Full-range vs. Multi-way research - Page 2 - 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 26th September 2012, 11:26 PM   #11
diyAudio Member
 
tuxedocivic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Ladysmith, BC
Quote:
Originally Posted by stochastic View Post
tuxedocivic - I only have preliminary understanding of said topics at this moment. What other areas should be considered in this argument/comparison? Oh, and what's with all these locals commenting (I grew up in Nanaimo)?
Haha, ya, there's a few islanders kicking around these boards. Most much longer than I have.

Off the top of my head, I would consider research around the audibility of:

Off axis behaviour (vertical and horizontal) - most research says the off axis should be evenly spaced similar to the on axis;

Frequency extention - most research says the more extended (bass and treble) the more preferred;

Cone break up - yes, it's audible. But when, why, how much;

Passive cross over component value drift;

Phase - as pointed out most research shows this is of little consequence (not sure I agree);

Step response - the misalignment of driver's acoustic centres;

Intermodulation distortion;

Harmonic distortion.

I'm sure there are more. You might want to simplify your scope. To say "The common 6" woofer + 1" dome tweeter versus a 6" full range, both on a flat baffle simple shaped enclosure". You'll also find a lot of the research points towards multi-ways being superior. It'll be good to ask yourself why that is. See if you can make a case for full range. Maybe you should add an application to your scope, like "small rooms", "auditoriums", "mixing studio", or "nearfield".

It won't be easy
  Reply With Quote
Old 26th September 2012, 11:35 PM   #12
ra7 is offline ra7  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Blog Entries: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by stochastic View Post
ra7 - It's nice that you're offering suggested findings on the subject but I really do require substantiated references. I'm in the process of reading a few books by Mr. Toole. Is there one in particular you're thinking of?
Sound Reproduction: The Acoustics and Psychoacoustics of Loudspeakers and Rooms: Floyd Toole: 9780240520094: Amazon.com: Books

Buy it now. The references at the end run for about 35 pages, IIRC.

Most of Tux's questions above are answered in the book, such as resonances, phase, distortion. What's more important, and what the book focuses on, is finding out what we can hear and what simply does not matter.

This is nothing against full range drivers. Just that properly designed multiway has numerous advantages over a single driver. If you can get smooth, flat on-axis response and smooth off-axis curves, from a single driver over a wide bandwidth, it is even better. Just that it is physically impossible to do it.

Last edited by ra7; 26th September 2012 at 11:43 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 26th September 2012, 11:50 PM   #13
diyAudio Member
 
stochastic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Quote:
Originally Posted by ra7 View Post
Buy it now. The references at the end run for about 35 pages, IIRC.
Already have two copies (one e-book, one hard form) in front of me as I type this. Great book so far.
  Reply With Quote
Old 27th September 2012, 10:27 AM   #14
tvrgeek is offline tvrgeek  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Md
You might think about dividing full range into two subjects. Information may be different. The majority of full range drivers are extreme price sensitive: Cars, TV's, Boom boxes etc. The goals for range and quality are very different from the niche market this forum discusses where musicality, even at the expense of very limited range, limited levels and breakup issues are the primer concern. Sub $1 speakers made in the tens of thousands or more, vs. low production high fidelity. Both are difficult topics. I have to admit, I have never seen a paper on $1 speaker ( OEM cost) quality, only about more generic manufacturing process and quality. I suspect the work is done by the OEM's and never published. Seems a shame the biggest market is not served by research on performance as much as cost.
  Reply With Quote
Old 27th September 2012, 02:19 PM   #15
Colin is offline Colin  United Kingdom
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: UK
I can't cite references but it may be worth Googling the KEF/B&O Archimedes Project. It was more about room acoustics but led to the development of the KEF coincident driver, which may have some bearing. Here are 3 starter references:

Project - EUREKA

Enough Room? Sidebar | Stereophile.com

References

On the back of that, take a look at Dave Moulton's blogs about studio sound and the developments which led to the Beolab 9 loudspeaker:

Moulton Laboratories



Ted Jordan has written a lot about single driver speaker performance in the past - some of which deals specifically with cone breakup, cone flexing, etc. It tended to appear in Wireless World magazine or HiFi News but some of it is on his site at

E.J.Jordan Designs - book & articles design & consultancy

Chapter 5 of his latest Jordan manual is specifically about single cone drivers and that's available as a free PDF on the site.
  Reply With Quote
Old 27th September 2012, 09:01 PM   #16
diyAudio Member
 
dekiller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
I doubt how could you compare A-type to B-type. Too much variations.
  Reply With Quote
Old 13th December 2012, 09:06 AM   #17
diyAudio Member
 
stochastic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
So I finished my paper and had it marked so I can now post it here to get some seriously critical feedback (see attached pdf). I know it's not up to diyaudio standards of discussion, but it was only a first year paper in a general engineering class. I would honestly love to hear why I'm totally wrong or somewhat right, or ... it'll help me out in the long run.


Also, I don't know why I failed to see Colin's posting earlier, looks like some good starter research here that I managed to miss.
Attached Files
File Type: pdf FullRange.pdf (69.7 KB, 81 views)
  Reply With Quote
Old 13th December 2012, 03:10 PM   #18
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: North Texas, USA
You really need to get some personal experience with both "types" of speakers. With well designed and executed examples of each, the actual differences tend to be much less distinct than the forums and papers would lead one to believe. Many of the details debated ad nauseum in the forums are much less problematic to the ears and are usually overwhelmed by the room effects.

One issue that is generally minimized in this forum is that full range designs have some real performance limitations with several genres and preferences. Within their performance envelope, they can be wonderful, but that envelope is relatively limited. "FAST" designs are often used as a tool to expand the performance envelope and are tacitly treated as still "full range" when in fact you have now have a two way design.

Finally, this is not a zero sum game and there is no requirement for a unified field theory of speaker design. Personal preferences for music genre, spl levels, hearing differences, and so forth will dominate design types and details. Each side considers the other to be anathema, but realistically someone else's perferences really shouldn't matter to us.


Quote:
Originally Posted by stochastic View Post
So I finished my paper and had it marked so I can now post it here to get some seriously critical feedback (see attached pdf). I know it's not up to diyaudio standards of discussion, but it was only a first year paper in a general engineering class. I would honestly love to hear why I'm totally wrong or somewhat right, or ... it'll help me out in the long run.


Also, I don't know why I failed to see Colin's posting earlier, looks like some good starter research here that I managed to miss.
__________________
I was so much older then, I'm younger than that now.
  Reply With Quote
Old 13th December 2012, 06:27 PM   #19
diyAudio Member
 
stochastic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Yes, quite right about unified design method not being needed, but the assignment was to write a persuasive paper that argued for one particular side of the subject. So in the end I did push harder than needed to the full-range side. Safe to ignore that bit in the conclusion.
  Reply With Quote
Old 13th December 2012, 07:38 PM   #20
diyAudio Member
 
tuxedocivic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Ladysmith, BC
Hi Stochastic.

I'd like to comment on your paper. I'm an engineer myself and probably would have written this paper at about the same level as you have in my first year. I won't comment to much about the technical details, as it won't help your engineering career very much, only your diyaudio hobby. The tech details were mostly correct IMO, although perhaps not the strongest technical points for making the case.

I must ask, did you write an outline for this paper? And how detailed was it? When I read the paper the thoughts are a bit unorganized and hint at having been written as the research was carried out. This is a common temptation. It's important that you document the research, put it in an outline, scrutinize that, adjust, write your introduction, write your conclusion, re-write your outline, then begin. If you did write an outline, perhaps spend more time on it next time. The time spent writing an outline has never been wasted for me. I write a reports every week as part of my career and still skip the outline often (so I'm a hypocrite, sue me), but when I do use them, my report is always better and saves me editing time and my reviewer is always much happier saving more time.

Next, I really hoped to see some figures or diagrams. You threw in a lot of technical detail that would mean nothing to a lay person. Even a hifi enthusiast. Some frequency responses showing come breakup, cross overs, even a photo of a typical 2-way and a full range. This would have added a whole level of clarity to your writing.

This relates to the outline idea, but break up your thoughts. Even if you had sections in the report, like section 1: Definitions or multi way and full range. Then discuss that topic, and not anything else. When you discuss a topic, make sure it's focused. You wrote this like a letter to the editor rather than a technical report. Make bullet lists, headings, tables, whatever helps organize the writing to focus on the final knockout conclusion.

Finally, link your conclusion to your research. So why are full range better? When I got to the conclusion I thought "oh we're here already, ok so multiways are better or what??". You had a lot of info, but it didn't form a conclusion.

I hope this helps. Engineering writing is a royal pain. I still struggle with it. In high school they teach you to write an English essay, then you get to engineering school and that MUST go out the window. If you ever want something reviewed or proof read, send me a 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
full range + woofer OR full range + tweeter ? Bigun Full Range 35 20th March 2013 07:47 PM
Full Range Driver Research Project lpgfullrange Full Range 7 11th April 2012 10:40 PM
Korean Sonodyne S-654 Full-Range/Wide-Range Drivers thetubeguy1954 Full Range 6 18th January 2011 11:42 PM
Multi-way or Full range? artazzzzzz Multi-Way 24 26th January 2010 05:38 PM
Frequency range of the human voice & full range center channel speakers jwmbro Multi-Way 31 20th January 2008 04:07 PM


New To Site? Need Help?

All times are GMT. The time now is 06:49 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