I'm not against full range drivers at all. just posting my observations. anyone is welcome to correct me if I'm wrong. I'm just saying that woofers are not usable above fist impedance bump, where signal is mixed with a cone breakup garbage.
I don't really look that much at frequency response, but look very closely at impedance curve, every bump means there is a problem somewhere.
I don't really look that much at frequency response, but look very closely at impedance curve, every bump means there is a problem somewhere.
MisterTwister said:
I'm used to, and willing to put up with the few bumps i see in the Fostex i'm most used to, but i was quite concerned when i measured a literal "ripple train" in the imp of the AN10 & AN12 (similar to what the factory data is showing for the Cast 15). AN10 imp attached.
dave
Attachments
Not as bad as this Lowther (scroll down one to the zoomed plot): http://fullrangedriver.com/singledriver/response.html#lowther
GM
GM
planet10 said:
Actually, the 'ripple train' is pretty obvious in the original AN data graph from commonsenseaudio for the AN10, so it shouldn't have been a real surprise if I had been paying attention to the specs.
I've got the speakers back together (longer port tube, minor driver tweaks) and they still sound great, so I'm happy.
Thanks, Dave.
John
VictoriaGuy said:
I could never get excited about them, so never looked closely. If i had i would have been moaning earlier
In the end happy is all that is important, and certainly, even with any issues, better than most speakers with COs in the critical band.
What differences are you noting? (John added bracing to the cab, damped the baskets, and added the long port-tube)
dave
Thanks, yes, I'm pretty much back up to speed, although my throat's still swollen up like a balloon. 
Could've been worse though, so on the whole, I got off lightly.
No, they don't look pretty do they (as in the larger ANs, Lowthers etc), & they're certainly not what I'd call acceptable. However, what I was trying to point out (albeit not very coherently) is that many people apply different criteria to an FR unit than the do to a woofer, and not only accept the fact that they are breaking up, they can live with even the more dramatic examples happily enough. Ergo, trying to apply one set of standards onto something else with completely different priorities is a bit of a hiding to nothing.
Could've been worse though, so on the whole, I got off lightly.No, they don't look pretty do they (as in the larger ANs, Lowthers etc), & they're certainly not what I'd call acceptable. However, what I was trying to point out (albeit not very coherently) is that many people apply different criteria to an FR unit than the do to a woofer, and not only accept the fact that they are breaking up, they can live with even the more dramatic examples happily enough. Ergo, trying to apply one set of standards onto something else with completely different priorities is a bit of a hiding to nothing.
I also changed the internal wires to 24ga solid and added a v. light coat of ModPodge pretreatment (1 coat only) to the cone. Reduced the stuffing from ~1.75" pink fiberglass to 1", and hung an additional 1" blanket in the upper chamber.planet10 said:
Noticeable differences?
..click...
Science mode now ON...
Since I can't A/B test the changes, and since the speakers were out of my system for a couple of days (had to touch up the paint on the front baffle), I can't really say anything definitive. Since I want them to sound better, my inclination is to say they sound better, but....
...click...
Science mode OFF...
I think the bass-and there is a lot of it (a requirement for 'FullRange' moniker IMO)- is tightened up quite a bit with more detail. Also the slight harshness I noticed in the upper registers when using the AN10s with the MauroPenasa 3886 amp seems to be gone now. This was the motivation for the cone treatment, even though I use my 'good speakers' with the MusicMachine tube amp 95% of the time- and the harshness wasn't there with the MM.
It's tough to get down to the workshop when you just want to listen to music.
BTW, I also 'pre'treated the cones on the FE167s at the same time, to no obvious ill-effect.
Cheers
John
PS: I'd be very interested in seeing proof that those bumps in the impedance curve show up/make a noticeable difference in an actual freq response curve using calibrated equipment of some sort.
They will do, as one is linked to the other. For e.g., you can see it even on the heavily smoothed Fostex plots, like the one attached (from the 206 if you're interested). Exactly how audible it is depeneds on the driver & to an extent, the listener of course, so as always, if you like what something does, & you are listening purely for enjoyment, that is the only measure that really matters.
Attachments
Thanks, Scott.
Looking at the 206 plot you posted, it's obviously a pretty complicated situation.
Sometimes a bump in the impedance curve has an effect on the freq. response curve, sometimes it doesn't , and often there are bumps in the freq. response where the impedance curve is 'flat' !
I may get the sweep generator up in the living room and give some listening time (when my wife is out of the house, of course..)
Cheers
John
Looking at the 206 plot you posted, it's obviously a pretty complicated situation.
Sometimes a bump in the impedance curve has an effect on the freq. response curve, sometimes it doesn't , and often there are bumps in the freq. response where the impedance curve is 'flat' !
I may get the sweep generator up in the living room and give some listening time (when my wife is out of the house, of course..)
Cheers
John
Scott:
Well, I made a point of 'not looking' at Dave's impedance curve before I hauled up some test gear to the living room. (sweep generator, counter)
Quick exit: cat+dog.
I 'think' I can hear an increased loudness/spl/whatever at about 2.7-2.8kHz which I noticed later would match up with one of the bumps in the AN10 impedance curve from Dave. Above that, we get into the max hearing sensitivity range for average ears, so it's hard to tell, without having a guaranteed 'flat response' speaker for comparison.
It is also noteworthy how 'high-pitched' a 3kHz tone really is- it's above the fundamental frequencies of most musical instruments.
Frequencies of Music
Of course, there are overtones/harmonics well above there, and their reproduction will 'make all the difference' as they say.
Cheers
John
Well, I made a point of 'not looking' at Dave's impedance curve before I hauled up some test gear to the living room. (sweep generator, counter)
Quick exit: cat+dog.
I 'think' I can hear an increased loudness/spl/whatever at about 2.7-2.8kHz which I noticed later would match up with one of the bumps in the AN10 impedance curve from Dave. Above that, we get into the max hearing sensitivity range for average ears, so it's hard to tell, without having a guaranteed 'flat response' speaker for comparison.
It is also noteworthy how 'high-pitched' a 3kHz tone really is- it's above the fundamental frequencies of most musical instruments.
Frequencies of Music
Of course, there are overtones/harmonics well above there, and their reproduction will 'make all the difference' as they say.
Cheers
John
Hi John,
Remember, the Fostex data is heavily smoothed, like all such plots.
Yep. That's why the midband / telephone band (200Hz - 4Khz; preferably an octave either side for good measure) where our hearing is at it's most sensitive, is king. The higher (& lower) you go, the less abberations tend to be audible; best if there are no major abberations, naturally, but minor fluctuations aren't all that much of a big deal 90% of the time.
Remember, the Fostex data is heavily smoothed, like all such plots.
Yep. That's why the midband / telephone band (200Hz - 4Khz; preferably an octave either side for good measure) where our hearing is at it's most sensitive, is king. The higher (& lower) you go, the less abberations tend to be audible; best if there are no major abberations, naturally, but minor fluctuations aren't all that much of a big deal 90% of the time.
planet10 said:
In audio(phile) and speaker response terms, certainly.
In music- well...that screaming high note at the 24th fret of your electric guitar is barely 1.3kHz. So calling 5kHz low treble might mislead folks who are thinking of 'treble clef' in music, where 'middle C' has a freq. of 260Hz.
Back to the regularly scheduled program...
John
planet10 said:
Precisely- huge peak in impedance at Fs with no peak in output freq response .... most of the output graphs I've looked at show smooth/steady rising response right through Fs......
So a resonance doesn't always seem to affect the output sound. (?)
This seems strange to me, since 'wolf notes' (strong resonances/coupling) can be quite a problem in musical instruments like violin/guitar- and you can definitely hear them.
John
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.