I was actually given some in the early 90's
I can't remember if they were 10" or 12" though, probably 10" but definitely with a whizzer cone and a corrugated accordion surround.
Perversely they were in a 3 way design with a terrible crossover, terrible, terrible sounding closed back midrange driver and a closed back cone tweeter. Because of the extremely simple (1st order, no zobel) filter the midrange output from the "woofer" completely overlapped and overpowered the midrange driver, so one of the first things I did was disabled the midrange driver which gave a lot better balance and improved the quality
The midrange driver really was surplus to requirements.The cabinet was about 35 litres but had a tiny 50mm diameter port in the front (behind extremely thick old fashioned grill cloth) with no actual tube attached - just the thickness of the cabinet wall. Who knows how high in frequency that was tuned
Needless to say the cabinet was made of chipboard with no lining or bracing, and you can image that it didn't sound great. It was clear from the outside that it was a commercial design though, not home made, from some time in the 70's I think.About all I can remember about the richard allen driver itself is that it was the best of the three drivers in the box (although that wasn't saying much) with a relatively smooth midrange which rolled off above about 5Khz but that for a 10" driver the bass response was extremely disappointing. The box was poorly tuned but the accordion suspension was also very stiff and limited in travel. Who knows what the T/S parameters were, this was before I knew how to measure them...
I eventually gave them away after I got some Coral Flat 8's, which had better bass, midrange, and treble as a full range driver than that horrible 3 way design! If the Richard Allen driver had had better bass response I might have reused it as it did sound quite nice in the midrange, but a 10" driver with very limited excursion and bass response wasn't much use to me when an 8" driver was beating it hands down.
Last edited:
You mean they don't have to be vertical? Who would have ever thought...?
I guess you're right, I'll have to to look at that Planet 10 site for some inspiration. Is it a Disco or some kind of expensive nightclub?
BTW: You wouldn't have a link to it handy, would you?
Best Regards,
TerryO
For real?
planet10-hifi.com/
If i can offer my opinion as a recent convert to full range... Well, sorta. I have heard a handful of FRs is all, but these are my thoughts:
1. I don't believe there is a single FULL range driver in existence that can hit 20 - 20khz with an acceptably ( +/-6db ) flat frequency response. There few 2-ways that can also. So technically they're wide range.
2. I like a speaker that can produce proper bass. By that I mean extention and low distortion with moderate volume. I'm less concerned with the treble range, although it is necessary to be there, and relatively flat.
3. There is something magical about FRers that I can't explain. It must be the no XO or something, because they do sound great. (Dave, those foster down in your office, sound like magic).
4. I think the idea of FAST is great and I'm working on one now.
5. A speaker has to reproduce ALL music I listen to well. Even if I listen to dance music less than .1% of the time, it must do it and kick me in the chest while at it. Home theatre also. Because of this, I will likely always require a sub, making it a 2way.
6. This point is key. Although I have been amazed by the full ranges I've heard over at Dave's, and the fact that they are magical, they do not beat a well designed 2-way in overall performance. Frequency flatness and extention, power handling, etc. They do, do some thing better, perhaps so much better in those areas that a 2way could never match.
Overall, I plan to pursue FR a little bit for a while. I asked Dave the first time I met him why he does FR. He explained that when he first heard full ranges, he started listening to more music and enjoying it more. I do think FRers can do this to a listener. At that point who cares if the 2way is flatter or extends a little more. Even though I could hear som frequency irregularities in Dave's speakers, it doesn't matter. Because they make magic
1. I don't believe there is a single FULL range driver in existence that can hit 20 - 20khz with an acceptably ( +/-6db ) flat frequency response. There few 2-ways that can also. So technically they're wide range.
2. I like a speaker that can produce proper bass. By that I mean extention and low distortion with moderate volume. I'm less concerned with the treble range, although it is necessary to be there, and relatively flat.
3. There is something magical about FRers that I can't explain. It must be the no XO or something, because they do sound great. (Dave, those foster down in your office, sound like magic).
4. I think the idea of FAST is great and I'm working on one now.
5. A speaker has to reproduce ALL music I listen to well. Even if I listen to dance music less than .1% of the time, it must do it and kick me in the chest while at it. Home theatre also. Because of this, I will likely always require a sub, making it a 2way.
6. This point is key. Although I have been amazed by the full ranges I've heard over at Dave's, and the fact that they are magical, they do not beat a well designed 2-way in overall performance. Frequency flatness and extention, power handling, etc. They do, do some thing better, perhaps so much better in those areas that a 2way could never match.
Overall, I plan to pursue FR a little bit for a while. I asked Dave the first time I met him why he does FR. He explained that when he first heard full ranges, he started listening to more music and enjoying it more. I do think FRers can do this to a listener. At that point who cares if the 2way is flatter or extends a little more. Even though I could hear som frequency irregularities in Dave's speakers, it doesn't matter. Because they make magic
Just for entertainment, I took a look at some 4" mid-woofers to see how far they went.
Tang Band 4" mid-woofer rated 60 Hz to 8 KHz with 5mm of Xmax. Chart is smooth all the way to 8.5 KHz then output jumps from 86dB (it's rating) and hits 95dB spike at 9,500 Hz...then falls below 90dB at 13 KHz and fades back down to 86dB at 20 KHz.
http://www.parts-express.com/pdf/264-872s.pdf
Since I looked at the Seas Exotic Alnico 8" FR train wreck chart--the mid-woofer looked great! Read about Zilla modding a Eminence Beta 12 LTA to cut out spikes at 6 to 8 KHz with a phase plug--worked very well. The plug reduced the spike and make output much smoother. Wonder if I cut the dust cap off, made a phase plug and installed it, that big spike at 9 to 13 KHz would be tamed? If I could knock it down 5 dB, then it would be great for a 7 Octave wide band desk top speaker, when shutting off the active super tweeter--a passable FR?
Might be an option--I have to turn over all the stones first to see what is under them though, such is DIY.
Tang Band 4" mid-woofer rated 60 Hz to 8 KHz with 5mm of Xmax. Chart is smooth all the way to 8.5 KHz then output jumps from 86dB (it's rating) and hits 95dB spike at 9,500 Hz...then falls below 90dB at 13 KHz and fades back down to 86dB at 20 KHz.
http://www.parts-express.com/pdf/264-872s.pdf
Since I looked at the Seas Exotic Alnico 8" FR train wreck chart--the mid-woofer looked great! Read about Zilla modding a Eminence Beta 12 LTA to cut out spikes at 6 to 8 KHz with a phase plug--worked very well. The plug reduced the spike and make output much smoother. Wonder if I cut the dust cap off, made a phase plug and installed it, that big spike at 9 to 13 KHz would be tamed? If I could knock it down 5 dB, then it would be great for a 7 Octave wide band desk top speaker, when shutting off the active super tweeter--a passable FR?
Might be an option--I have to turn over all the stones first to see what is under them though, such is DIY.
If 20 Hz to 20Khz from one driver is your definition of a true full range speaker then you're in for disappointment, not only can no current drivers do this, I genuinely believe it's beyond the realms of possibility, and I don't think anyone would argue otherwise.
It's not the top end that's the problem so much, it's the bottom end. Bass performance is all about cone area x excursion, and truly getting those last 10Hz below 30Hz at high enough SPL and low distortion is a challenge even for dedicated woofers, let alone a driver trying to produce treble from thin delicate cones on a full range driver.
Even 12" woofers are not going to produce much real bass at 20Hz in sealed boxes unless they're extremely long throw, or unless you put them in very large bass reflex boxes tuned very low in frequency.
A driver of this size is never going to have the midrange quality or treble extension of a smaller full range driver, and if it's to be as sensitive as a typical 8" full range driver (mid 90's dB/W/M) it would require a simply enormous box (several hundred litres) to achieve a low cutoff frequency, otherwise the sensitivity would have to be drastically compromised, and I think high sensitivity is one of the big advantages that many full range drivers have in achieving the sound that they do.
Just not practical. Producing bass is simple physics of volume displacement, there are no "cheats" to get around it. On the other hand treble limitations of full range drivers are more about cone design, and it's within the realms of possibility to extend the high frequency response of larger drivers by way of whizzer cones, curvilinear cone profiles, radiating domes etc, if you're willing to accept the treble being fairly directional. Getting smooth extended treble from a larger (>6") full range driver is certainly a design challenge, but at least it's possible in principle with the right cone and voice coil design.
If you relaxed your requirement to 40Hz to 15Khz with some EQ applied then there are quite a few whizzer cone 8" drivers (and maybe some 10") that will manage it fairly well, including my Flat 8's. (The Tang Band driver looks like it would do a good job too judging by its specs)
In a 50 litre bass reflex cabinet tuned to 40Hz the Corals can produce nearly 100dB/1m before reaching power (35w) or excursion limits (+/- 3mm) at any bass frequency above 38Hz. (A small amount of EQ or room gain required though, as the alignment is -6dB at 40Hz) Not exactly sub woofer territory, but I wouldn't call it anaemic bass either. At the top end they can just manage 15Khz within +/- 20 degrees from on axis but fall off fairly rapidly above 15Khz.
Any smaller than 8" and bass performance falls off rapidly, any larger than 8" and midrange or treble performance will be sacrificed. (A whizzer cone can still produce good treble on a large driver like a 10" but getting the large cone to operate well up to the frequency where the whizzer cone takes over is a real challenge, so midrange would be probably somewhat sacrificed, as the response of the two cones would struggle to meet in the middle...)
If you really must have only one driver and you don't mind a little bit of compromise at each end, 8" is the sweet spot I think, and also has the best compromise between dynamics and smoothness in the midrange. (Again, smaller will generally be smoother and flatter, but larger will have much better dynamics and punch)
If you're willing to accept that getting 20Hz bass from a full range driver that actually has treble is not possible, and consider the possibility of subwoofers below 80Hz or so, a whole world of possibilities open up once the full range driver is relieved from having to produce bass below 80Hz. If you roll the driver off electrically you'll cut the cone excursion, power dissipation and intermodulation distortion dramatically, allowing it to do what it does best - produce clean coherent midrange and treble, and at a much higher volume than it could if it were trying to produce low bass as well.
In theory you could manage 80Hz with a 6" or even 4" driver but personally I would not go that small as dynamics will suffer, I would still stick with 8" but cross it over with a sub woofer somewhere between 50 and 100Hz.
Is it strictly full range now ? Well, no, but does it matter, has it lost the full range magic ? I don't think so - the whole point of a full range driver is being a coherent point source right through the midrange and treble with no crossover to a tweeter.
At 80Hz a wavelength is so long that even with the drivers a couple of feet apart it's still essentially a point source so there is no loss in coherence especially in the critical presence region which you would typically find when listening off the design axis of a 2 way design with a tweeter.
If you put a crossover to a tweeter at say 4-5Khz then even with the drivers physically close together they're 2-3 wavelengths apart so they don't act as a co-incident point source.
Besides, to get smooth well balanced bass in most listening rooms regardless of full range vs multi-way, it's necessary to have several woofers positioned around the room to flatten out the modal effects of the room. Even multi-way main speakers that can go below 25Hz are going to struggle to give a nice smooth bass response on their own due to room modal effects.
This subs below 80Hz approach also allows you to use a very sensitive full range driver without an enormous box, gaining the advantages that this provides (minimizing dynamic range compression and voice coil heating among others) whilst allowing the subwoofers to be low efficiency but small boxes.
Technically adding a sub makes it 2 way, but I would suggest that properly integrated a sub crossing over below 80Hz with an 8" full range driver would solve your bass requirements, without any detrimental effects to the basic full range experience.
One reason they don't beat a well designed 2-way system for frequency response flatness as is, is that multi-way designs inherently have some frequency compensation built into them - part of it is in the response of the chosen drivers themselves, and partly in the adjustment of the networks.
If you expect a full range driver to be just as flat uncompensated, you're holding it to a higher standard than the drivers used in multiway designs. If you can get past the whole "EQ is bad" mantra and actually apply some equalization to flatten the response of a full range driver, there is no reason why it can't be nearly as flat overall as a 2 way design. (Although the response in the treble will tend to be a bit more ragged, but at least you can balance the overall 1/3rd octave response, which will get you 90% of the way there...)
There is no doubt in my mind that done correctly, EQ makes a good full range driver sound great, and I would never listen to mine "raw". At the very least, baffle step has to be dealt with if you want any bass...
Last edited:
^ I know.
Your post is a little excessive. I never said I expect a full ranger to make 20hz. I just said to me the definition of full range is 20 to 20. Otherwise it's really a wide range. I also admitted I'll always require subs. Take another look at what I said. Full ranges aren't going to disappoint me. I said the opposite
Your post is a little excessive. I never said I expect a full ranger to make 20hz. I just said to me the definition of full range is 20 to 20. Otherwise it's really a wide range. I also admitted I'll always require subs. Take another look at what I said. Full ranges aren't going to disappoint me. I said the opposite
^ I know.
Your post is a little excessive. I never said I expect a full ranger to make 20hz. I just said to me the definition of full range is 20 to 20. Otherwise it's really a wide range. I also admitted I'll always require subs. Take another look at what I said. Full ranges aren't going to disappoint me. I said the opposite
I don't think that Tuxedocivic's extensive exposé warrants such a semantic reply. Because it contains well thought out concepts aimed at bringing the art further. His remarks on the lower end <80 Hz are spot on and in line with research from the likes of Floyd Toole.
>>> Read about Zilla modding a Eminence Beta 12 LTA to cut out spikes at 6 to 8 KHz with a phase plug--worked very well.
The 12lta is such a great driver when modded! I think it's so smooooooth. Needs a super tweeter and bass support tho. The driver is very efficient (97db!) and can blast out dynamics unlike any full ranger/wide ranger i've heard.
Today i started cutting wood for an open baffle project for it... i expect it to be excellent!
Zilla
The 12lta is such a great driver when modded! I think it's so smooooooth. Needs a super tweeter and bass support tho. The driver is very efficient (97db!) and can blast out dynamics unlike any full ranger/wide ranger i've heard.
Today i started cutting wood for an open baffle project for it... i expect it to be excellent!
Zilla
The potential combinations of woofer + "FR" in a FAST borders on the zillions.
Whatever room, amps, taste, budget, skill, aesthetic sensibilities there is something to fit someone's needs.
Technically a 2-way, giving it the name FAST differentiates it from a typical cone & dome or big cone & waveguide 2-ways.
In every case the "mid-tweeter" functions as at least an acceptable speaker by itself as long as you are fine with the limitations. Really good if you are on a real tight budget and can only do a bit at a time.
Then if you releive it of bass duties...
Having the XO low enuff that all the drivers are effectively coincident with significant overlap makes XO easier and more transparent. Passive or active.
Burgroning DSP tech brings whole new vistas to EQ & XO.
Keep most (if not more) of a FRs magic, remove most of the objections to XOs. What's not to like.
dave
Whatever room, amps, taste, budget, skill, aesthetic sensibilities there is something to fit someone's needs.
Technically a 2-way, giving it the name FAST differentiates it from a typical cone & dome or big cone & waveguide 2-ways.
In every case the "mid-tweeter" functions as at least an acceptable speaker by itself as long as you are fine with the limitations. Really good if you are on a real tight budget and can only do a bit at a time.
Then if you releive it of bass duties...
Having the XO low enuff that all the drivers are effectively coincident with significant overlap makes XO easier and more transparent. Passive or active.
Burgroning DSP tech brings whole new vistas to EQ & XO.
Keep most (if not more) of a FRs magic, remove most of the objections to XOs. What's not to like.
dave
Sorry, I didn't mean for my reply to be rude. It just seemed like he was saying I didn't believe in subs and eq or something. I agree with his post. I was just putting out some of my observations. I was shocked to see an "expose" for a reply to some generic comments
Bottom line, I think they should be wide rangers. I like the idea of FAST. I like wide rangers. And subs are a must to make all music I listen to enjoyable. I agree with Toole and the like
Sorry to cause a stir.
Bottom line, I think they should be wide rangers. I like the idea of FAST. I like wide rangers. And subs are a must to make all music I listen to enjoyable. I agree with Toole and the like
Sorry to cause a stir.
Talking about bass and trade-offs, I'd just like to bring in to this the question of what bass notes we actually need. Since I'm a bass player, this is home territory for me!
Four string basses go down to E which is 42hz. In jazz you'd typically play a lot more Fs which is 44hz. In orchestral music most of it falls within the same four string bass range, though music is written down to C 33hz (that's an octave below the lowest cello note for unison passages) and 5 string basses cover this, as they do in rock and funk. Organ music and the bottom note of the piano go down lower, and wonderful as organ music is it's still a minority taste.
So I'd make a case for bass going down to 42hz being fine for most musical needs. And this being the case I, for one, am absolutely not going to sacrifice any midrange for anything lower. Lets even say that you are happy with bass down to G. That's 49 hz. You compromise only 3 semitones. Let's even say you can tolerate bass down to A, that's 55hz. You compromise 5 semitones.
I would like to hear 42hz, maybe a little quieter but still very audible. Below that, as the film goes, "frankly I don't give a damn".
Andy
Four string basses go down to E which is 42hz. In jazz you'd typically play a lot more Fs which is 44hz. In orchestral music most of it falls within the same four string bass range, though music is written down to C 33hz (that's an octave below the lowest cello note for unison passages) and 5 string basses cover this, as they do in rock and funk. Organ music and the bottom note of the piano go down lower, and wonderful as organ music is it's still a minority taste.
So I'd make a case for bass going down to 42hz being fine for most musical needs. And this being the case I, for one, am absolutely not going to sacrifice any midrange for anything lower. Lets even say that you are happy with bass down to G. That's 49 hz. You compromise only 3 semitones. Let's even say you can tolerate bass down to A, that's 55hz. You compromise 5 semitones.
I would like to hear 42hz, maybe a little quieter but still very audible. Below that, as the film goes, "frankly I don't give a damn".
Andy
On the topic of bass, I often aim for a nice shallow roll off with -3dB @ 25-30Hz. -3dB @ 30Hz with -6dB @ 20Hz often goes well with me, which ends up being about 20Hz @ 0.5 Q. Yes, I use woofers for that. I don't like the sound of such a narrow bandwidth on the woofer either, and try to allow about 3 octaves if possible. And 2nd order slopes are the highest I'll go. Just saying.
Last edited:
I pretty much agree with that.
It's a rare occasion that I "need" any lower than 40Hz or so. Even when I do, I'm OK with it being diminished. Not that I don't enjoy good, high quality, well integrated bass when it's there, but I ain't gonna give up the mids for it. (as with many things it's a case of diminishing return on investment - time, money, and space) I don't listen much to organ or to electronic bass-heavy stuff. As long as string bass and cello sound decently natural.
I don't watch a lot of movies. That would be another case. Also, for movies I never minded if the sub-bass was well integrated to the mains. It was typically a separate effect anyway. (from the main voices, action, and music)
Problem is, while my current two-way floor standers can hit mid 30's without much issue. 42Hz is already pushing it for a good "FR" or widebander... (and still have good highs?)
Even if it starts rolling off around 50Hz though, can still be quite good... just different...
Zilla, I'll be very interested to follow your project. I would like to do something like that someday: a large wideband driver on an open baffle with helper drivers for the bottom and top octaves. Have you made any more modifications to the 12lta other than the phase plug? If so, have you documented the changes anywhere?
Even with big horns trying to get below 40hz with a FRer is pretty much impractical. Integrating a sub is pretty easy. Just make sure the dynamics are well matched. I.E. if the FR is horn loaded use a horn loaded sub, fairly practical sizes can be achieved using tapped horn configuration, if the FR is loaded some other way try to match the sub so that the dynamics are similar.
"The 12lta is such a great driver when modded! I think it's so smooooooth. Needs a super tweeter and bass support tho. The driver is very efficient (97db!) and can blast out dynamics unlike any full ranger/wide ranger i've heard."
The ability of the higher efficiency drivers to present the ebb and flow of the music in a realistic, involving manner is not widely appreciated. The smaller, medium-low efficiency full range drivers often provide a more delicate, and highly resolved portrayal, and have wider bandwidth, but just don't manage this ebb and flow aspect nearly as well. In direct comparison, the smaller drivers sound, well... small.
Bob
The ability of the higher efficiency drivers to present the ebb and flow of the music in a realistic, involving manner is not widely appreciated. The smaller, medium-low efficiency full range drivers often provide a more delicate, and highly resolved portrayal, and have wider bandwidth, but just don't manage this ebb and flow aspect nearly as well. In direct comparison, the smaller drivers sound, well... small.
Bob
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.