier than all the alternatives I have used in the past.
Cheers
Cheers
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.