many of the advantages mentioned seem to be moot vs a multiamped active (in my case digital) XO. of course it could be argued the purity of sound is messed with, but myself I find that a bit precious. all the same i'm going to build some fullrangers to see what all the fuss is about. Has anyone got any suggestions for $400 for a basic cabinet and drivers? i'm covered for amps
Last edited:
$400 for a pair of drivers and cabinets? Look into the newest MarkAudio Alpair 12P that so many are thinking about.
edit: What are you using for digital XO? I was interested in this approach long ago (behringer DCX2496) but let it go when I realized the issues with lack of volume control in the digital domain.
Last edited:
And yet you are happy to use EQ?
It is a system. A speaker/amp (and cabling) is a system and has to be considered as a whole.
dave
Im on the fence, despite having several small widerange drivers (2" and 3").
Im still hesitant in trying larger sizes. Theres just too many compromises, inescapable really.
Still the 2 and 3" drivers like the Founteks and TBs can make rather good Midtweeters.
Thats how I view their best use, In my Humblest of opinions.
Im still hesitant in trying larger sizes. Theres just too many compromises, inescapable really.
Still the 2 and 3" drivers like the Founteks and TBs can make rather good Midtweeters.
Thats how I view their best use, In my Humblest of opinions.
Well, I will go ahead and put in a step at 590, add a notch at 7k to see how good they could be, but I agree with mondo, good wide range midrange. So this little experiment is already successful.
BTY, any favorite PC based real time eqs out there? My e-mu has plugins but it crashed the system, my new M-audio has none.
BTY, any favorite PC based real time eqs out there? My e-mu has plugins but it crashed the system, my new M-audio has none.
Mondo,
If you get the chance, try out the Alpair 7.3 (4" nominal) in a bi-amped FAST configuration - probably you'll like it. Very good mid-range and extended highs.
A good FR unit assisted with a woofer (essentially a 2 way) crossed low (below 350 Hz depending on taste and SPL) is a very satisfying combo.
If you get the chance, try out the Alpair 7.3 (4" nominal) in a bi-amped FAST configuration - probably you'll like it. Very good mid-range and extended highs.
A good FR unit assisted with a woofer (essentially a 2 way) crossed low (below 350 Hz depending on taste and SPL) is a very satisfying combo.
What I'm objecting to is the common audiophile (and speaker reviewer) notion that new speakers must be "broken in" and that there is some significant and permanent change in the response of the speakers after a period of break-in lasting between hours and weeks, usually which involves an increase in bass, presumably from changes in T/S parameters.
(Never mind that the speaker may have already been soak tested in the factory while testing for defects...)
The only T/S parameter which could change with break in would be compliance Cms, (which has knock on effects in Fs, Vas, Qms etc) but I haven't seen any evidence that there is any permanent change in Cms.
Cms does vary though, its highly dependant on excursion levels, and has a non-linear memory effect as well due to spider creep.
In another thread I presented some measurements of Fs of two drivers at different drive/excursion levels and the shift can be dramatic.
One was some 8" full range drivers with cloth surrounds whose Fs varied from 47.5Hz at very low excursions right down to 34.5Hz at 1/2 Xmax, the other was a Visaton W300S 12" woofer with rubber surrounds which varied from 28Hz at low drive levels to 24Hz at half Xmax. (Manufacturers spec is 23Hz btw)
Obviously the moving mass can't be changing so the change in Fs is due to an almost 2x change in Cms in the case of the first driver...
Whats interesting is that the change with excursion isn't dependant on instantaneous excursion but has a memory effect. If I measured the 12" woofer with a very low drive level but moved the cone manually back and forth through its full excursion just once, a second or two before taking the measurement, the Fs was also 24Hz despite the low drive level but smoothly slid back up to 28Hz over a period of about 10-20 seconds, presumably due to the spider tightening up again. (The noise measurement mode in LIMP allows you to see the shift in the impedance curve in real time)
Any attempt to measure the effects of long periods (hours or more) of break in would have to be done under precisely the same measurement conditions with exactly the same drive level to have any significance, since the drive level has such a huge effect on the result.
You would also need to give the speaker a rest for a few minutes for the spider to fully tighten before comparing it to an unbroken in measurement, by which time it should be the same again.
Permanent changes in Cms due to extended periods of break-in I think has been pretty well debunked elsewhere.
Exactly. Any speaker that is a bit bass shy / midrange forward is going to sound better after a few hours of listening, but its us thats breaking in, not the speaker itself...
Most people should be familiar with the trick where you put one hand in ice cold water and the other in hot water for a couple of minutes, then plunge both hands into the same tub of warm water - the hand that was previously in the ice water will think the middle tub is a lot hotter than the hand that was previously in the hot water. The same thing happens with our hearing when exposed to prolonged periods of tonal imbalance. We adapt.
Last edited:
Couldn't agree more. I've never understood the reluctance to apply EQ to full range drivers, whether at line level or with a simple passive network.
Unless you've got a backloaded horn design or you mount the drivers in the wall you're going to have to deal with baffle step correction at the very least, its no good living in denial about it.
Some driver resonances can also be corrected very successfully with one or more PEQ's, particularly if the drivers only have 2-3 widely separated discrete resonances to deal with. (Uncontrolled cone breakup where there are multiple resonances in close proximity can't be dealt with with EQ though)
For example on my Coral drivers (when in full range mode) I have BSC, a peaking filter at 1Khz for the surround dip, a broad notch at 2Khz, a narrower notch at 4Khz, and a gradual upwards baxendall type taper in the treble starting at about 3Khz of a few dB to give the best balance at the listening position. (Which is around 10-15 degrees off axis about 2.5 metres away)
Do they sound good without any BSC or EQ ? No, not really, forward lower midrange in the 400-1.5Khz range (due to the large baffle boosting the midrange) and lacking in bass and treble. Do they sound good with BSC and just a bit of simple treble lift ? Yes. Do they sound much better with all the notch/peaking filters to deal with the worst resonances and a more careful EQ of the balance of the entire range. You bet!
With the right EQ I sometimes forget whether I've got the system in 2 way mode or full range mode - at the listening position the result is very similar indeed, although the imaging coherency is slightly better in full range mode with just a little bit less crispness in the very high treble. (Standing up though reveals that its in full range mode due to the drop in off axis treble compared to 2 way mode)
The right carefully done EQ with a full range driver can be the difference between a mediocre result and an excellent result that makes it hard to believe that everything is coming from the one driver...
(I've managed to fool people before where the tweeter at the top is turned off and the system is running in full range mode and they didn't realise until I pointed out the deception
)
Last edited:
Funny, that's just how I feel about small full range drivers
No matter how clean and flat they might be, drivers of that size always just sound like good quality computer speakers to me...they don't have the dynamics/weight/realism etc of the larger full range drivers, and while smoother in the midrange (without EQ) the treble extension isn't really any better than a good whizzer cone design. (My 8" Coral's go up to 15Khz with a radiating dust cap and a bit of EQ, and down to 40Hz with ease at the bottom end)
A larger full range driver is inevitably going to require more EQ than a smaller driver, especially through the midrange, and its hard to find a larger driver that has well controlled cone breakup (many have severe, uncorrectable cone breakup) but if you do, the end result is far better IMHO.
The sweet spot is 8" IMHO, just big enough to produce "real" bass, and still small enough to produce adequately smooth midrange and decent treble extension, with the right cone design / damping and a bit of EQ.
Last edited:
I am confused by this comment, I am happy using complex multi-way systems with very complex crossovers, of course I am happy using any number of correctly design filters that get the job done properly.
This being the improper way of getting the job done as it is extremely unlikely that the amplifier will correct for all the short comings of a driver. It'd be far more effective and predictable to use an amplifier with a low output impedance in conjunction with a correctly designed set of filters.
5th,
Yes and in some cases, no. Example: the method of compensation on the Rotels tends to limit the bandwidth a tad slightly masking whatever inferior tweeters are doing, making more speakers tolerable than if using a wider band "sharper" amp like a Parasound, B&K, Hafler etc. This is really small, and of course, the correct answer is to correct the speaker. I concluded the Rotels were intentionally designed for their price range and were expected to be used with less that the very best speakers. John designs amps to be used mostly by the very best. I tried electronic filters before the amps and did not get the same effects. I tried a LP on the tweeter to no avail.
It makes sense, don't go put a $1000 amp on a pair of $500 speakers and expect the same results if it were the other way around.
Clearly, no magic amp, cd, wire, etc is going to fix a problem, but some can mask it slightly. We agree, proper networks solve real problems correctly. I do agree with P10 that one should consider as much of the system as possible, as there are no perfect amps either. A proper network can be very difficult, so I guess that is why some go the pure route, they can't do it.
I do look forward to how good I can get these just an an exercise. My other project comes first. I also need to finish my RLD amp so I can say been there for that route too. That is probably the last effort I will put into glass.
Yes and in some cases, no. Example: the method of compensation on the Rotels tends to limit the bandwidth a tad slightly masking whatever inferior tweeters are doing, making more speakers tolerable than if using a wider band "sharper" amp like a Parasound, B&K, Hafler etc. This is really small, and of course, the correct answer is to correct the speaker. I concluded the Rotels were intentionally designed for their price range and were expected to be used with less that the very best speakers. John designs amps to be used mostly by the very best. I tried electronic filters before the amps and did not get the same effects. I tried a LP on the tweeter to no avail.
It makes sense, don't go put a $1000 amp on a pair of $500 speakers and expect the same results if it were the other way around.
Clearly, no magic amp, cd, wire, etc is going to fix a problem, but some can mask it slightly. We agree, proper networks solve real problems correctly. I do agree with P10 that one should consider as much of the system as possible, as there are no perfect amps either. A proper network can be very difficult, so I guess that is why some go the pure route, they can't do it.
I do look forward to how good I can get these just an an exercise. My other project comes first. I also need to finish my RLD amp so I can say been there for that route too. That is probably the last effort I will put into glass.
OK Simon, as soon as my test gear returns from its Hawaiian holiday, I'll try to prove you wrong.
Don't know if it's Cms or something else, but I think I can show long lasting change. I'll let you know, either way.
I have considered one of the A7s, and maybe the A10 BW, for a 2 way, but I think 4" is my limit of preference, after than beaming and cone inertia become a problem for me
Haha well a 2" FRS5X or TB W2-800SL isnt going to set the world alight (Fs~200hz) but I reckon would work fine as a mid tweeter in a low x-o design (~<500Hz) And that Is my main use of them.
The A5 and TB W3-1285SG are slightly different animals, and can produce some bass. I made a Bazooka of 1.2m 3" ID pipe using the TB and was amazed at the bass output from the open end, all things considered. Sounds markedly cleaner used as a midtweeter though, safely keeping excursion lower.
Funny, that's just how I feel about small full range drivers
...slight misunderstanding....
snip
The sweet spot is 8" IMHO
snip
As above, I wouldnt ever consider an 8" driver myself. Far too directional in the midrange.
I know some folk who vehemently disagree, but I hold to my belief.
With some simple music, perhaps solo instrumental/vocal, I have heard good examples of FRs of 6-8"; but they rapidly descend into confusion when confronted with a complex piece of music.
And I dont listen to vocal or solo works. I have Aphex twin sat here, and its always good to get some melon twisting time sigs on the go to test with.
None of the TRUE FRs ive heard (although briefly, since I do not own), have no met the mark in that respect.
IME, this seems to come down to taste and what we listen for. I like small drivers on simple music, but find they completely fall apart when asked to play large, complex music. Not everyone agrees.
A few years ago I was running a room at the Montreal Hi-Fi show. We had 3 pairs of speakers of identical style, just different sizes - 4.5", 6.5" and 8" fullrange. They were MLTL (I think) with a driver on the front and a driver on the back. The 3 sounded enough alike that it was often hard to tell which was playing, on most music. My overall favorite was the 8", but many of the 100s of listeners preferred the 4.5". There was something nice they did that tickled the fancy of a lot of people. After 3 days of listening, I came to feel that the 6.5" was a great compromise, with the detail of the 4.5 and some of the body of the 8".
For me, that was a great example of listener tastes. Not everyone likes - or listens for - the same thing.
Pano,
Either you are very disciplined listener and your conclusions are truly objective, or you have rediscovered one of the most fundamental results of ABC testing. People will almost always like the one in the middle. (or maybe both) Ask most any stereo salesman. There is a name for this, maybe someone knows it.
Either you are very disciplined listener and your conclusions are truly objective, or you have rediscovered one of the most fundamental results of ABC testing. People will almost always like the one in the middle. (or maybe both) Ask most any stereo salesman. There is a name for this, maybe someone knows it.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.