a possibly fair test
Blind A/B testing between http://frugal-phile.com/boxlib/pensils/Pensil7s3-map.pdf and a multiway that meets below specs. Both powered by the same tube amp only caveat for multiway is from 60Hz (we could even use the same full range driver for the multiways midrange), choice of music, classical at low volume, then we can move on to Sealed or ported: the differences in subs and enclosures
Blind A/B testing between http://frugal-phile.com/boxlib/pensils/Pensil7s3-map.pdf and a multiway that meets below specs. Both powered by the same tube amp only caveat for multiway is from 60Hz (we could even use the same full range driver for the multiways midrange), choice of music, classical at low volume, then we can move on to Sealed or ported: the differences in subs and enclosures
Attachments
to answer the original question:
I have Alpair 10.3 in ported boxes tuned very low (30Hz) and on low volume they cover almost the whole spectrum. What i like about fullrange is the open sound and the detail in the speakers. In my opinion it's the lack of electronics (the filter) that keep the sound that open. They are not flat, but sound wonderfull. I have also multi way studio monitors (Tannoye reveal) and i had sony and warfdale hifi speakers, and often listen to hi end multi way hifi speakers of friends (old B&W and new Kef) but they are nowhere close to enjoy music as my Alpair boxes.
Now i even mix my own music (electronic dub) on those alpair boxes (but i check my mixes on others including my Tannoye monitors, Genelec monitors of a radio studio i work in and my car system) and because i know my speakers very good, it works and translate to other systems very well.
Fullrange speakers are not everybody's cup of tea, but they have a sound that please many. And when they are good build, they are on par with multiway speakers on speaker enjoyment (wich is the most important for me).
I have Alpair 10.3 in ported boxes tuned very low (30Hz) and on low volume they cover almost the whole spectrum. What i like about fullrange is the open sound and the detail in the speakers. In my opinion it's the lack of electronics (the filter) that keep the sound that open. They are not flat, but sound wonderfull. I have also multi way studio monitors (Tannoye reveal) and i had sony and warfdale hifi speakers, and often listen to hi end multi way hifi speakers of friends (old B&W and new Kef) but they are nowhere close to enjoy music as my Alpair boxes.
Now i even mix my own music (electronic dub) on those alpair boxes (but i check my mixes on others including my Tannoye monitors, Genelec monitors of a radio studio i work in and my car system) and because i know my speakers very good, it works and translate to other systems very well.
Fullrange speakers are not everybody's cup of tea, but they have a sound that please many. And when they are good build, they are on par with multiway speakers on speaker enjoyment (wich is the most important for me).
Go ahead if you wish. However, since this question has been flogged to death repeatedly for years, with the only answer being 'it depends', I'm not sure what value there is in us going through it yet again. The same applies for sealed and vented boxes. They are different, with different balances of advantages and compromises. And that is before you get to the salient point that not all single driver speakers (either the system or the drive unit) are designed in the same way or for the same purpose, just as not all multiways are designed in the same way or for the same purpose. You will not get a single definitive answer because there isn't one. That's it.
on a light note
There are many philosophies out there, some are snake oil and some are not, one states that the final mix has vibrations captured by different membranes from different instruments and voices (how good was the copy? we capture not only the instrument but its reverb in 3D space), all this mixed together with or without electronic signals generated by a synth.
These electronic signals are ok while they are electronic signals IMD aside, once the sound specialist is done sculpting a final mix is produced. When its time to reanimate/free these signals at the speaker end as vibrations at the speaker end (how good is this membrane at recreation, will it keep up with the mix which is a collection of possibly a synth and combined vibrations generated by instruments and voices)These vibrations may be more free if released/reanimated on an appropriate membrane and cavity and not forced to exit on one membrane and cavity.
An extreme solution would be to release the signal on a membrane and cavity that resembles the original instrument, thus restoring the liveness/authenticity of the sound, think of the amplifier as the muscle that plays back the instrument for you, here the speaker is a virtualized instrument reanimating the vibrations from the original instrument.(ignoring anything to do with NFB and damping)
Attached is a frequency distribution chart (You may have a different version and some variances, feel free to post what you think is the standard chart) to show what gets reanimated where? http://www.guitarbuilding.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Instrument-Sound-EQ-Chart.pdf
And some shapes for instruments http://www.classroomcapers.co.uk/me...7136e95/m/u/musical_instruments_l-500x500.jpg
There are many philosophies out there, some are snake oil and some are not, one states that the final mix has vibrations captured by different membranes from different instruments and voices (how good was the copy? we capture not only the instrument but its reverb in 3D space), all this mixed together with or without electronic signals generated by a synth.
These electronic signals are ok while they are electronic signals IMD aside, once the sound specialist is done sculpting a final mix is produced. When its time to reanimate/free these signals at the speaker end as vibrations at the speaker end (how good is this membrane at recreation, will it keep up with the mix which is a collection of possibly a synth and combined vibrations generated by instruments and voices)These vibrations may be more free if released/reanimated on an appropriate membrane and cavity and not forced to exit on one membrane and cavity.
An extreme solution would be to release the signal on a membrane and cavity that resembles the original instrument, thus restoring the liveness/authenticity of the sound, think of the amplifier as the muscle that plays back the instrument for you, here the speaker is a virtualized instrument reanimating the vibrations from the original instrument.(ignoring anything to do with NFB and damping)
Attached is a frequency distribution chart (You may have a different version and some variances, feel free to post what you think is the standard chart) to show what gets reanimated where? http://www.guitarbuilding.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Instrument-Sound-EQ-Chart.pdf
And some shapes for instruments http://www.classroomcapers.co.uk/me...7136e95/m/u/musical_instruments_l-500x500.jpg
Couldn't agree less. If the signal contains the full original sound you certainly don't want to add to it again by using a resonant chamber. The signal is already captured! This is similar thinking to the idea that the loudspeaker acts like an 'instrument'. It certainly does not. It acts as part of a stereo pair that tries to portray the original full performance (i.e. all the instruments and their relative positions in space). The signal should already contain all the information required to portray the performance. It's up to the stereo pair (or surround set) to create a window into this, nothing more or less!
Last edited:
No, the port is a "spring" as is the box (well the air in the box) and a passive radiator is literally a spring, is purely there for damping of the cone, any co-resonances in the system will colour the sound, if that floats your boat then you are perfectly free to listen to your music with any number of effects machines in line. (one of my secret suspicions that the reason why some people are so enamored of open baffle designs is that it inserts a slight but pleasant reverb)
Last edited:
It is an appropriate dream or goal.
With EQ, maybe, but not to to ultimate highest end of accuracy or perceived preference in blind tests. The cards are stacked against it.
Better. Assuming the 3-way is competent.
And ignore the many posts on this thread to the contrary.
There's the rub, to design a really good crossover you need a team of 4 filter specialists with 30 years of filter design experience, each, working on a system for 6 months, and you're still left with a filter slope and different drivers covering part of the same spectrum.
Now there's a fallacy for you. I think it's just an excuse, in the same way as vinyl zealots trying to convince us that DAC filters is an extreme sport. We aren't falling for it.
The team of specialists and measurement mics and computers is 'needed' just as much to get the EQ right on a FR driver. Assuming the FR is being competently implemented in the user's room.
The team of specialists and measurement mics and computers is 'needed' just as much to get the EQ right on a FR driver. Assuming the FR is being competently implemented in the user's room.
I have the datasheet for a Fane 12-250TC and the response is all over the place.
The only way to get a flat response is by EQing using a sine generator and a mic to adjusting each EQ step to get it flat.
Actually, I just realized that this thread is in the FR Forum. It never occurred to me that someone would open a thread here questioning the FR Doctrine. I thought we were out and in the clear air of the general Loudspeakers Forum.
So, I might just apologize for my Enlightenment Doctrine posts and duck out to safer climes.
P.S. I have a couple of pairs of FR drivers and DIY projects in the pipeline, don't get me wrong, I'm not against exploring and enjoying the FR sound space.
So, I might just apologize for my Enlightenment Doctrine posts and duck out to safer climes.
P.S. I have a couple of pairs of FR drivers and DIY projects in the pipeline, don't get me wrong, I'm not against exploring and enjoying the FR sound space.
I was always into fullrange speakers- more by accident then on purpose..
My very first set of "decent" speakers was a 2.1 setup called the Sony SRS DB500. I blindly bought them off of amazon reviews for $130. When they were released they quickly obtained good reviews, but never became a popular seller. More of a low number of very good reviews.
Anyway, I quickly came to love these speakers, and this seeded my audiophilia. After a few years (normal for noobs I guess) I got upgradetitis. I went to the local Best Buy and listened to all the (expensive to me at the time) multi-way speakers. Everything sounded "off". I was confused but also relieved that my $130 speakers sounded so much better, and it wasn't a small difference.
So instead I looked for other ways to upgrade and ended up getting my first DAC- the JDS Labs ODAC. Being a noob, the "objective" school of thought really sucked me up. I find our hobbies strange language and multiple opinions on all aspects of everything audio related is very offputting to noobs just looking for a clear direction. So many (I did) go to the objective camp, trying to save their wallets.
The ODAC was a nice upgrade in sound. I was very satisfied for years and instead focused on head-fi. I was searching for a reference headphone to compare speakers to.
Years (and many headphones later) my best friend was a bit inspired by how good my simple setup sounded. He just wanted a budget system, and unfortunately my speakers were discontinued. So being a noob I saw that the new Pioneer by Andrew Jones speakers were getting rave reviews, recommended them to him, and he bought them. He liked them, but like all other multi-ways, they sounded terrible to me imho.
I decided to pry open my satellite speakers to figure out how they sounded so much better than a "state of the art design by a miracle worker" speaker that cost essentially the same of my random-buy speaker. What I found was a single cheap stamped-steel and paper driver. And this thing looked REALLY cheap. This confused the hell out of me, but I realized that all the sound came out of one source vs. many sources in all the other designs that sounded "bad" to me.
Later on by browsing speaker manufacturer's website, I found out that the speaker driver used in my speakers were made by Visaton.
To this day I'm a believer in fullrange speakers. I still haven't heard a multi-way that I've been impressed by. TBH I haven't heard many expensive designs.
It is notable that the Nola Brio Trio's use two $11 TC9FD's per speaker, and a subwoofer, and retail for $3,500. Plus they've won awards. So there is something special about full-rangers that multi-ways don't do.
My very first set of "decent" speakers was a 2.1 setup called the Sony SRS DB500. I blindly bought them off of amazon reviews for $130. When they were released they quickly obtained good reviews, but never became a popular seller. More of a low number of very good reviews.
Anyway, I quickly came to love these speakers, and this seeded my audiophilia. After a few years (normal for noobs I guess) I got upgradetitis. I went to the local Best Buy and listened to all the (expensive to me at the time) multi-way speakers. Everything sounded "off". I was confused but also relieved that my $130 speakers sounded so much better, and it wasn't a small difference.
So instead I looked for other ways to upgrade and ended up getting my first DAC- the JDS Labs ODAC. Being a noob, the "objective" school of thought really sucked me up. I find our hobbies strange language and multiple opinions on all aspects of everything audio related is very offputting to noobs just looking for a clear direction. So many (I did) go to the objective camp, trying to save their wallets.
The ODAC was a nice upgrade in sound. I was very satisfied for years and instead focused on head-fi. I was searching for a reference headphone to compare speakers to.
Years (and many headphones later) my best friend was a bit inspired by how good my simple setup sounded. He just wanted a budget system, and unfortunately my speakers were discontinued. So being a noob I saw that the new Pioneer by Andrew Jones speakers were getting rave reviews, recommended them to him, and he bought them. He liked them, but like all other multi-ways, they sounded terrible to me imho.
I decided to pry open my satellite speakers to figure out how they sounded so much better than a "state of the art design by a miracle worker" speaker that cost essentially the same of my random-buy speaker. What I found was a single cheap stamped-steel and paper driver. And this thing looked REALLY cheap. This confused the hell out of me, but I realized that all the sound came out of one source vs. many sources in all the other designs that sounded "bad" to me.
Later on by browsing speaker manufacturer's website, I found out that the speaker driver used in my speakers were made by Visaton.
To this day I'm a believer in fullrange speakers. I still haven't heard a multi-way that I've been impressed by. TBH I haven't heard many expensive designs.
It is notable that the Nola Brio Trio's use two $11 TC9FD's per speaker, and a subwoofer, and retail for $3,500. Plus they've won awards. So there is something special about full-rangers that multi-ways don't do.
Last edited:
A full-range or wide-band system is much easier to get right than a traditional 2-way with a crossover in the kHz range. If you'd like to hear a decent 2-way, find some Behringer B2031 monitors. Active or passive, both are good. They're not ultra-high-end, but they are solid traditional 2-ways.
In the end, its all a function of power handling and SPL desires. A 3-4" cone can cover the treble in a manner acceptable to most listeners. That same 3" cone can produce 20Hz, albeit very quietly. Probably too quiet for most situations. To go louder, you need to be able to move more air. You can add a subwoofer and cross the 3" drivers at 80Hz. That's enough for most domestic listening. If you want to go even louder, you'll find that putting a 6" midbass driver in there and crossing at 400Hz will give you even more headroom (the sub would also need to be sized accordingly, getting towards HT enthusiast levels here). You could make the 3" driver smaller (think tweeters) since the 6" driver has more power handling through the midrange. To go really really loud, lets fire that 3" driver through a narrow hole, bolt it to a horn, call it a compression driver and then add a couple of 12" drivers coming in at 900Hz, and cross to a pair of 18"s at 80Hz. Now its a fairly hefty PA system. If you want to go louder still, you need to go to multiple drivers. A 3" compression driver will keep up with a pair of 18"s with something covering 1kHz-100Hz, but that's about the limit.
Chris
In the end, its all a function of power handling and SPL desires. A 3-4" cone can cover the treble in a manner acceptable to most listeners. That same 3" cone can produce 20Hz, albeit very quietly. Probably too quiet for most situations. To go louder, you need to be able to move more air. You can add a subwoofer and cross the 3" drivers at 80Hz. That's enough for most domestic listening. If you want to go even louder, you'll find that putting a 6" midbass driver in there and crossing at 400Hz will give you even more headroom (the sub would also need to be sized accordingly, getting towards HT enthusiast levels here). You could make the 3" driver smaller (think tweeters) since the 6" driver has more power handling through the midrange. To go really really loud, lets fire that 3" driver through a narrow hole, bolt it to a horn, call it a compression driver and then add a couple of 12" drivers coming in at 900Hz, and cross to a pair of 18"s at 80Hz. Now its a fairly hefty PA system. If you want to go louder still, you need to go to multiple drivers. A 3" compression driver will keep up with a pair of 18"s with something covering 1kHz-100Hz, but that's about the limit.
Chris
Last edited:
I prefer full range now
I 'discovered' full range by accident as well, after mounting a 6 inch Radio Shack woofer in an open baffle for some testing. I was just amazed by what I could hear especially in the vocals - Diana Krall's Live in Paris
the expression in her voice. I had connected the speakers direct (no crossover) for testing. I am still testing them and although they are old speakers with some degree of distortion, it's great to listen to them.
I have been listening over many different systems over the years, currently a vintage Sony STR-333 with Sony-SS-G333ES.html speakers. I listened to some home theatre units and two Dali speakers as well as BOSE statellite subwoofer system - I prefer full range to all of these.
What do full range speakers offer? Clarity and good directionality if only because you can place them at ear level and point the cone of sound towards you directly. Anyway that's what I think.
I 'discovered' full range by accident as well, after mounting a 6 inch Radio Shack woofer in an open baffle for some testing. I was just amazed by what I could hear especially in the vocals - Diana Krall's Live in Paris
the expression in her voice. I had connected the speakers direct (no crossover) for testing. I am still testing them and although they are old speakers with some degree of distortion, it's great to listen to them.
I have been listening over many different systems over the years, currently a vintage Sony STR-333 with Sony-SS-G333ES.html speakers. I listened to some home theatre units and two Dali speakers as well as BOSE statellite subwoofer system - I prefer full range to all of these.
What do full range speakers offer? Clarity and good directionality if only because you can place them at ear level and point the cone of sound towards you directly. Anyway that's what I think.
The pencil is actually a TL, the choice of driver (dual cone design) also plays a key role, multiway speaker systems require more work including matching the drivers sensitivity, observing manufacturer specs on enclosure dimensions etc, in your tests have you every listened to your mix on a dancehall gemstone
Attachments
Re the above, a few points:
-If you are referring to the pensils I designed, they are actually a hybrid reflex with elements of TL design & objectives, and they are not tuned very low. They're actually (and deliberately) tuned somewhat higher than a lot of MLTLs for the same driver.
-If you are referring to the Alpair 10.3, it is not a dual cone design.
-Manufacturer (or other) specs. may be applied to designing enclosures for any type of drive unit, whether it's a widebander or a driver intended for use over a more limited range.
-If you are referring to the pensils I designed, they are actually a hybrid reflex with elements of TL design & objectives, and they are not tuned very low. They're actually (and deliberately) tuned somewhat higher than a lot of MLTLs for the same driver.
-If you are referring to the Alpair 10.3, it is not a dual cone design.
-Manufacturer (or other) specs. may be applied to designing enclosures for any type of drive unit, whether it's a widebander or a driver intended for use over a more limited range.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.