[doug s.]

hi all,

well, i finally got around to dialing in my four fostex-driver/pioneer-cabinet bastards w/my deqx pda2.6.  (in the process, i deleted the data for my piega's - there is a learning curve for this deqx...    )  i am presently crossing them over to tad pt-r07a tweets at ~8khz, & vmps larger subs at 113hz.  all i can say is "wow".  at a tiny fraction of the cost of the piega's, i am getting really nice sound.  sound i could easily live with, with one caveat:  i can't really crank 'em, in my ~750sf listening room.  at normal listening levels, they're awesome.  great detail, soundstaging, dynamics.  how much is due to the deqx, i really don't know, but i do know the fe103's didn't measure wery flat during initial calibration.

meanwhile, i am looking to try another full-range-type driver in my system, one that will go a bit louder.  in small to medium sized rooms, i do not see how you can go wrong w/something like these...







doug s.

[jrebman]

Doug,

Cool.  I think FE-126s are your next logical choice -- unless you want to go up to the 6-inchers, but the bigger you go the more of the magic is lost in the mids and highs.

-- Jim

[opnly bafld]

Doug,
Have you tried them bipole or dipole (turn the lower pair backwards) wired in parallel? 

Lin

[doug s.]

actually, i am thinking more along the lines of 8" drivers - fostex fe206e's, or audio nirvana 8" drivers.  i think i need to give up a tad-bit of mid/high "magic", to get the gain i need.  and, as i can cross over to a ribbon supertweeter w/a deqx at 8khz-10khz, i do not think i will be giving up all that much.  plus, the deqx helps smooth out the frequency response a lot...

doug s.

Doug,

Cool.  I think FE-126s are your next logical choice -- unless you want to go up to the 6-inchers, but the bigger you go the more of the magic is lost in the mids and highs.

-- Jim

[doug s.]

the problem i am having is the drivers yust do not have enough drive to crank w/o overloading.  room treatment isn't the issue here.  and, neither is bass response - crossed over to a pair of vmps larger subs, i get plenty of that.     the soundstaging is already excellent.  the speakers yust start to break up if played too loud...

doug

A little OT but some room treatments would improve the sound quality and would most likely help the speakers at high volume. I recently purchased some  GIK 4" panels and immediately noticed the tighter bass and more focused soundstage. I plan to DIY some more acoustical treatments of various sizes and shapes. IMO room treatments are a cheap and necessary tweak that pays big rewards.

[doug s.]

Doug,
Have you tried them bipole or dipole (turn the lower pair backwards) wired in parallel? 

Lin

lin, i do not think that would work, w/the problem i am already having - not enough gain w/o driver break-up...

doug s.

[opnly bafld]

Doug,
Have you tried them bipole or dipole (turn the lower pair backwards) wired in parallel? 

Lin

lin, i do not think that would work, w/the problem i am already having - not enough gain w/o driver break-up...

doug s.

Not suggesting it will solve your problem, but to see if you like the sound even better.

Lin

[doug s.]

i understand, but from what i know about doing this, it will result in a lower spl at the listening seat.  i think the sound level would be too low to appreciate any improvement in sound.

doug s.

Doug,
Have you tried them bipole or dipole (turn the lower pair backwards) wired in parallel? 

Lin

lin, i do not think that would work, w/the problem i am already having - not enough gain w/o driver break-up...

doug s.

Not suggesting it will solve your problem, but to see if you like the sound even better.

Lin

[nodiak]

doug - I had some Coral's that size (looked the same), very smooth and pleasing, and I know what you mean about their spl limits. Had them xo to 15's ~ 300 hz, no tweeter tho. Since you're using a tweeter and subs you may like the Hemp 8's. I have a pair I use with tweeters and a single sub, works great (still working on the best tweeter with them). They have a better mid than the Corals did, livelier, cleaner, sweeter. Also the hemps had a little more body than 167e's, and don't struggle with loud or complex music as much. Took some time to "break in".
juuuust an idea...
Don

[rajacat]

Doug,
Have you tried them bipole or dipole (turn the lower pair backwards) wired in parallel? 

Lin

I agree. I have the Omega Hemp Bipoles/Dipoles. They're running as dipoles presently, which I prefer to bipole although the bipole configuration produces more bass. The dipole seems to be more transparent with better imaging. I can see that you might have difficulty with the 3 foot+ distance from the back spacing requirement so that they can breath. You wouldn't think they image well with opposing drivers but I think that they image quite well, not pinpoint maybe but more like live music. It looks like the FE103s' are just sitting on each other so experimenting would be easy.

[Ed Schilling]

The 103....any version will NEVER play loudly......not even in a blh. I used them for 15 years (all versions) . Name a cabinet design.....I built it. They do sound wonderful within their limits. Not good enough for serious listening IMO. The 126's are NOT the "cat's meow" as some think....even though I use them. Drivers do NOT (alone) guarantee a good sound......speakers are a system and as such the SQ is determined by many things other than the actual driver. The 126's will be more efficient but in a closed box will not sound better.....I "guess" (ok, I know) . If you use it as a dedicated midrange and bandpass limit its response the system will be able to play at high SPL's but then it will be a conventional 3 way. There are better midrange drivers. What you have is "typical" of the 103's sound and limitations. Stick them in anything you want and watch me be right...again.

Ed

[Scottmoose]

Agreed. Mostly. You can get over 100db 1w/1m out of it in theory (using the Fostex specs anyway) with a ~optimal full-sized hyperbolic down to, oh, 50Hz. But given the gigantic size (47ft^2 mouths) you'd be a) certifiable, and b) own a house of epic proportions. If you're serious enough to be going with full-sized bass-horns, you want something more than a 103 to drive them.

[Ed Schilling]

Scott,
Glad to see we are not in total disagreement, but I'm gonna say, nope, not even close to 100 in a real room with out serious audible distortion, regardless of the math or enclosure.  As my tag says...."designing loudspeakers is very easy. Building one that actually sounds good is MUCH more difficult."

As I am sure you are well aware there are things you just don't learn in books or in school or on the Al Gore WWW internet. And this is a good case......regardless of any numbers the 103 will simply not play loud without audible compression or distortion. The 126 on the other hand in a good home is capable of levels that I have been called a liar over. All without AUDIBLE compression or distortion. WAY above what the "math" will show is possible. Also way above what the differences in real, measured efficiency between the drivers. And that is a dirty little secret of single driver speakers (in particular)....the secret being....you can have a single driver SYSTEM that the math will predict and the measurements will show to be 97 dB efficient. But it may NOT be capable of actually playing music at that level,with any size amp without audible compression or distortion.

The flip side is that it does NOT work the other way.....meaning a low efficient single driver speaker regardless of it's power handling can never be made to play "loud" either. The only way a single driver can play loud is if it does not fall into either of the above categories. And there in lies the trick.....how to avoid building a "high efficiency" single driver system that not only measures that way but is also able to play music at high volumes.

Some may not want to hear that and many may not think it true but again.....all there is to know is not found on forums on the web.

It's nice to know we do agree basically. Keep in mind my posts are never meant as ball busters but rather I see a lot of reinventing the wheel and applying  proven design of multi way speakers being applied to single driver speakers and to put it mildly...."it just don't work that way all the time". So please take anything I say as simply opinion and nothing more. I do however believe and use the things I say and they seem to work in the real world.....and sometimes even on paper!

Merry Christmas everyone.

Ed
For those reading this and wondering about my claim , just for kicks as you think about the post....and wonder how it could be....start with simply the cone material of the 103 vs. the 126. That is just a start. Everything matters in the design of a system.

[doug s.]

thanks, ed, for chiming in here.  glad to know i am not nuts.  well, not too nuts, anyways.     i was hoping using two fe103's per side would get me a bit more gain.  it probably *does* get me more gain, but it's still not enough.  still, they sound really good, all things considered - just not up to playing loud in my 750sf room.  at moderate levels, they are sweet.  anyone wanna trade something for these?   

doug s.

The 103....any version will NEVER play loudly......not even in a blh. I used them for 15 years (all versions) . Name a cabinet design.....I built it. They do sound wonderful within their limits. Not good enough for serious listening IMO. The 126's are NOT the "cat's meow" as some think....even though I use them. Drivers do NOT (alone) guarantee a good sound......speakers are a system and as such the SQ is determined by many things other than the actual driver. The 126's will be more efficient but in a closed box will not sound better.....I "guess" (ok, I know) . If you use it as a dedicated midrange and bandpass limit its response the system will be able to play at high SPL's but then it will be a conventional 3 way. There are better midrange drivers. What you have is "typical" of the 103's sound and limitations. Stick them in anything you want and watch me be right...again.

Ed

[Scottmoose]

Scott,
Glad to see we are not in total disagreement, but I'm gonna say, nope, not even close to 100 in a real room with out serious audible distortion, regardless of the math or enclosure.  As my tag says...."designing loudspeakers is very easy. Building one that actually sounds good is MUCH more difficult."

As I am sure you are well aware there are things you just don't learn in books or in school or on the Al Gore WWW internet. And this is a good case......regardless of any numbers the 103 will simply not play loud without audible compression or distortion. The 126 on the other hand in a good home is capable of levels that I have been called a liar over. All without AUDIBLE compression or distortion. WAY above what the "math" will show is possible. Also way above what the differences in real, measured efficiency between the drivers. And that is a dirty little secret of single driver speakers (in particular)....the secret being....you can have a single driver SYSTEM that the math will predict and the measurements will show to be 97 dB efficient. But it may NOT be capable of actually playing music at that level,with any size amp without audible compression or distortion.

The flip side is that it does NOT work the other way.....meaning a low efficient single driver speaker regardless of it's power handling can never be made to play "loud" either. The only way a single driver can play loud is if it does not fall into either of the above categories. And there in lies the trick.....how to avoid building a "high efficiency" single driver system that not only measures that way but is also able to play music at high volumes.

Some may not want to hear that and many may not think it true but again.....all there is to know is not found on forums on the web.

It's nice to know we do agree basically. Keep in mind my posts are never meant as ball busters but rather I see a lot of reinventing the wheel and applying  proven design of multi way speakers being applied to single driver speakers and to put it mildly...."it just don't work that way all the time". So please take anything I say as simply opinion and nothing more. I do however believe and use the things I say and they seem to work in the real world.....and sometimes even on paper!

Merry Christmas everyone.

Ed
For those reading this and wondering about my claim , just for kicks as you think about the post....and wonder how it could be....start with simply the cone material of the 103 vs. the 126. That is just a start. Everything matters in the design of a system.

Ed,

My best wishes for a Happy Christmas to you & your family (and to everyone else here too -enjoy)

Why do you think I wrote 'in theory'? To give my fingers exercise? In the world of mathematics on the page or whatever, it will work, a prime reason being that said math doesn't account for everything, or even remotely like it. Naturally, you'd be daft to try it in practice. I think I used the word 'certifiable' in my post above? Leaving the vast size of the thing alone aside, the 103's motor simply isn't powerful enough to drive an optimal hyperbolic without the HF dropping off severely -for that matter, not many WR drivers short of compression units really are. It'd need massive damping to get a reasonable balance (there go the microdynamics etc.), and so the list winds its merry way on. I'm not much of a fan of the 103 at the best of times, but trying to coax any reasonable LF from it? The phrase 'blood out of a stone' springs to mind.

The difference between theory and practice is a variable area depending on what it is that you happen to be doing at the time -sometimes they can co-incide nicely, as you yourself will know & doubtless have found at some point or other. On different occasions, you know full well from additional knowledge / experience / whatever, they can be far apart. Like this one; an entertaining theoretical exercise, but no more, because you know perfectly well that there are many, many additonal factors at work. My prose frequently lets me down I admit, because I usually assume the reader has background knowledge, and will see that I posess the same; ergo I don't need to extrapolate to the final degree. Unfortunately, this can backfire, because people, seeing you haven't mentioned everything, assume you don't know what you're talking about. A vicious circle, and one that's taken years to perfect. 


Doug -yes, you'll get more gain. But it's not going to be enough to satisfy you, and you're probably going to run into lobing problems too unless you watch what you're doing. Bipole is good for nearfield listening; farfield really benefits from direct radiation so you've got as much directed at you as possible. There's a limit to what you can do with a 4in driver.

[Ed Schilling]

Scott,
Most of my post was for the benefit of others, and meant to be an addition to yours and not in any way to imply anything about your knowledge or skill or even disagree really. I know you understand what I meant and I know that you are a long way from clueless!

>>>>"Unfortunately, this can backfire, because people, seeing you haven't mentioned everything, assume you don't know what you're talking about. A vicious circle, and one that's taken years to perfect.  Laughing<<<"

Yep! And I sure hope you don't think that I thought you didn't know what you were talking about. I agree with all you said actually, I just wanted to mention that many times all is not what it seems. I'm well aware of you and your reputation (a good thing).

And you are right about only being able to get so much from a 4 inch driver....this is all I can get from 8 feet away with 10 watts.
It's a peak reading and I just happened to have hit the shutter at the EXACT right moment...truthfully the sustained peaks were closer to 106 but this one blasted on through just as I hit the shutter. There was no compression or distortion.............. that is not the maximum but for any more you'll need >50 watts. a Pass X150 will do it and is what my reference amp was for a couple years. A quick guess at the numbers will suggest this is not possible......but don't forget this is the output of my system not the theoretical numbers one gets from 1 watt/meter. You have to start with that...then add the second channel and then the output gain from corner loading both of those. The system efficiency adds up quick and is greater than one would guess. A pair of 103's will NEVER come close to this level.

Anyway, I think you and I are on the same page, basically. At least I hope so.

Ed

[Scottmoose]

Cheers Ed.

Oh I buy it. The meter doesn't lie (well, hopefully not, or we're all in trouble. ;^) I'm a fan of the 126 myself -my modified units are sitting on the desk at the moment actually. They haven't seen any service for the last 6 months or so -no time, money or facilities since the flooding around here in the summer. But they're going into a pair of focused double-horns in the new year, which should be interesting as the curve provides a degree of front-loading, pushing excursion down.

[Ed Schilling]

Thanks Scott. You know that image is not just screaming noise...that is, as far as one can tell (at that level) completely undistorted sounding and sounds clean and clear. I never take an image if there is even a hint of clipping or distortion.

I have said this many times and it often needs repeating.....a single driver system is very easy to build/tune to sound good at low to moderate volumes...the  goal is to have one that also can play at extreme volumes. Even if never played that way a system that can is always better than one that can't if they both are equal down low. If I play music that needs to be played loud I damn well want to do it. And I do not mean at 3 feet either...I mean at the listening spot. Every image I show is also taken at the listen spot not at "one meter".

A system MUST be able to make 100dB at the listening spot or I do not consider it "complete". If the spot is 30 feet away you have problems! If it's 8-10 then why would anyone have a system that can't make at least 100 dB. 100 dB peaks are NOT that loud on some music. Stuff that is compressed bad is VERY "loud" at those levels. And that is the key...if you want REAL dynamics the system must be able to make high spl. Systems with low spl capability never sound "dynamic" compared to ones that can play very loud and clean.

But again....taste is everything and some like a homogenous sound like an old pair of Advents. And that is just fine with me.

The Bandors were the best low efficient single driver I have used or heard to date. At least to me.

Doug, no you are perfectly sane. What is crazy is just how good those little speakers can sound when they are happy. The Bandors have the same limitations but are orders of magnitude better sounding in a box 1/3 the size! Gee, I sound like an advertisement for them!

Ed

[ghpicard]

But they're going into a pair of focused double-horns in the new year, which should be interesting as the curve provides a degree of front-loading, pushing excursion down.

Which ones, Scott ? Some of the Nagaoka-likes ?

Gastón

[chrisby]

Gaston - I'm not sure if Scott has revisited all the Nagaoka series yet, but I think he had something along the lines of the Curvy G-Chang in mind;  such as Bruce recently completed  (actually a BVR, not a horn)


http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=1398211#post1398211


Of course a 66" tall double mouth horn with 8" driver such as Bruce's build is considerably OT from this thread