How good must full-rangers get to replace 2-ways? - Page 11 - diyAudio
Go Back   Home > Forums > Loudspeakers > Full Range

Please consider donating to help us continue to serve you.

Ads on/off / Custom Title / More PMs / More album space / Advanced printing & mass image saving
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 3rd June 2011, 03:14 AM   #101
diyAudio Member
 
eclectic2k's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Silicon Valley
Wow took a while to catch up... some good info. I think it may be worthwhile to try out an FR soon. As someone mentioned, the basic physics are hard to overcome. Still, there is hope, and it seems I should be checking out something other than the poor examples I've heard thus far...

Quote:
Originally Posted by andyjevans View Post
Does this mean that subwoofers have some way to go to really integrate in a transparent way?
They are usually hard to integrate. I decided it was not worthwhile. My current main speakers can go low enough...
I can only recall two times I thought subs were well integrated. both were multiple subs and both were carefully tuned x-overs. They were also high quality subs, not typical home theater boomboxes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rabbitz View Post
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.
Yes. The bottom one or two octaves are not critical to musical enjoyment, though they are sometimes nice to have. I decided long ago accuracy was better than sloppy extension

Quote:
Originally Posted by DBMandrake View Post
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.
this sounds promising. I've been meaning to invest in a good DSP that could be used to digitally x-over a 2-way. Now I have some new ideas

Quote:
Originally Posted by DBMandrake View Post
On the other hand in my experience high Q resonances typical of uncontrolled cone breakup are too narrow and unstable to be notched out precisely even with a digital EQ.
this has been my fear of FR. the stuff I'd seen in the past looked pretty nasty. but I've not paid much attention since then...

Quote:
Originally Posted by DBMandrake View Post
For these type of cone resonances I've found damping modifications are the best and probably only solution.
as someone else pointed out why would the original mfg not do this? is it really just cost? or is this simply the end listener doing some personal tailoring? It seems if such damping is required, the FR is either not so good to begin with or is not really FR?

Quote:
Originally Posted by DBMandrake View Post
Despite their shortcomings I think it is largely coherence that make full range drivers sound good - in a multi-way design there are a hundred different ways to mess up the crossover that will result in a loss of coherence, (with some design approaches having no chance to achieve coherence in the first place) but with a full range driver even if there are quite large (and arguably unacceptable) anomalies in the frequency response, you can always guarantee that they will, by definition, remain coherent.
this is the good part! (and maybe the bad and the ugly are manageable after all ) I think there are some good designs around today. It is, as this thread highlights, debatable if an FR could replace a very good 2-way (given the same LF ability) But I think they are competitive. To really replace 2-way, they would need to overcome the inherent shortcomings of resonances and HF directivity and such. (even if they are tameable...)

Quote:
Originally Posted by planet10 View Post
Get your orders in now.
dave
I may yet
  Reply With Quote
Old 3rd June 2011, 03:33 AM   #102
frugal-phile(tm)
diyAudio Moderator
 
planet10's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Victoria, BC, NA, Sol III
Blog Entries: 5
Quote:
Originally Posted by eclectic2k View Post
as someone else pointed out why would the original mfg not do this? is it really just cost?
It is cost, and momentum. For instance, to do what i do would probably triple the build cost of the driver (an estimate based on direct conversation with a manufacturer). Given the multiplying factor of getting drivers into people's hands drivers would be far too expensive to make the business viable.

dave
__________________
community sites t-linespeakers.org, frugal-horn.com, frugal-phile.com ........ commercial site planet10-HiFi
p10-hifi forum here at diyA
  Reply With Quote
Old 3rd June 2011, 03:34 AM   #103
diyAudio Member
 
eclectic2k's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Silicon Valley
Quote:
Originally Posted by DBMandrake View Post
I have absolutely nothing against using EQ (typically active)
I don't either. but only EQ for good, not for evil
...sort of like Andy's dislike for extra components - well it's not like we add them arbitrarily
OTOH, I've seen passive x-overs with an incredible number of components - each presumably solving some problem, but you have to stop and think that if there were that many problems, maybe the design was flawed from the start

while slightly OT, mind my asking what sort of EQ/DSP hardware you use? There are some new kits and products that look promising, and of course the seemingly ubiquitous Behringer stuff...

thx
  Reply With Quote
Old 3rd June 2011, 08:58 AM   #104
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: London
On the subject of adding extra components like a passive crossover, I realise that my thinking is based on designing and building DHT amplifiers. So I'm kind of "extending" the way I'd design the amp into the crossover - trying to minimise and optimise parts.

Since this is a speaker forum, though, it's obvious that speaker designers will equally want to optimise the speaker design! So I recognise I'm thinking in a different framework.

Andy
  Reply With Quote
Old 3rd June 2011, 09:15 AM   #105
frugal-phile(tm)
diyAudio Moderator
 
planet10's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Victoria, BC, NA, Sol III
Blog Entries: 5
It is critical when using a high output impedance amplifier like your SET that any affect of an XO on the impedance of the speaker does not cause it to get "bumpy" in respect to amplitude or phase. Complex XOs that create a wild ride impedance are the enemy of many amplifiers.

This can be used to advantage in dealing with baffle step.

dave
__________________
community sites t-linespeakers.org, frugal-horn.com, frugal-phile.com ........ commercial site planet10-HiFi
p10-hifi forum here at diyA
  Reply With Quote
Old 3rd June 2011, 09:25 AM   #106
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: London
I don't think it's irrelevant to extend some degree of "amplifier think" to passive crossovers. In a SET you would go to the pains of direct coupling stages just to eliminate a 0.1uf cap. In speaker crossovers you'd almost take a 47uF cap for granted. So I guess I'm trying to "direct couple" to the speaker unit to put it one way. If this avoids problems with complex crossovers as you say, so much the better.

So are you saying that a typical 300b SET would very much like to see a full-range speaker unit?

Andy
  Reply With Quote
Old 3rd June 2011, 09:33 AM   #107
frugal-phile(tm)
diyAudio Moderator
 
planet10's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Victoria, BC, NA, Sol III
Blog Entries: 5
Yes very much. a nicely behaved curve that is monotonic from the minimum impedance (except at resonance), with a rise just where FR usually starts to fall off.

dave
__________________
community sites t-linespeakers.org, frugal-horn.com, frugal-phile.com ........ commercial site planet10-HiFi
p10-hifi forum here at diyA
  Reply With Quote
Old 3rd June 2011, 09:56 AM   #108
diyAudio Member
 
chris661's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Sheffield
Blog Entries: 8
Umm...

I think I'd just avoid SETs, for their high output impedance. You can model the effect on the bass response in winISD (under the "signal" tab, play with the series resistance) - the result for one ported design was 7dB gain (from where the response was) at 80Hz. You could tell when listening to the result, too.
Mind you, it was a 12" co-ax playing. 5kHz crossover on the tweeter.
For smaller drivers, the lift in bass may be welcome, but the ability of the system to replicate exactly what went in will be hindered somewhat.
Modelling something fairly typical... FE127 in a ~13L cabinet, tuned to 64Hz (flat to a -3dB of 60Hz). A 4 ohm output impedance would yield 3dB gain at ~100Hz (giving a broad bump in response). This might sound pleasing, giving a fuller sound, perhaps. But once accustomed to a low output impedance, I'm sorry, but SETs just don't do bass as well.

For me, there is no way a 4-5" driver will ever reproduce <40Hz with decent volume. As soon as the cone starts flapping around, you start running into non-linearities - the midrange/treble reproduction has to suffer because of this.
So, instead of adding a tweeter, I've added subwoofers. Leave the bass to something that can hack it, properly. That way, there's no need to say "well, it's good [bass extension] for what it is". This is just good.

Chris
__________________
"Throwing parts at a failure is like throwing sponges at a rainstorm." - Enzo
My setup: http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/multi...tang-band.html
  Reply With Quote
Old 3rd June 2011, 02:53 PM   #109
ra7 is offline ra7  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Blog Entries: 1
I think you should give line level filters a try. Get a MiniDSP and a measurement mic and you can play to heart's content. I don't think you'll lose much this way and the SET will still see the driver directly.
  Reply With Quote
Old 3rd June 2011, 02:56 PM   #110
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: London
Quote:
Originally Posted by chris661 View Post
Umm...

I think I'd just avoid SETs, for their high output impedance..

Chris
I quite see your point, Chris, but I'm addicted! I'm getting good results with full-range units anyway.

I tried my SET on stacked Quad 57s and the bass was indeed lumpy. Mind, the mid and treble was simply glorious.

I take your point about subwoofers, and friends use them. I try and screw as much bass as I can out of a 5" or 6" unit, and I listen at lowish volumes in a smallish room so it's not a big deal. In a bigger room at higher volumes it would be a real issue.

Andy

Last edited by andyjevans; 3rd June 2011 at 03:01 PM.
  Reply With Quote

Reply


Hide this!Advertise here!
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Do these guys look like full rangers? Ty_Bower Full Range 5 19th October 2010 12:23 PM
Sanyo Full Rangers? thefragger Full Range 7 16th June 2010 04:23 PM
French Full-rangers elac310 Full Range 15 22nd May 2009 06:27 AM
first set of full rangers done rtenyes Full Range 6 23rd July 2007 11:22 AM
OB near full rangers... Nanook Full Range 0 20th February 2005 08:02 AM


New To Site? Need Help?

All times are GMT. The time now is 02:54 PM.


vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright 1999-2014 diyAudio

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2