Hello All,
While in search for a good full range speaker driver for my semi open baffle system(DIY). I have come across different driver sizes from 4 inch to 12 inch. My question is, what are the pros and cons of 3-4" inch Full range driver vs 12 "inch ones in terms of realism, pinpointing imaging, soundstage,lows etc. Some claim big drivers highs can never sound as sharp, clear, pinpointing to small full range drivers. And does room size should also be in consideration?
Please share your opinion.
While in search for a good full range speaker driver for my semi open baffle system(DIY). I have come across different driver sizes from 4 inch to 12 inch. My question is, what are the pros and cons of 3-4" inch Full range driver vs 12 "inch ones in terms of realism, pinpointing imaging, soundstage,lows etc. Some claim big drivers highs can never sound as sharp, clear, pinpointing to small full range drivers. And does room size should also be in consideration?
Please share your opinion.
In a nutshell, small drivers are inefficient and suffer in the LF. Big drivers do LF better but get weak in the HF and start beaming. All FR drivers are compromises. It's a sliding scale and YMMV. I shy away from true fullrange drivers that are over 5-6 inches mostly because of the beaming issue. The FAST concept has gained popularity the last few years. Essentially using a small FR driver with a "helper" woofer to boost the LF. Sound idea as long as you bi-amp IMHO. If using passive XO filters, the inductor needed becomes a liability. I was on the FAST path for a long time, but finally abandoned the idea. As a compromise I found it backwards due to the XO issue. I have since turned it on its head, i.e. using a relatively small midwoofer with a controlled rolloff in the FR and a helper tweeter. In my latest exploration I ended up using a Peerless 830656 in an MLTL and a BC25SC55-04. Turned out great. The idea isn't new. The Dynaco A-25 worked on a similar principle minus the MLTL cab.
Last edited:
Hi plasnu, can you elobrate on the vintage drivers as to why its a different story? I am hunting for some vintage zenith 12 inches.. my amps are 2a3 tubes
My experience is limited, , but...
1. most of the vintage FR are larger than 8"
2. I had a chance to hear or own several vintage 8"+ FR, and I think those speakers sound amazing despite of drawback of the large size. I think it is because they made by ears, and measurement was not as important as today. Actually, frequency response of those vintage FR is rather bad, and when I use them, I use some (or a lot of) EQ, because I have zero knowledge how to compensate it acoustically. But even without EQ, those vintage speakers sound charming to my ears.
Last edited:
Personal opinion follows:
Wizzer-less drivers are good up to 5".
Drivers with wizzers are better from 12" and up.
Bigger drivers can provide more spl, and have more "impact".
No matter which brand, type or what size you go for, you have to be prepared to compromise to get the most performance. There is not one single driver that can do it all, unless you help it with another driver up top or below, adjust response through filters or material, or through more complicated design.
They all have their merits
Wizzer-less drivers are good up to 5".
Drivers with wizzers are better from 12" and up.
Bigger drivers can provide more spl, and have more "impact".
No matter which brand, type or what size you go for, you have to be prepared to compromise to get the most performance. There is not one single driver that can do it all, unless you help it with another driver up top or below, adjust response through filters or material, or through more complicated design.
They all have their merits
Well said KaffiMann, many over look the fact that it’s the friction between the cone & surrounding air that creates sound. Even if small speakers have high sensitivity, it will still not sound as good as big speakers. In short the bigger the suface area of the diaphram the better or unless you front load the small speaker with a horn. Me for now my main speakers are a pair of ML Odyssey yes not very sensitive but it’s its got a very big diaphram area to compensate & this makes it sounds more natural & effortless.
Floyd Toole has an interesting book, which has helped me clear my mind:
Sound Reproduction
The Acoustics and Psychoacoustics of Loudspeakers and Rooms
Through presenting the results of research, he suggests a few criteria for good audio system performance. (as in satisfying to the listener). I list what comes to mind, there are a few more I think.
1. linear *enough* frequency response
2. *enough* increasing directivity with increasing frequency
3. low *enough* distortion
4. good *enough* room acoustics
The emphasis on *enough* is mine, as a paraphrase from the entire book. He refers anecdotally to starting out measuring performance of turntables and vinyl records. The objective results were not good, but the final listening experience was. The turntable system was simply good enough in most areas. The same goes for loudspeaker systems. They are not going to recreate the very complex acoustic event that was originally performed, that's impossible due to all kinds of limitations. The challenge and solution is identifying and achieving those compromises that get you good enough.
I have experience with fullrange drivers from 2" to 15" and they all did something right and something wrong. I would rate perceived performance/listening enjoyment as sort of a loudness/bath tub curve in relation to size. When I started out toying with these things maybe 20 years ago, I did not quite understand how and why but Toole helped a lot later.
- The smallest sounded spectacularly fine (as in fine treble, fine midrange, like some kind of ghostly, fairy, holographic quality) but not good at low and loud (distortion), and they have very wide dispersion and interacted very poorly with my room acoustics.
- The middle sizes sounded less fine and still weren't very good at low and loud, they would still disperse midrange too widely for my room acoustics and already started to beam at higher frequencies.
- The largest fullrange drivers were very good at low and loud, and they also start beaming so low, that there is that gradual and increasing directivity towards higher frequencies. There are some large fullrange drivers out there that do have very extended and smooth (or smoothable) frequency response.
I currently listen with the Fane 15" fullrangers. Loud, low, increasing directivity, extended treble and smooth response after EQ. It sounds very dynamic, clear, natural and imaging is actually some of the best I've had ever. It's not even very expensive, it is just no-nonsense and well put together.
I don't think everyone is necessarily best off with 15" fullrange drivers. I would advise figuring out what of how much you need. If you sit very close, then very narrow dispersion is not convenient. If you have a small room, or cross over to a subwoofer of bass system, your fullrange driver may not have to go as low. It depends and only you can assess that. Or at least pick one likely candidate to buy and start experimenting with.
Markaudio designs drivers with extended frequency range, both lows and highs, increasing directivity with increasing frequency and larger than average Xmax for higher SPL. They are somewhat smaller. I have arrived at a point where I have experienced that I like larger drivers than Markaudio makes, otherwise I would seriously consider one of their models to try out.
Sound Reproduction
The Acoustics and Psychoacoustics of Loudspeakers and Rooms
Through presenting the results of research, he suggests a few criteria for good audio system performance. (as in satisfying to the listener). I list what comes to mind, there are a few more I think.
1. linear *enough* frequency response
2. *enough* increasing directivity with increasing frequency
3. low *enough* distortion
4. good *enough* room acoustics
The emphasis on *enough* is mine, as a paraphrase from the entire book. He refers anecdotally to starting out measuring performance of turntables and vinyl records. The objective results were not good, but the final listening experience was. The turntable system was simply good enough in most areas. The same goes for loudspeaker systems. They are not going to recreate the very complex acoustic event that was originally performed, that's impossible due to all kinds of limitations. The challenge and solution is identifying and achieving those compromises that get you good enough.
I have experience with fullrange drivers from 2" to 15" and they all did something right and something wrong. I would rate perceived performance/listening enjoyment as sort of a loudness/bath tub curve in relation to size. When I started out toying with these things maybe 20 years ago, I did not quite understand how and why but Toole helped a lot later.
- The smallest sounded spectacularly fine (as in fine treble, fine midrange, like some kind of ghostly, fairy, holographic quality) but not good at low and loud (distortion), and they have very wide dispersion and interacted very poorly with my room acoustics.
- The middle sizes sounded less fine and still weren't very good at low and loud, they would still disperse midrange too widely for my room acoustics and already started to beam at higher frequencies.
- The largest fullrange drivers were very good at low and loud, and they also start beaming so low, that there is that gradual and increasing directivity towards higher frequencies. There are some large fullrange drivers out there that do have very extended and smooth (or smoothable) frequency response.
I currently listen with the Fane 15" fullrangers. Loud, low, increasing directivity, extended treble and smooth response after EQ. It sounds very dynamic, clear, natural and imaging is actually some of the best I've had ever. It's not even very expensive, it is just no-nonsense and well put together.
I don't think everyone is necessarily best off with 15" fullrange drivers. I would advise figuring out what of how much you need. If you sit very close, then very narrow dispersion is not convenient. If you have a small room, or cross over to a subwoofer of bass system, your fullrange driver may not have to go as low. It depends and only you can assess that. Or at least pick one likely candidate to buy and start experimenting with.
Markaudio designs drivers with extended frequency range, both lows and highs, increasing directivity with increasing frequency and larger than average Xmax for higher SPL. They are somewhat smaller. I have arrived at a point where I have experienced that I like larger drivers than Markaudio makes, otherwise I would seriously consider one of their models to try out.
I did caveat that generalization with "YMMV."
Which I will slightly retract, since the Alpair 7 is perfectly fine without any help on top.
The Alpair 7 is like the quintessential Toole-aligned mid-size fullrange driver, so no surprise there.
I have a lot of experience with FR drivers.
As has been said earlier in this thread that one has to be prepared for compromises with a FR driver, but truth be told that is the same for any loudspeaker.
The big compromise a FR driver attempts to overcome is the use of an XO. No XO is likely the magic that a FR brings to the table that most speakers with an XO do not.
Size is always a compromise. A smaller FR does mid & treble better, a larger driver is usually more bass capable. And more efficient. This last simply because the equations for efficiency have the cone size in the equation, to get real sensitive you need a larger driver.
What is best for you all depends on the compromises you can live with.
Personally my favorite drivers are 4-5”, with no whizzers. The best of these in a big box can make 9 octaves plus. Ultimate loudness levels are limited thou, but exceed what most people require. All a matter of what compromises you can live with.
Mentioned already is the Alpair 7.3 which is my personal favorite). People are often stunned by how low these can go.
FAST has also been mentioned. We are trying to switch people over to using the WAW (Woofer Assisted Wideband) acronym.
Take a good FR and add helper woofer(s) to do the bass with a low crossover point. Relieving the FR of bas sduties lets tham perform even better in the mid/top. The low XO allows for keeping the driver centre-to-centre within a quarter wavelength at the XO meaning essentially coincifdent drivers — something that can only be done with a coax (and appropriate XO) in the typical multiway realm. Also because of the huge selection of midwoofers designed to reach up to a dome tweeter we can have overlaps sufficient for use of a 1st order XO. The XO is also low enuff that our sensitivity to their downsides is minimized. These 3 factors eliminate much of what is evil with XOs. So one can have there cake and eat it too.
The XO for a WAW is usually best done with a line-level XO and 2 amplifiers. Given that the XO can often be a PLLXO, and with big semi-DIY Class D amplifiers (not to mentions many others as well as the vintage amp picked up at the boot sale for $10) available for very little money it can be cheaper to bi-amp than to do a passive XO this low.
Passive XOs are possible, but harder to implement, and potentially very costly. The last 2 passive WAW XOs we have done had 240 uF caps and similarily big inductors in them, but they do work very well.
Probably the best way to get the most bass out of a FR, is to horn load it. The Frugal-Horn family has proven itself to be a very good, and very versatile horn for FRs. They can accomodate many 3-6.5” drivers (including ones that aren’t FR).
dave
As has been said earlier in this thread that one has to be prepared for compromises with a FR driver, but truth be told that is the same for any loudspeaker.
The big compromise a FR driver attempts to overcome is the use of an XO. No XO is likely the magic that a FR brings to the table that most speakers with an XO do not.
Size is always a compromise. A smaller FR does mid & treble better, a larger driver is usually more bass capable. And more efficient. This last simply because the equations for efficiency have the cone size in the equation, to get real sensitive you need a larger driver.
What is best for you all depends on the compromises you can live with.
Personally my favorite drivers are 4-5”, with no whizzers. The best of these in a big box can make 9 octaves plus. Ultimate loudness levels are limited thou, but exceed what most people require. All a matter of what compromises you can live with.
Mentioned already is the Alpair 7.3 which is my personal favorite). People are often stunned by how low these can go.
FAST has also been mentioned. We are trying to switch people over to using the WAW (Woofer Assisted Wideband) acronym.
Take a good FR and add helper woofer(s) to do the bass with a low crossover point. Relieving the FR of bas sduties lets tham perform even better in the mid/top. The low XO allows for keeping the driver centre-to-centre within a quarter wavelength at the XO meaning essentially coincifdent drivers — something that can only be done with a coax (and appropriate XO) in the typical multiway realm. Also because of the huge selection of midwoofers designed to reach up to a dome tweeter we can have overlaps sufficient for use of a 1st order XO. The XO is also low enuff that our sensitivity to their downsides is minimized. These 3 factors eliminate much of what is evil with XOs. So one can have there cake and eat it too.
The XO for a WAW is usually best done with a line-level XO and 2 amplifiers. Given that the XO can often be a PLLXO, and with big semi-DIY Class D amplifiers (not to mentions many others as well as the vintage amp picked up at the boot sale for $10) available for very little money it can be cheaper to bi-amp than to do a passive XO this low.
Passive XOs are possible, but harder to implement, and potentially very costly. The last 2 passive WAW XOs we have done had 240 uF caps and similarily big inductors in them, but they do work very well.
Probably the best way to get the most bass out of a FR, is to horn load it. The Frugal-Horn family has proven itself to be a very good, and very versatile horn for FRs. They can accomodate many 3-6.5” drivers (including ones that aren’t FR).
dave
Seems like the Fane Fc152/15-300TC fanclub is growing slowly.
I really want to hear some of these (althou the 12” version seems to have an edge in implementaion possibilities.
It would be part of my explortaion of speakers that could be used as small PA speakers as well as a home speaker that can play loud and kick butt. Our 1st experiment was with the Eminence 12LTA. Stock it is not great, it took a lot to make them what i would consider tolerable, the person who ended up with them really likes them (a different set of compromises tolerated).
I am cautious as i approach the Fane. Besides the many positive comments i have heard i have also heard from at least one member who thot they sounded ike trash.
dave
Technically so, but philosophically questionable.
To me, raison d'etre of FR is, set myself free from my greediness, and enjoy my generosity. Therefore those multiple way speakers are somewhat full of inconsistencies, when someone call it FR speaker system.
If someone makes class D amp with tubes, they should be included in tube amp forum? I don't know...
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.