Full range drivers open up a whole new dimension for two way systems. Traditional two-way system crossed at 1k-5k with a woofer and a tweeter are crippled in so many ways: dynamics, worst crossover point and poor performance at either end of the spectrum. A good full range or wide-band driver will allow you to add support in the bass and the treble while keeping the other drivers out of the sensitive region.
I'll take on any two-way system with my current OB setup. I have AN8s crossed at 300 Hz to a Deltalite 2515 woofer. Deep bass, quality bass, and a midrange to die for. Complex orchestral works are rendered with ease. Even insanely difficult parts in Dark Side of the Moon are rendered so effortlessly that you can actually keep up with each instrument (Time, Money, Us and Them and the start of 'The Great Gig...'). I have a pair of B&W600s that, while very good at other things, simply can't keep up. And they're a pretty good, middle of the market product.
Oh and for its worth, I think high sensitivity full range drivers (AN, Lowther) represent the state of the art, not the MA series.
I'll take on any two-way system with my current OB setup. I have AN8s crossed at 300 Hz to a Deltalite 2515 woofer. Deep bass, quality bass, and a midrange to die for. Complex orchestral works are rendered with ease. Even insanely difficult parts in Dark Side of the Moon are rendered so effortlessly that you can actually keep up with each instrument (Time, Money, Us and Them and the start of 'The Great Gig...'). I have a pair of B&W600s that, while very good at other things, simply can't keep up. And they're a pretty good, middle of the market product.
Oh and for its worth, I think high sensitivity full range drivers (AN, Lowther) represent the state of the art, not the MA series.
Last edited:
curious, very little experience with FR. Some of what I've heard myself based on Fostex did not impress, though did have some goodness...
regarding the Alpair's (or even the TB) - I've just looked at the specs a little on the Alpairs. The 7 and 12 seem a little peaked in the freq response. (quite a boost in the 10kHz range)
For those that have heard them, how do they compare? (the 7, 10, and 12) It would seem the A10 is fairly flat at the upper end. I could imagine rolling off around 100 or maybe 200Hz...
Stock, i find most of the Fostex tiring after a while. Once you deal with their issues they get quite good to really good.
Unfortunately Mark has not yet had enuff anechoic chamber time to get off axis measurements. Without those an on-axis response is not all that useful. I've listened to A7, A10.2, and A12 stock extensivily and they are very good. They get even better when i am thru with them. The A7 is my favorite of the bunch (but no hardship at all listening to the others). I figure A7 with multiple woofer support will be killer (i have to wait till the new A7 for that project to come together).
dave
I don't want to start a fight, but isn't that a 2-way in your OB?
I thought fullrange was using a single driver only to cover the required frequencies. Once you add drivers doesn't it become multi-way even if one is wide range or fullrange?
I only ask this as I think the original poster was asking about single driver vs multi-way. I know the benefits of using a fullrange driver in conjunction with drivers (woofers, tweeter etc) etc but then it's multi-way.
Thanks p10!
noticed the limited graph data. Besides lack of off-axis, not really knowing how the peaks respond to a proper enclosure. the freq plots really tell so little...
do the 7 and 10 sounds pretty similar? I'm wondering how much they differ in the top end? (perceived extension and treble clarity, etc... ?)
It is.
A FAST is distinct from the more typical Cone + dome 2-way with an XO where it hurts the most. FAST usually gets put into FR forums.
Usually subwoofers are ignored as a -way as they are usually necessary to get decent bass in-room, and it is no sin to add a super tweeter.
Definitions get blurry. But certainly a single driver speaker can out-shine a traditional 2-way. Particularily if the budget is low.
dave
true. personally when I think of "2-way" I think woofer/midwoofer + tweeter. you are precisely right though that the OP asked about full range, and the conversation turned to subwoofer/woofer + full-range/wideband
I think the responses highlight that a single driver running truly full range is still quite difficult.
I wonder how these Mark Audio drivers running solo would compare to a 2-way monitor. (bass limited 2-way) Like Andy, I'm interested in how close modern FR's are to replacing a typical 2-way. Maybe I'm willing to give them a little more leeway though
??
I know i'd take dMAr-Ken7 or Mar-Ken10 over the $6k+ Sonus Fabers at teh local hifi emporium.
Like Andy, I'm interested in how close modern FR's are to replacing a typical 2-way. Maybe I'm willing to give them a little more leeway though
Lets see, silicon valley is only a 15 hr drive or so to the ferries, a nice relaxing ferry ride, then a short drive up the mountain. I have quite the collection.
We have had silicon valley represented at a VI diyFEST. Plan to come up, even more stuff than usual
.All the stuff i have shipped into a resonable distance of you is Fostex (one up not too bad at all, but they tend towards efficiency over extreme extension). Tysen (the speaker) lives in San Jose now.
dave
As the OP referred to, my initial idea was a FR working alone that replaced a typical domestic 2-way. Thinking here 5" to 7" mid-bass + tweeter.
I'm quite open to a subwoofer, as long as there isn't a crossover on the FR unit. but I've heard a few and I always found the system sounded better when you switched them off. I'm sure what I heard wasn't state of the art, but they were typical decent subwoofers all the same.
Does this mean that subwoofers have some way to go to really integrate in a transparent way?
Andy
I'm quite open to a subwoofer, as long as there isn't a crossover on the FR unit. but I've heard a few and I always found the system sounded better when you switched them off. I'm sure what I heard wasn't state of the art, but they were typical decent subwoofers all the same.
Does this mean that subwoofers have some way to go to really integrate in a transparent way?
Andy
Last edited:
Many typical subwoofers are aimed at HT.
When getting one to integrate with a FR i always look for something quite extended at the top (1k or so), i actually aim for a woofer, as opposed to a sunwoofer. I also tend to go with sealed or aperiodic not caring if it goes REALLY low.
dave
I agree. I'd still like to see more who have found a single driver that does it all (within reason). I've only played with a few FR drivers and enjoyed their charms but always found I needed to add another driver or at a least a BSC circuit to make them enjoyable or workable.
For me to get maximum enjoyment it has to stand up against something like Andy G's Gumby (2-way with added woofer) which I use as a reference point for balance, tonal quality, presentation and dynamics for my own designs.
Andy G Gumby
Dave.... I don't hang around the FR forum often.... could you please tell me what FAST means?
Last edited:
Regarding my experience of systems sounding better with the subwoofers turned off, I'm actually a double bass player, so bass is my territory. Curiously I'm not really interested in deep bass. Maybe as a bass player I automatically fill in the notes in my head and "know" they are there. Kind of virtual bass, or "implied" bass. There's a saying "the cobbler's children have no shoes". I once had a girlfriend in a lovely house where curiously the bathroom was unfinished and the taps didn't work. Her father was a plumber!
Also I really take issue with the whole idea that bass has to have "slam". OK - if you put a Fender Precision into a 100 watt Marshall stack and turn it up to 11, then you'll get slam. But for orchestral and jazz bass, what you hear acoustically is the tone of the instrument. Where do you see the expression "bass timbre"?
andy
Also I really take issue with the whole idea that bass has to have "slam". OK - if you put a Fender Precision into a 100 watt Marshall stack and turn it up to 11, then you'll get slam. But for orchestral and jazz bass, what you hear acoustically is the tone of the instrument. Where do you see the expression "bass timbre"?
andy
Last edited:
I'm an ex bass player so know what you mean. If I hear the harmonics the brain tends to fill in the fundamental note even though the speaker is not doing it at the same or greatly reduced SPL.
A quote from Wikipedia:
Our ears tend to group harmonically-related frequency components into a single sensation. Rather than perceiving the individual harmonics of a musical tone, we perceive them together as a tone color or timbre, and we hear the overall pitch as the fundamental of the harmonic series being experienced. If we hear a sound that is made up of even just a few simultaneous tones, and if the intervals among those tones form part of a harmonic series, our brains tend to group this input into a sensation of the pitch of the fundamental of that series, even if the fundamental is not sounding. This phenomenon is used to advantage in music recording, especially with low bass tones that cannot be reproduced on small speakers.
Maybe this is what helps a FR speaker and maybe really good ones have the ability to reproduce the harmonics (maybe is more important than extension). If this is the case then it may be more beneficial to add a tweeter to ensure the upper harmonics are handled correctly to give the correct tone and timbre.
A quote from Wikipedia:
Our ears tend to group harmonically-related frequency components into a single sensation. Rather than perceiving the individual harmonics of a musical tone, we perceive them together as a tone color or timbre, and we hear the overall pitch as the fundamental of the harmonic series being experienced. If we hear a sound that is made up of even just a few simultaneous tones, and if the intervals among those tones form part of a harmonic series, our brains tend to group this input into a sensation of the pitch of the fundamental of that series, even if the fundamental is not sounding. This phenomenon is used to advantage in music recording, especially with low bass tones that cannot be reproduced on small speakers.
Maybe this is what helps a FR speaker and maybe really good ones have the ability to reproduce the harmonics (maybe is more important than extension). If this is the case then it may be more beneficial to add a tweeter to ensure the upper harmonics are handled correctly to give the correct tone and timbre.
Last edited:
Personally, I need deep dry bass for full enjoyment. My coaxial main speakers have -3db at around 32 hz. I like the body that comes with that. For the top end, I cross them (id I remember well) at around 3500 hz, higher than most 2-way speakers - the woofer section of my coaxial speaker is indeed quite wide range.
I like the idea of a FR speaker that can offer a good bass fundament, and that allows to add a tweeter at higher than usual crossing frequencies.
I like the idea of a FR speaker that can offer a good bass fundament, and that allows to add a tweeter at higher than usual crossing frequencies.
I rarely use BSC (usually finding it subtracts more than it gives), and even with 3 active woofers sitting in my living room for the last 3 weeks have felt no compunction to hook them up.
Dynamics, no doubt.
I love Andy's work, but purely based on a theoretical POV, its not going to be able to image its way out of a wet paper bag. And even with tapering is likely to have different tonal balance depending on how far away you are.
Fullrange And Subwoofer Technology. Althou someone recently proferred another phrase that i found more sensical.
dave
I've never understood this line of thinking that's often held in relation to full range drivers. All free standing (eg not hole in the wall) speakers need baffle step compensation to give a balanced response, a full range driver is no different.
Directivity changes from omnidirectional in the bass to directional in the mid/treble, and you have to deal with it whether you want to or not.
Whether that correction is explicit BSC attenuation in the network (as it often is in a 2 way design) or implicit in the mechanical/acoustic design, such as a drivers natural response rolling off to counteract the baffle gain, a multi-way design with drivers of different sensitivity at different heights on the baffle, (sometimes done with 3 ways with their woofer deliberately close to the floor) or even a back loaded horn, doesn't matter. They're all ways of dealing with the baffle step.
Why try to hold a full range driver to the unreasonable and unattainable goal of being flat without BSC when other design topologies can't achieve it either, and are somehow given a free pass to use BSC ? (Any good multi-way design has explicit or implicit BSC as well as additional compensation for driver response anomalies)
I know many full range purists typically disparage use of any type of crossover network (while often ignoring that any dual cone driver has a built in mechanical 2 way crossover, often approximating a 12dB/oct butterworth slope, or that the transition to a back loaded horn is in fact an acoustic crossover, etc) but I would argue that simple BSC on a single driver is not a crossover, but EQ, and has none of the "bad" effects that are typically associated with a crossover - primarily, non-coincident radiation sources that generate off-axis interference patterns.
I have absolutely nothing against using EQ (typically active) on a single driver full range design, in fact unless BSC is accounted for in some other way such as a back loaded horn, I would say it's mandatory if you want good results. Certainly on a typical small to medium size baffle bass reflex or sealed enclosure it is mandatory.
In my experience proper equalization (both BSC and some tailoring of the treble response to allow for narrowing treble dispersion) of a good quality full range driver can lift the performance from "good on some music but midrange forward/shouty and bass shy" to an outstanding result that can rival a similar sized passive 2 way design for tonal balance but with none of the drawbacks of the 2 way design.
A good 2 way design is typically flatter and more tonally correct, but doesn't have the coherence of the full range driver. A good full range driver has the coherence but doesn't have the tonal balance. There's not much that can be done to the 2 way design to truly get the same coherence as the full range driver, (except directly on axis where it's possible, off axis it's not) but you CAN go the other way and eq the full range driver to be tonally balanced.
That's not to say that you should try to correct every little peak and dip in the response - correction should never be anything less than 1/3 octave wide with gradual slopes, you only want to correct the broad band variations, including the baffle step, not the narrow band variations.
Am I the only one who has no problem with applying EQ to full range drivers ?
I read Simon's post with interest, because it contains a lot of conventional wisdom - if the frequency response isn't flat then just correct it so it is flat.
My difficulty with this is the whole assumption that whatever parts you put into the circuit to achieve your theoretical aims are amply justified by the results. I start with the assumption that each part you put into the circuit - resistor, inductor, capacitor - will introduce some sort of coloration. May be insignificant, may be quite audible.
On the macro scale I pose the question "do I really want to put a crossover into this speaker or are a few frequency irregularities a tolerable compromise". On the micro scale, I guess I'd say "BSC can't be done without introducing extra parts, so what do those extra parts sound like?"
All this remembering that my two goals, which I don't want to compromise, are clarity and timbre. I don't do smooth and dull, I do jump out at you immediacy.
Kind of reminds me of friends that still use those old tube radios with just two tubes and a single speaker. They sure grabbed your emotions.
Andy
My difficulty with this is the whole assumption that whatever parts you put into the circuit to achieve your theoretical aims are amply justified by the results. I start with the assumption that each part you put into the circuit - resistor, inductor, capacitor - will introduce some sort of coloration. May be insignificant, may be quite audible.
On the macro scale I pose the question "do I really want to put a crossover into this speaker or are a few frequency irregularities a tolerable compromise". On the micro scale, I guess I'd say "BSC can't be done without introducing extra parts, so what do those extra parts sound like?"
All this remembering that my two goals, which I don't want to compromise, are clarity and timbre. I don't do smooth and dull, I do jump out at you immediacy.
Kind of reminds me of friends that still use those old tube radios with just two tubes and a single speaker. They sure grabbed your emotions.
Andy
Last edited:
Good rant Simon. So often people use the term BSC to mean a series choke in parallel with a resistor that the general meaning gets forgotten. I should knoe better having written this : Baffle Diffraction Step and hosting a couple other srticles on the subject.
Rarely do i use passive filters, and EQ, if needed, tends to be mod it out of the driver, use room placement, or carefully choose the amplifier (ie output impedance reacting with the impedance curve -- akin to twisting the knob on the transimpedance amp).
dave
Rarely do i use passive filters, and EQ, if needed, tends to be mod it out of the driver, use room placement, or carefully choose the amplifier (ie output impedance reacting with the impedance curve -- akin to twisting the knob on the transimpedance amp).
dave
I would like to once again prostitute my opinions and services for this little experimint. I must say up front that I don't actually know how to do anything and would just be interested in the final, highly tweaked version
Orange Sherbert Rocks!- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.