Fostex 127e in a Small Slotted Box

This box was made to fit into my living room on either side of the fireplace. I designed it to fit the space and then began to optimize performance. Basically, the box volume is a little smaller than the reference project on diyaudio. The port hole was converted to a slot so building would be easier. All that's left is to sand the cabinets smooth, mount the drivers and stain. These will be about 2" from the wall. A 12" powered sub secretly lives in the living room so no one can see it. These speakers will replace my older ported 168S based system. Those drivers will be used in an upcoming BIB project for the office. A diagram with dims will be posted shortly in case anyone is interested in building a pair for themselves.

This is my first 'full range driver' speaker without a tweeter on the back. After listening to the 127e I didn't think it was necessary. Time will tell if it's missed.

--

As posted on diyaudio (9/16/2006):

I am very pleased with the Fostex 127e! I just spent about two hours comparing this driver to the older style Fostex 168s and the Radio Shack 1197. I will post pictures soon of all three speakers standing together so you can see exactly what I compared.

Lets just say the 1197s are not in the same category. Mostly because of the small aperiodic box they are in. They sounded small, congested and boxy. I know they can sound much better and will put them in better cabinets in the future.

But the 127e and 168s are certainly comparable. My first comparison was without a subwoofer. To make a long story short, I'd pick the 168s without a sub because its warmer and fuller sound was a pleasure to listen to.

But the 127e was great too. Everything was clean. Bass was deeper than I expected but the 168s (in its larger box) was fuller and bouncier.

Then I connected the subwoofer. Overall, the efficiency of both these drivers is about the same. I didn't need to change the sub at all and the comparison was a bit different when neither full range driver needed to produce the deepest bass. It's a toss up between these two drivers when using a sub. Here are my subjective comments:

127e - Clear as a bell. Slightly forward. Clean.
168s - Slightly shouty, not as 'flat' sounding as 127e. Slightly boxy sound in the mid bass (probably my ported box - these drivers are going into a BIB soon).

Overall, the imaging was better with the 127e. Vocals were rock solid floating in space. But it was very close and this was only when using the subwoofer. The two drivers did sound different and I was always able to tell which was playing.

Pink Floyd sounded better on the 168s.
Eric Clapton sounded better on the 127e.
Squeeze - tie.
Norah Jones - tie.
Melissa Ethridge - better on the 127e.
Red Hot Chili Peppers - horrible on both � I had to turn it off.

Sometimes the 168s sounded a bit larger, sometimes smaller. I think the 168s was less consistent overall, sounding amazing or just ok. Sometimes it sounded thin.

This thread on the 127e reference project (thank you all!) was a great help and my design is basically a slightly smaller and compromised version of it and GM's MLTL- I will post the design but feel it's probably a compromise in overall performance to the larger reference project and GM�s probably smoother since it's an MLTL and mine�s not. My design was made to fit next to the fireplace and near a chair. It's a high WAF design specifically built for my living room. But I would imagine they are similar enough in sound. If the other two are any better, they are indeed excellent speakers!

BTW, I used my Cary tube amp and the Sonic Impact amp for comparison and they both sounded good but when I first switched from the Cary to the SI I thought the SI sounded bad (flat, grainy, smaller sounding)- then things settled in and I was happy with the SI overall. The Cary is certainly better. But I was curious how $30 sounded to $1000.

Peace,
Godzilla