Fullrangedriver Forum

A place to hang out in the single fullrange driver community

You are not logged in.

#1 2008-07-01 05:19:19

tominredbank
Member
Registered: 2008-06-01

166e vs. 206e

Hi all, I recently built a clone of the Cain and Cain Abby and just can`t believe how good it sounds. It spoiled me for anything but full range driver speakers. It gets very dynamic bass with quite a slam but not very deep. Never being truly satisfied ( isn`t that what this hobby is all about?) I wondered if any of you experimented with the Fostex 206E in a back loaded horn. ( I planned to follow the print on the Fostex website) Do you think the horn design would make the bass lean and I would equal back out to the Abby`s performance? Thanks, Tom

Offline

#2 2008-07-01 11:07:38

ronbrady
Member
From: Ridgecrest, Calif.
Registered: 2005-07-27

Re: 166e vs. 206e

Hi Tom
IIRC the Abby is a TQWT, not a true horn. I would expect a noticeable improvement in the bass department in a true horn enclosure. In order for the horn to go deep into the bass region it would need a long path length and a very large mouth. The Fostex horn will probably not go any deeper than the Abby but it will probably produce a bit more bass clarity. I have no experience with the 206e but many others here have. You may want to consider the BIB enclosure for the 206e. Of all of the enclosures offered for 8" drivers the BIB is probably the easiest to build with the best low bass potential especially if it is corner loaded. I don't have a link for  you but you can search for Zillaspeak.com and look for the BIB portion of his site.
Best wishes
Ron Brady

Offline

#3 2008-07-01 12:09:28

Godzilla
Member
Registered: 2005-08-01

Re: 166e vs. 206e

http://www.zillaaudio.com/bigger_is_better/bib.asp

See if that link works.

>>> Do you think the horn design would make the bass lean ...

No, it potentially will produce a fuller, more realistic bass. I have built the bk101 and 161 back horn cabinets and found them both to have a hollow sound. BIBs are also back horns but for some reason do not have that hollow sound. I feel to get the best sound from BIBs at least one should be in a corner but when both are in corners the sound is full and rich. I know someone that built Fostex 206 and 204 BIBs and loves the way the bass shakes the house.

My Fostex 165 BIBs produce deep full bass when in corners but, as you said "Never being truly satisfied (isn`t that what this hobby is all about?)" i added a subwoofer for even more powerful bass. It all depends on your room and your taste. If you like the Abby, i believe, you will love a BIB. Terry Cain really liked the BIB he built several years ago. He built it as an exercise to see how much better it sounded compared to an Abby style cabinet he made using a Radio Shack 1354 driver. The link to the original project appears to be broken but you can see what he made and the approximate dimensions he used.

http://www.zillaaudio.com/bigger_is_bet … oShack.asp

We are all just catching up to what he knew.

Godzilla

Offline

#4 2008-07-01 19:36:48

karlsonkab
Member
Registered: 2006-03-21

Re: 166e vs. 206e

for a given bulk a 42Hz horn such as Fostex or RCA-Fan's "Karlson slot" should have ~6dB more midbass output than BIB (with subsequent tradeoff of less LF)   BIB would be extended ~1/2 octave lower - perhaps this is boundary dependent as BIB go near corners

K-slot
gi.mpl?u=21168&f=OakSpeaker_004.jpg_

Bill Woods (RCA-FAn) still uses this little horn - it took 13 tries to refine
http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/hug/m … 34816.html

plans are in RCA-Fan's Audio Asylum gallery
http://gallery.audioasylum.com/cgi/view … 8&session=

I hope to get K-slot built but don't know if it will satisfy my lust for impact

Offline

#5 2008-07-02 00:26:41

ronbrady
Member
From: Ridgecrest, Calif.
Registered: 2005-07-27

Re: 166e vs. 206e

Hi Freddy
Glad to see that you have found your way back to the FRD forum. I hope you are doing well??
The BIB design will be my next build but I will want to do it with my 12" Beta 12lt's. Maybe as soon as next winter.
Best Wishes
Ron Brady

Offline

#6 2008-07-02 02:19:32

hm
Member
From: Hamburg Germany
Registered: 2005-08-02
Website

Re: 166e vs. 206e

Hello,

such 8" need support up to 800 HZ,

fe206e-splkx9.png

therefore i construct the SAXOPHON

saxophonnirvana23h.jpg

Hi Ron,
if the BIB is the "best" "bass" why didn´t exist a imp or a near field measurement,
would nice to see it.

Offline

#7 2008-07-02 08:53:45

ghpicard
Member
From: Argentina
Registered: 2005-07-28

Re: 166e vs. 206e

The criterion for choosing enclosures is different from person to person and not everyone needs an imp or near field measurement to decide if they *like* how something sounds...

EDIT: The flame is "Gone with the Wind" smile

Last edited by ghpicard (2008-07-02 17:53:49)

Offline

#8 2008-07-02 12:11:27

Godzilla
Member
Registered: 2005-08-01

Re: 166e vs. 206e

>>> why didn´t exist a imp or a near field measurement

I don’t think BIB is the best bass. I use a subwoofer to dive deeper and provide more impact. What I do think the BIB does is balance out full range drivers without the need for intrusive circuits. You get the benefits of a complicated back horn without the complicated design. It’s clean and simple. Nothing’s perfect but it’s very good. The BIB doesn’t take up much floor space either, contrary to it’s ‘bigger is better’ description. Certainly, it’s taller than most designs as it reaches to couple the ceiling corners of a room to good sonic benefit.

Interestingly enough, BIB builders do not appear to need measurements confirming all the goodness they hear. In fact, despite the terrible looking frequency simulations, most everyone really loves the sound of their BIBs. I do suspect a properly setup BIB will measure perfectly fine compared to other speaker designs. I also suspect they will measure better than most other speaker designs in real world situations like a furnished listening room or den. I feel this way based on my own listening impressions.

If I had measuring equipment I’d provide measurements. Surely, there are more ways to skin a cat. Other designs provide benefits as well. 

Peace,
Godzilla

Offline

#9 2008-07-02 15:48:17

Scottmoose
Member
Registered: 2005-08-01

Re: 166e vs. 206e

Sigh. Another advert by hm for his commercial speakers. It's getting more than a little tedious.

Some in-room measured BIB response plots. They were posted over on DIY audio by a builder some time ago & I saved a copy, as I predicted that the originals would become buried on a thread somewhere, which has indeed proven to be the case.

Useful for a couple of reasons. a) The BIB cabinet is a corner horn, and you can see what happens when you deprive it of that. And b) Shows that when positioned as they are supposed to be, they measure pretty much as well as any other FR based speaker. Hopefully this will finally put an end to a certain person's continual demands / orders / commands / mockery / whinging. Can't say I'm very hopeful, but you never know your luck. ;^)

attachment.php?s=&postid=1552991&stamp=1215027859

edit. tried to make the image location a little more stable.

Last edited by Scottmoose (2008-07-03 07:35:00)


Dedicated to The Search

Offline

#10 2008-07-02 16:20:24

karlsonkab
Member
Registered: 2006-03-21

Re: 166e vs. 206e

hi Scottmoose --which BIB & driver is that graph?

Offline

#11 2008-07-02 17:02:36

Scottmoose
Member
Registered: 2005-08-01

Re: 166e vs. 206e

IIRC it was the FX120, but don't hold me to that. As I say, wasn't me that took them & I can't remember who did. The original post is buried somewhere on DIYaudio. I just saved the graph[s] as something useful to keep handy.

Last edited by Scottmoose (2008-07-02 17:03:10)


Dedicated to The Search

Offline

#12 2008-07-03 02:28:39

hm
Member
From: Hamburg Germany
Registered: 2005-08-02
Website

Re: 166e vs. 206e

Hi scottmoose,

show us please the FE206E, and imp,

that doesn´t help.

I am not a company, no sells, no parts, only experience and
knowledge, your sentence
"Another advert by hm for his commercial speakers. It's getting more than a little tedious"
is a lie and you know this, please don´t repeat such lies.

please note my plans are understandable without the partlist.

Last edited by hm (2008-07-03 02:32:24)

Offline

#13 2008-07-03 06:27:32

Scottmoose
Member
Registered: 2005-08-01

Re: 166e vs. 206e

Well, if you read my post, you will have noticed that I very clearly stated that I did not take those measurements, so I'm afraid asking me to provide more isn't going to get you very far. ;^)

You seem to have completely missed point of the exercise. As I said, I posted those three nearfield FR plots (that someone else took) as a generic illustration of what you can expect from corner loading one of these simple pipe-horns. Simple as that. They are all designed using exactly the same T/S derived math, irrespective of the driver, as you are (hopefully) aware, and will behave in roughly the same fashion in the LF region we are interested in. All other things being equal, then major differences will be only in extension, gain & the location of the dip caused by floor-bounce.

Now we come to the less pleasant bit. Horst, you are selling parts lists etc. on your site which are directly related to the speakers you are refering to. You have the potential to make money from talking about / advertising / promoting them, which you do in almost every post you make (usually while denigrating alternatives). Not commercial at all to sell parts lists etc. for our own speakers which we constantly bring up in forum posts? Oh no. Never. Perish the thought. Mmmmmmm, naughty. Slap Scott's wrist.

Cough. By any logical definition, me old Boston Bean, that is commercial, irrespective of scale, or semantics. I also know that you have been warned before (by other people) about this on several occasions -on DIYAudio for instance. You now have had the brass face to publically accuse me of lying for pointing this out. To which my response is twofold. a) if that's your definition of lying, we've obviously had a rather different schooling, and b) if you call me that again for observing an undeniable fact, I'm going to get ever so cross.

Last edited by Scottmoose (2008-07-03 08:18:22)


Dedicated to The Search

Offline

#14 2008-07-03 10:18:52

Bob Brines
Member
From: Hot Springs Village AR
Registered: 2005-07-28
Website

Re: 166e vs. 206e

Perhaps it is time for the moderator to impose sanctions. I think that it may be a bit more complicated over at diyAudio, as the moderator is running a business that indirectly benefits from the forum. Let me say, though, that Planet10 is scrupulous about not initiating posts about his products which hm is not. In any case hm violates the ban on off tread posts everywhere.

Bob

Offline

#15 2008-07-03 11:21:27

karlsonkab
Member
Registered: 2006-03-21

Re: 166e vs. 206e

I wanna hear HM play electric guitar on mp3 - let him rant on octave-spaced doublehorn  :^)

Offline

#16 2008-07-03 11:33:07

hm
Member
From: Hamburg Germany
Registered: 2005-08-02
Website

Re: 166e vs. 206e

Hi Scottmoose and Bob,

I use only text and pictures on topics
where I have a good experience.

I have a problem here with "commercials"
talking about speakers and sound,
before the designer has built it, very short.

I am just about the sound.

But because I have a lot of measurements
more than a lot of world companies,
I get here a kick, sorry, why,
I am just about the sound.


You can safely with your knowledge
Confirm that since 2007 my plans
published in full, at least you didn´t
need a partlist, right?

Again it's just a hobby,
I have ~ 80 constructions,
For me it is like a Crossword puzzle,
an idea to roughly calculate I need ~ 30 min,
It relaxes me.

I try it with the slightest effort
the best result to be achieved,
SAXOPHON and KORNETT are after 36 years
I work for sound the top of the feasibility.

sorry i take partly a translater.
I hope everyone can get it.

------
karlsonkab
Every guitar symbol is a different guitar titel on my HP
but acoustic, the electric versions are not so good.

Last edited by hm (2008-07-03 11:43:50)

Offline

#17 2008-07-03 11:42:23

karlsonkab
Member
Registered: 2006-03-21

Re: 166e vs. 206e

which measurements give some meaning and correlation ?  how can one improve their interpretation?  whats missing?  I can try to measure a Karlson coupler with different wings and it will not show significant change in RTA frequency response yet the sound is subjectively quite different - enough to say "good vs poor"    --  -can the impulse response give clues?  ARTA in its demo mode might be interesting although many builders don't care about graphs

a cheap Behringer 2031P "Truth" 2-way will measure smoother than some fullrange but I suspect it might not please some of the fullrange fans on a subjective basis

Offline

#18 2008-07-03 11:58:15

hm
Member
From: Hamburg Germany
Registered: 2005-08-02
Website

Re: 166e vs. 206e

Hello karlsonkab,

i made hundrets of different measurements as a developer
between 1992-97, and make my own until 1972, i simulate with AJ horn
until 2002, so if
i get a trustful measurement and no fake, happend in a forum years ago,
than i am able to interpretate it, specially IMP and near field, 1 m,
are a must for every construction.

do you hear my humbled guitar play?

Offline

#19 2008-07-03 12:18:02

karlsonkab
Member
Registered: 2006-03-21

Re: 166e vs. 206e

I've enjoyed your acoustic guitar work in the past but my linux pc will not open the WMA file with guitar  logo  - do you have more files?  I used to play a little bass (and poorly at best) but a lot of health problems made me quit - my hands literally  have no color anymore and are weak - here's a sorry try a few months ago on 4-track with me on all stuff
http://home.earthlink.net/~buddhaboy2/Freddy.mp3

Last edited by karlsonkab (2008-07-03 12:20:14)

Offline

#20 2008-07-03 12:45:33

Bob Brines
Member
From: Hot Springs Village AR
Registered: 2005-07-28
Website

Re: 166e vs. 206e

Horst,

If you are tired of being picked on, then follow the rules! Unfortunately, the link to the "Rules" page is broken, but IIRC they are about the same as on any other forum: You MAY NOT make a reference to one of your products unless specifically asked. You MAY NOT hijack a thread, that is change the subject to something unrelated. When you suggest that one of your double horns are a better choice than a BiB, you violate both of these rules. You were not asked about your product and a double horn has nothing to do with a thread on BiB. Follow these rules and the noise will stop. You MAY initiate your own thread on double horn technology. If someone is interested in double horns, they will pick up the thread.

Now my take on double horns. Without actually modeling one of your designs, I believe that your designs are not true horns, but multi-resonant TL's, and are therefore related to the Nagaoka style cabinets that show up among other places the Fostex recommended enclosures and the Spawn of Frugal-Horn cabinets. There are two things that convince me of this: First, the only possible reason for the double pipe format is to try to fill in the quarter-wave first overtone suck-out. This would be fine if all of the higher order harmonics also lined up, but they don't and there is excessive ripple in the mid bass. With proper folding and/or positioning of the driver, the first overtone can be handled in a single pipe with much simpler construction. Second, most of your plots show significant, may I say 'normal' baffle step loss. This indicates that you are getting little or no horn action above and beyond the normal quarter-wave action. The plot you have posted indicate that your speakers are in need of a BSC filter to bring the frequency response into balance.

OK. I just broke the rule about hijacking a thread. If you wish to discuss double horns further, please initiate a thread of your own. I will make no more responses to this thread.

Bob

Offline

#21 2008-07-03 13:27:15

hm
Member
From: Hamburg Germany
Registered: 2005-08-02
Website

Re: 166e vs. 206e

Hello,
the starter was
"Hi all, I recently built a clone of the Cain and Cain Abby and just can`t believe how good it sounds. It spoiled me for anything but full range driver speakers. It gets very dynamic bass with quite a slam but not very deep. Never being truly satisfied ( isn`t that what this hobby is all about?) I wondered if any of you experimented with the Fostex 206E in a back loaded horn. ( I planned to follow the print on the Fostex website) Do you think the horn design would make the bass lean and I would equal back out to the Abby`s performance? Thanks, Tom"

i think my experience allows a post.

Bob please read "about what" in the middle, there is all to understand a double horn.

"When you suggest that one of your double horns are a better choice than a BiB,"

sorry, i don´t, my solutions are different from yours or the other,
i can show only the info, nothing more, it is not
good or bad it is only different.

sorry Bob,
Bob I see it as malicious insinuation,
may be I can not understand everything.

------
karlsonkab, well done nice blues.

Last edited by hm (2008-07-03 13:33:28)

Offline

#22 2008-07-03 19:38:44

Godzilla
Member
Registered: 2005-08-01

Re: 166e vs. 206e

Bob, i am not sure i ever said thank you regarding your Straight Pipe design for the Radio Shack 1354. I listened to that speaker for a while until i replaced the driver with the Fostex 127e - an improvement in detail and speed but lighter on bass. Currently they proudly stand, sans drivers, in my workshop. They are a great proportions and classic design IMO. Tho i still have the 1354s, my intention is to eventually replace the 127e with Fostex 168S (old style with wizzers). Basically, i love the box you designed and cannot/will not throw them away - but i would sell them if someone really wanted them and provided a good home. Regardless, the cabinets are great and i look forward to listening to them in the future with the 168S... if i do not like them i can always go back to the 127e or the 1354.

Thanks!
Godzilla

PS, as for the original post, the BIB will provide deeper and fuller bass than the C&C Abby if the BIBs are in corners as designed.

Offline

#23 2008-07-03 20:41:22

eeehaah
Chucklehead
Registered: 2005-08-29

Re: 166e vs. 206e

Godzilla wrote:

Bob, i am not sure i ever said thank you regarding your Straight Pipe design for the Radio Shack 1354.

I'm curious what the dims are, is that on your site? Wonder if they sound better than my folded 1354 TQWT/Folded Tapered MLTL whatever it was really lol.

I want to find 1354's to put back in them I liked them so much.

voigteeehaahfolded3.JPG
voigteeehaahfolded.gif

Last edited by eeehaah (2008-07-03 20:56:47)

Offline

#24 2008-07-03 22:58:38

Godzilla
Member
Registered: 2005-08-01

Re: 166e vs. 206e

I used these dims but accidentally made the inner dim on the width 8 inches.

http://www.geocities.com/rbrines1/Pages … _Pipe.html

Still sounds good... and should be good with the 6 inch fostex drivers.

I believe your folded box will be forgiving. If you don't have your 1354s any more you could try driver rolling by making a removable front baffle. I enjoyed mine (removable front baffles) and think you will have good results with Fostex 127e or the more expensive 120. The 4 inch TBs should also work. Maybe the $10 Pioneer driver some seem to like. There's a 5 inch Dayton full ranger for around $10 too.

Radio Shack had a winner with the 1354 but it's not the only game in town. I have a pair new in box, never used, packed away. I hope to use them one day in something... not selling mine. But i think i keep them more because of the fond memories than anything else.

Godzilla

Last edited by Godzilla (2008-07-03 23:05:17)

Offline

#25 2008-07-04 04:13:44

Scottmoose
Member
Registered: 2005-08-01

Re: 166e vs. 206e

You US based guys would have to import them, but the Monacor SPH60X is pretty much a drop-in replacement for the RS 40-1354. Surprising slam for a 5in FR / WR driver. It's not identical of course (it's certainly better built) but close enough for it to go into most any QW pipe / horn / whatever designed for the RS.

hm wrote:

I see it as malicious insinuation

Er... Good joke.

hm wrote:

may be I can not understand everything.

Quite possibly, so I suggest you double check you're following forum rules / the argument in a thread before posting. It will save everyone, especially yourself, a lot of time in the long run.

Roight (as they say in Summerset), back on topic, I would avoid the Fostex Factory FE206E cabinet design. That box (and it's FE166E stablemate cabinet as it happens) is not one of their finer moments IMHO. I suppose it can look impressive in a minimalist / brutalist sense, but pretty it is not. More importantly, it's performance isn't great. LF extension is passable but gain is weak and there's a ruddy great 30db hole in the response centred at about 150Hz (the graph on the plans has been 1/3 - 1/2 octave smoothed to make it look a little less wince-inducing). If you want one of the Factory horns, the 206 will go rather well into the FE208ESigma cabinet, which is a much better & more effective design -smoother FR, similar extension & much more LF gain. Another decent option of this type which should do OK with the 206 is the Nagaoka D-58. I can't post the plans as technically they're copyright, but if you run a search, you'll find them easily enough.

As for other options, a BIB is as simple as it gets & very effective, providing you can corner load them. And the Jericho horn is still a good box IMO that works fine with the 206, even though I'm not fond of exponential horns. There are plenty of other options too, like Bill's Karlson-coupler design etc., or Ron's DallasII.

I wouldn't be overly inclinded to run the 206 in a resonant pipe like an ML TQWT (like Abby) or MLTL -the FE207E is a better natural match to these, unless you're happy using substantially more Eq than the '07E demands. It really was intended to be stuffed into horns, & fairly lengthy ones at that, where the high damping will take down some of that rising response.

Last edited by Scottmoose (2008-07-04 04:32:37)


Dedicated to The Search

Offline

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB