In Reply to: Thanks Again Paul--Very Useful posted by Dr Deville on January 4, 2007 at 01:42:00:
than FE166 for BR. Both have better Q-parameters for such usage.
Granted, the FX120 is somewhat max SPL/dynamics limited with it's
modest 89 dB sensitivity and 10W rating, but look at it's response
curve, x-max, etc. Allegedly a sweet little driver. Im about 90%
finished constructing a pair in BR enclosues (will use padded-down
T-90 supertweets) and will give full report when I get a few days
use on them.About the FE167: well, the Q-parameters look much better than
the 166's for BR usage, but still the smallish x-max which,
as I agree with Paul, is surely a major limiting factor in high
SPL play quality. I do notice, however Bob Brines seems be pretty
happy with the FE167 in small BR, and indeed offers such a unit
for sale. I think Paul is right on the money about the FE166 requiring
excursion limiting which a horn or small sealed enclosure affords
to play clean at higher levels, thats for certain. Personally,
I'm not a big fan of whizzer cones, though I understand that
many seem to like the FE166/167. I have a pair of unused FE206's
new in box which I simply don't like, and will probably end up
selling for a pittance --Just care for them. Was tempted to cut
off the whizzers to see if the glare would abate --but frankly lost
interest.-T.M.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- FX120 and FE167 probably better... - Thomas Martens 16:36:22 01/04/07 (5)
- Hemp FR6.5 - RC Daniel 14:41:09 01/05/07 (0)
- Re: FX120 and FE167 probably better... - Paul Joppa 23:56:06 01/04/07 (0)
- We're Talking About the FE166E for Sealed Boxes and 94dB Efficiency - Dr Deville 21:38:20 01/04/07 (2)
- I hear you... - Thomas Martens 10:45:06 01/05/07 (1)
- Groovy--Please Share Your Review! - Dr Deville 13:43:31 01/05/07 (0)