Reengineer What I Already Have?

Status
This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.
Jump to Latest
planet10

planet10

frugal-phile™
Joined 2001
planet10-hifi.com
Paid Member
Someobe needs to stand up for the FRs :)

Mick, Sreten,

Have you heard a good full-range lately? IMO the best bang for the buck for a reasonable amount of money is a good FR, and even at that will do things multiways really struggle to achieve.. Then if you need more, add some powered woofers (then indeed you introduce an XO, but active)

dave
 
S

sreten

R.I.P.
Joined 2003
planet10 said:
Someobe needs to stand up for the FRs :)

Mick, Sreten,

Have you heard a good full-range lately? IMO the best bang for the buck for
a reasonable amount of money is a good FR, and even at that will do things
multiways really struggle to achieve.. Then if you need more, add some
powered woofers (then indeed you introduce an XO, but active)

dave
Click to expand...

Hi,

For me the short answer is no, I'm quite prepared to accept for some people
who can ignore their disadvantages the advantages may appeal, but I do
not consider FR the optimum design mantra, its just too limited.

And to be frank a lot of FR's are poorly designed garbage IMO.

I believe you to be correct, especially on a budget if sound quality rather
than SPL's is the main agenda, but I could argue that e.g. that similar
issues exist in multiway speakers, e.g. complex versus simple (transiently
better) crossovers functions, done well they are not "the devils work".
Done badly they IMO are, which is why I hate speaker "cookbooks".

BUT BFB FR's can be exceptional, I'm partial to 0.5 ways or bipoles.
(Especially if skilled at woodworking and time / effort is not perceived
as part of the "real" cost, "BFB" this opens up a whole different world.)
Still a driver with better bass and throwing in a supertweeter appeals.

IMO you cannot get past the design process, numbers do not lie,
they can be completely mis-interpreted / mis-applied though.

:cool: /Sreten.
 
Last edited:
planet10

planet10

frugal-phile™
Joined 2001
planet10-hifi.com
Paid Member
sreten said:
BUT BFB FR's can be exceptional, I'm partial to 0.5 ways or bipoles.
Click to expand...

BRB?

I'm partial to bipoles and systems that are effectively 1.5 way as well. And if you want to achieve true full range an active FAST is hard to beat, especially with some of today's true 9 octave FR drivers as mid-tweeters.

If FAST XO is conceptually pushed down <100 Hz, then this fits in perfectly with Toole's "how things should be", and the FR only need cover 8 octaves.

Just like multi-ways there are a lot of cruddy FRs, i fortunately get to go thru enuff of them that i can discard everything but the cream. I can say that competition arrising from the resurgence of the FR as a valid approach has brought us better drivers over the last 5 years and much greater choice.

I do believe that a good "midrange" driver is one you can sit down and enjoy all by itself. And, if one is willing to give up some efficiency, that "midrange" can be a "midtweeter"

dave
 
S

sreten

R.I.P.
Joined 2003
planet10 said:
BRB?

I'm partial to bipoles and systems that are effectively 1.5 way as well. And if you want to achieve true full range an active FAST is hard to beat, especially with some of today's true 9 octave FR drivers as mid-tweeters.

If FAST XO is conceptually pushed down <100 Hz, then this fits in perfectly with Toole's "how things should be", and the FR only need cover 8 octaves.

Just like multi-ways there are a lot of cruddy FRs, i fortunately get to go thru enuff of them that i can discard everything but the cream. I can say that competition arrising from the resurgence of the FR as a valid approach has brought us better drivers over the last 5 years and much greater choice.

I do believe that a good "midrange" driver is one you can sit down and enjoy all by itself. And, if one is willing to give up some efficiency, that "midrange" can be a "midtweeter"

dave
Click to expand...

Hi,

BFB = "bang for buck" . I do not disagree much, personally I like extended
bass with clean levels too much in a speaker to go for for FR's, and I do
not like the room treble power response, even if on axis treble is good
enough, I like a relaxed wide listening window.

Its horses for courses, e.g. I doubt, though I've actually
never heard it you would dislike the following much :
Humble Homemade Hifi

Buts its still "ouch" expensive, I like the midrange optimisation of : http://www.htguide.com/forum/showpost.php4?p=501582&postcount=10

There are different approaches valid for different people IMO.

:cool: /Sreten.
 
Last edited:
S

sreten

R.I.P.
Joined 2003
Jack Tupp said:
From that page above, this is the crossover.
http://www.humblehomemadehifi.com/Soup_Sandwich_html_m65892fb9.jpg

Can someone, in simple electronic terms explain to me what the first string of components does in the schematic? The Lz1, Cz1 and Rz1.
Click to expand...

Hi,

T.G. has now got a bee in his bonnet about compensating impedance wise
the fundamental resonance of a sealed loudspeaker, or the first peak of a
vented box, it is IMO quite pointless, except for rare cases.

All those components can simply be omitted.

:cool: Sreten.
 
Status
This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.
Top Bottom