full range + woofer OR full range + tweeter ?

[Godzilla]

Adason, I enjoyed your comment as well as your article about the speaker you built. I have those Jamo woofers too on OB and they sound fantastic. Wish I bought more when they were cheaply available at PE.

[norman bates]

lol, so whatcha gunna do?

Norman

[melis]

Originally Posted by norman bates

lol, so whatcha gunna do?

Norman

hawk audio duke
4x 3” full range + 6” woofer + tweeter

[adason]

Originally Posted by Godzilla

Adason, I enjoyed your comment as well as your article about the speaker you built. I have those Jamo woofers too on OB and they sound fantastic. Wish I bought more when they were cheaply available at PE.

thanks godzilla! (i got 6 those jamo woofers, but I have them in closed boxes)

[Paul Spurgeon]

I strongly recommend a full range with woofer vs. full range plus tweeter. I am currently using a Tang Band w3-1878 coupled with two 10 inch Eminence woofers in isobarik loading, with a choke on the woofers at 150 Hz. It compares very favorably with my best 3 way consisting of an SEAS Millenium tweeter, Morel 3 inch dome mid, and 6 inch Peerless in transmission line loading, at half the cost.

[Enochrome]

Originally Posted by planet10

+1, it is usually done with XO only on the tweeter, so the extension of the FR determines the frequency, usually above 10k.

My preference is the FR + Woofer.

Why it has the potential to work better is down to the wavelength at the XO point. One gets rid of a very significant downside of XOs if one can space the drivers such that they are within a 1/4 wavelength (or less) of each other. If one can do this then the drivers are essentially co-incident -- to do the same with a helper tweeter it would need to be co-axial with an appropriate time delay on one driver.

Further, there are LOTs of decent midbasses to choose from that extend to 1kHz+, and a growing number of FRs that will hit 100 Hz or less and have extension to 20k+. This engenders a simple 1st order XO which means retention of time/phase. It is also an ideal place (if one takes care with driver selection) to do a series XO. The very nature of the series XO also means that the responses of the 2 drivers can automatically compensate for anomalies inherent in the drivers. This is one place where a passive XO can have advantages over active XOs.

Third, careful choice of XO frequency (amps & impedances too) can get you inherent BSC (doesn't apply to OBs, MJK has good coverage of that in his passive baffle articla)

Forth, back to the wavelengths... when down low, there are no issues with lobing of the dispersion because, due to 3, driver response is approaching omnidirectional.

And a comment on item 2. As the cost, sophistication and choice of DSP continues to plummet I can see some serious advantages to using a 1st order series XO to get into the ballpark, and then DSP EQ to tidy up the details.

It should be noted that a FAST is actually closer to a "real" 2-way than a helper tweeter, as the bass driver handles 2-4 octaves (using 80-320 Hz XO point) whereas a helper tweeter is more like a single octave (XO @ 10k) so you get more of the advantage out of job sharing.

dave

This is exactly what I want to do with my vintage CTS 12" woofer and a Mark Audio CHP-70-DP.

Thread about this:
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/full-...-new-post.html

I am thinking about the Mark Audio because in the write they mention the high roll off and paper material in relation to drivers from the 50's which I think my woofer is more in line with. Also, they match aesthetically as well and are affordable. I have to settle for the Gen-1 because the Gen 2 is out of stock.

Any opinions?