Why do you think a SS amp could do any better than a class d amp? I can see where you're going with the high output impedance of a tube amp, but a class d amp is far different from a tube amp even though the low power T-amps have similar power output. Even so, a watt is a watt, and spl depends on how efficient your drivers are. If you can get to 90dB with 1W at low distortion levels then it shouldn't matter where the power comes from.MJK said:
In short, it depends on your definitions of 'full range' and 'driver'. "Driver" is a singular noun so a driver with a whizzer cone just has 2 membranes that are physically connected on a single voice coil. A coaxial unit combines 2 drivers (2 separate voice coils) to cover the whole audio spectrum.MJK said:
A watt is a watt ?? Beginner.. is all I can politely say.
Whole Single Driver thing is, as noted a Myth... Lowthers are still y be inadequate tro the task'best of Breed' and these have.. proven.. over several decades to simply be inadequate to the purpose they are sold for.
This has always been 'underdog' territory, where individuals derive some perverse pleasure in going against what most others have long since discarded as a dead end road.
The tryany of non conformism seemingly lies heavy here.
Whole Single Driver thing is, as noted a Myth... Lowthers are still y be inadequate tro the task'best of Breed' and these have.. proven.. over several decades to simply be inadequate to the purpose they are sold for.
This has always been 'underdog' territory, where individuals derive some perverse pleasure in going against what most others have long since discarded as a dead end road.
The tryany of non conformism seemingly lies heavy here.
Beginner? Perhaps compared to some on here, and obviously to someone such as yourself whose sarcastically curt remark reeks of snobbery.Bare said:
1W of class d power is capable of producing the same sound from a driver as 1W of class ab power as 1W of SE triode power but the way each does it is clearly different.
There are plenty of full range drivers out there that most people would say have proven to be more than adequate at doing what they were intended to do.
On the contrary, free thinking abounds and people choose to listen to what they think sounds best (and fits their budget!).Bare said:
Bare said:
I have to agree that you certainly aren't putting your best foot forward. However...........
As for the question about watts, even experts disagree on many aspects of amplification. Perhaps you would be so kind as to share some of the specific insights garnered after so many years of experience.
I don't believe that the "Whole Single Driver thing is, as noted a Myth" any more than I think that:
"This has always been 'underdog' territory, where individuals derive some perverse pleasure in going against what most others have long since discarded as a dead end road.".
It's kind of like tube amps in the late 60's, the progressive elements switched over to transistors and later abandoned Vinyl as they proudly marched to the "New Jerusalem" of sound reproduction.
Finally you stated: "The tryany of non conformism seemingly lies heavy here."
I think that we're both in agreement, and "everyone knows", that the "freedom of absolute conformity" is what society needs in order to progress.
Best Regards,
TerryO
Just to add fuel to the fire.
From my understanding Lowthers are very demanding drivers to use and can not be described as the ultimate Fullrange driver. I personnally think that the peak of Fullrange achievement was achieved back in the 60's when low powered Tube amps were still common. I'am thinking of many of the German drivers. I have a pair of oval Isophons which are in mass loaded voight pipes. They go down deep and powerful to probably about 30hz and could work without tweeters. I choose to tickle in a tweeter (Isophon Cone tweeter) at about 10kHz.
The only drawback is that they are physically big and they do beam slightly. They play louder than I can bare without breaking up.
Multi driver speakers need very careful modelling and optimisation to give of there best, then the components in the crossover need to be top quality and individually selected. I would hazard a guess that many of the diy multi-way speakers never quite match the challenge of this complex process and as such have more quirks than a well designed diy fullrange speaker. Put another way, fullrange projects are easier to get right than diy multi-ways.
These vintage of drivers were the absolute peak of speaker engineering and I think that modern fullrange drivers are only just getting to where they were a long time ago. I have found that 7-10Watts is more than adequate for these vintage drivers - which makes well designed tube amps easy. I have found that even relatively cheap drivers of this vintage can outperform modern drivers.
My ultimate conclusion would be that for the average DIYer (which most of us are) the road to Fullrange is a more satisfying and easier one.
Shoog
From my understanding Lowthers are very demanding drivers to use and can not be described as the ultimate Fullrange driver. I personnally think that the peak of Fullrange achievement was achieved back in the 60's when low powered Tube amps were still common. I'am thinking of many of the German drivers. I have a pair of oval Isophons which are in mass loaded voight pipes. They go down deep and powerful to probably about 30hz and could work without tweeters. I choose to tickle in a tweeter (Isophon Cone tweeter) at about 10kHz.
The only drawback is that they are physically big and they do beam slightly. They play louder than I can bare without breaking up.
Multi driver speakers need very careful modelling and optimisation to give of there best, then the components in the crossover need to be top quality and individually selected. I would hazard a guess that many of the diy multi-way speakers never quite match the challenge of this complex process and as such have more quirks than a well designed diy fullrange speaker. Put another way, fullrange projects are easier to get right than diy multi-ways.
These vintage of drivers were the absolute peak of speaker engineering and I think that modern fullrange drivers are only just getting to where they were a long time ago. I have found that 7-10Watts is more than adequate for these vintage drivers - which makes well designed tube amps easy. I have found that even relatively cheap drivers of this vintage can outperform modern drivers.
My ultimate conclusion would be that for the average DIYer (which most of us are) the road to Fullrange is a more satisfying and easier one.
Shoog
Hi,
even more fuel
Imo are Lowthers close to crap -some nice design ideas, yes, but a resultant speaker thats sonic virtues can just be used with very specific music. Anything aside that just is terrorizing the ears.
Btw. could a driver with an upper bandwidth limit of ~10kHz really be called FR??
A far better sounding solution can be found with the AERs, but still even those lack when it comes to resolution from the upper-mid freq-range on as do all others FR-drivers.
I agree that You can get results easier with an full-range concept simply because of its simplicity (and honestly imo 95% of the DIYers lack the equipment as well as the knowledge to design a good multiple-driver speaker), but You still will not get excellent results, because of the severe limitations of dynamic FR-drivers. Imo each and every dynamic (so called) FR-driver needs a partner at the lower or the upper end to achieve real FR-bandwidth. The only consequent solution is imo to leave the dynamic path and look at other concepts of generating sound, for eg electrostats
jauu
Calvin
even more fuel
Imo are Lowthers close to crap -some nice design ideas, yes, but a resultant speaker thats sonic virtues can just be used with very specific music. Anything aside that just is terrorizing the ears.
Btw. could a driver with an upper bandwidth limit of ~10kHz really be called FR?? A far better sounding solution can be found with the AERs, but still even those lack when it comes to resolution from the upper-mid freq-range on as do all others FR-drivers.
I agree that You can get results easier with an full-range concept simply because of its simplicity (and honestly imo 95% of the DIYers lack the equipment as well as the knowledge to design a good multiple-driver speaker), but You still will not get excellent results, because of the severe limitations of dynamic FR-drivers. Imo each and every dynamic (so called) FR-driver needs a partner at the lower or the upper end to achieve real FR-bandwidth. The only consequent solution is imo to leave the dynamic path and look at other concepts of generating sound, for eg electrostats
jauu
Calvin
Interestingly enough, Ted Jordan produced an electrostatic speaker back in the 1950s for Goodmans.
I don't think there is an 'ultimate' fullrange driver and you have to accept there are compromises and decide where your priorities lie. A recent demo of a £22k Linn system was educational - huge dynamics and depth of bass but to me it sounded flat. It was interesting that they were demonstrating it with rock musc and had to hunt around their CD collection when I asked to hear some acoustic music.
Using the Jordan in GM's MLTL, I get the midrange delicacy I want with good bass and treble for acoustic and symphonic music. It won't go as loud or as high as other systems and it definitely has it's own character in the treble. Comparing it with a two-way Jordan system, crossing at 500Hz and using the old JX53, the two-way went higher and was more delicate in the HF but lacked the holographic imaging of the JX92. So until I come across something better, I'll take the imaging over the smoother treble. (I haven't heard Jim's 92/ribbon combination - anyone here in the UK planning to build them?)
I'm sure Ted would be first to admit that the JX92 is a compromise as it's engineered in the real world. Ditto the Lowthers, which have a different set of criteria.
I don't think there is an 'ultimate' fullrange driver and you have to accept there are compromises and decide where your priorities lie. A recent demo of a £22k Linn system was educational - huge dynamics and depth of bass but to me it sounded flat. It was interesting that they were demonstrating it with rock musc and had to hunt around their CD collection when I asked to hear some acoustic music.
Using the Jordan in GM's MLTL, I get the midrange delicacy I want with good bass and treble for acoustic and symphonic music. It won't go as loud or as high as other systems and it definitely has it's own character in the treble. Comparing it with a two-way Jordan system, crossing at 500Hz and using the old JX53, the two-way went higher and was more delicate in the HF but lacked the holographic imaging of the JX92. So until I come across something better, I'll take the imaging over the smoother treble. (I haven't heard Jim's 92/ribbon combination - anyone here in the UK planning to build them?)
I'm sure Ted would be first to admit that the JX92 is a compromise as it's engineered in the real world. Ditto the Lowthers, which have a different set of criteria.
The following quotes were selected because they expressed the sentiment of several posters and are not intended to single out any one individual.
Yes a watt is a watt and for a continuous signal a driver capable of 94 dB per watt at 1 m will produce the required output independent of amp type. But music is not a nice even continuous signal and a speaker is not a nice constant 8 ohm resistance.
I have analyzed several hybrid transmission line/back loaded horn designs over the past few months. Some of these designs are the best I have ever seen. But each has a similar impedence curve, huge multiple peaks approaching 40 to 80 ohms between 20 and 200 Hz. Each peak comes with a rapid phase shift. If you have an amp with 5 watts available into 8 ohms, how much of an impact on the music's dynamics is this going to play. It is not the average SPL, it is the ability of playing the dynamics where much higher short term bursts of power are required.
To draw an analogy, I look back at the range of cars I have owned in the past 30 years. The lowest powered car was a nice little Datsun (before they were Nissan) that got 35 mpg around town and 45 on the highway. Great little car, filled it once a month. The most powerful was a small SUV that could spin the rear wheels on dry pavement, drank gas and I had to fill it frequently. Both cars would do the speed limit all day long. But which one would you want to drive on a back road when trying to pass farmer Jones on his tractor pulling a hay wagon? No substitute for raw power.
In my opinion, if you are pairing a full range driver with a low powered tube or T amp you are making a huge compromise right out of the gate that you might not be able to overcome. Maybe this combination has the best pure midrange sound but the penalty will come trying to produce low bass. I believe that a lot of these amps roll off the bass below 100 Hz or just do not have the reserve power to produce the required transient bass against the high speaker system's impedance peaks.
Lowther owners are by far the most suffering full range driver users I have ever encountered. Reading the forums you see all kinds of wild enclosure designs attempting to extract decent bass performance. Then they add a sub to the system, why bother with the complex enclosure if you use a sub? You see people swapping amps and cables every few months in search of the magic recipe. Most people describe the results as shouty and ear fatiguing. I know because I have heard this effect in my own systems. But if you use a high powered SS amp, a correction circuit, and a simple ML TL enclosure I believe all of these issues are resolved. You have probably experienced the purists approach and not been impressed, all I can say is try the other approach and see what you think. You will be amazed at the difference.
.
OK, how wide of a frequency range is required. Probably depends on the music I guess. But for my application, acoustic jazz, how low does the bass go and how high do I need to extend. Bass to 40 Hz seems adequate and since I am older I don't feel the need for a super tweeter to fill in the response above 12 to 15 kHz. If you look at some of the measurements of very expensive multi way systems in Stereophile I think that you will find not a one that produces 20 Hz to 20 kHz. Most roll -off at 60 Hz or higher for the bass and at about 12 kHz for the top end. I am not sure that the ultimate goal of a ruler flat response from 20 Hz to 20 kHz is achievable or required. The minute you put the speaker in a room your response, per this criteria, is very poor. I think you are fooling yourself is you think there are many speakers (if any) that reach this goal.
One last point. If you are comparing a multi way speaker with a full range system, it should be for similar diameter drivers. Compare the 8" full range with the 8" two way. Comparing an 8" full range with a 10" or 12" three way is an apples to oranges test, even the 8" two way would fall short. Compare equivalent priced systems, even though a Lowther is expensive by the time you buy an 8" mid bass, a tweeter, and the crossover parts the prices will probably be close to the same
Yes a watt is a watt and for a continuous signal a driver capable of 94 dB per watt at 1 m will produce the required output independent of amp type. But music is not a nice even continuous signal and a speaker is not a nice constant 8 ohm resistance.
I have analyzed several hybrid transmission line/back loaded horn designs over the past few months. Some of these designs are the best I have ever seen. But each has a similar impedence curve, huge multiple peaks approaching 40 to 80 ohms between 20 and 200 Hz. Each peak comes with a rapid phase shift. If you have an amp with 5 watts available into 8 ohms, how much of an impact on the music's dynamics is this going to play. It is not the average SPL, it is the ability of playing the dynamics where much higher short term bursts of power are required.
To draw an analogy, I look back at the range of cars I have owned in the past 30 years. The lowest powered car was a nice little Datsun (before they were Nissan) that got 35 mpg around town and 45 on the highway. Great little car, filled it once a month. The most powerful was a small SUV that could spin the rear wheels on dry pavement, drank gas and I had to fill it frequently. Both cars would do the speed limit all day long. But which one would you want to drive on a back road when trying to pass farmer Jones on his tractor pulling a hay wagon? No substitute for raw power.
In my opinion, if you are pairing a full range driver with a low powered tube or T amp you are making a huge compromise right out of the gate that you might not be able to overcome. Maybe this combination has the best pure midrange sound but the penalty will come trying to produce low bass. I believe that a lot of these amps roll off the bass below 100 Hz or just do not have the reserve power to produce the required transient bass against the high speaker system's impedance peaks.
Lowther owners are by far the most suffering full range driver users I have ever encountered. Reading the forums you see all kinds of wild enclosure designs attempting to extract decent bass performance. Then they add a sub to the system, why bother with the complex enclosure if you use a sub? You see people swapping amps and cables every few months in search of the magic recipe. Most people describe the results as shouty and ear fatiguing. I know because I have heard this effect in my own systems. But if you use a high powered SS amp, a correction circuit, and a simple ML TL enclosure I believe all of these issues are resolved. You have probably experienced the purists approach and not been impressed, all I can say is try the other approach and see what you think. You will be amazed at the difference.
.
OK, how wide of a frequency range is required. Probably depends on the music I guess. But for my application, acoustic jazz, how low does the bass go and how high do I need to extend. Bass to 40 Hz seems adequate and since I am older I don't feel the need for a super tweeter to fill in the response above 12 to 15 kHz. If you look at some of the measurements of very expensive multi way systems in Stereophile I think that you will find not a one that produces 20 Hz to 20 kHz. Most roll -off at 60 Hz or higher for the bass and at about 12 kHz for the top end. I am not sure that the ultimate goal of a ruler flat response from 20 Hz to 20 kHz is achievable or required. The minute you put the speaker in a room your response, per this criteria, is very poor. I think you are fooling yourself is you think there are many speakers (if any) that reach this goal.
One last point. If you are comparing a multi way speaker with a full range system, it should be for similar diameter drivers. Compare the 8" full range with the 8" two way. Comparing an 8" full range with a 10" or 12" three way is an apples to oranges test, even the 8" two way would fall short. Compare equivalent priced systems, even though a Lowther is expensive by the time you buy an 8" mid bass, a tweeter, and the crossover parts the prices will probably be close to the same
I think it goes without saying that, among the experienced full range crowd, a helper tweeter or a helper subwoofer is essential. I personally think helper tweeter's are the way to go. The advantage of this approach is that the helper tweeter can be crossed in outside of the critical hearing range,. and with a simple cap. I have nothing against a baffle step correction circuit as well.
Find me anyone who religiously sticks to the single driver philosphy and I will be very surprised. Accept this fact and the argument can move on.
Shoog
Find me anyone who religiously sticks to the single driver philosphy and I will be very surprised. Accept this fact and the argument can move on.
Shoog
Oh I dunno - been building speakers since the late 70s, been through multi-way and am now happy with fullrange without a super tweeter. Agree that adding a sub is a good route though and gives more flexibility and output for the fulranger.
Actually Ted Jordan says he prefers wide bandwidth rather than fullrange as a term. His new JXR6 goes a different route again, having been designed from the HF down but with a driver for bass (below 150-250Hz) being a requirement.
It all depends how important the midrange is to you - the coherence and imaging of the wide ranger is something I wouldn't now throw away for extra extension at the frequency extremes. BUT - my room ain't huge and I rarely listen to rock or at unrealistic volume levels.
Another little anecdote - a demo at a hifi manufacturer's a year or so ago was completely skewed by the presence of a pair of old Lowther enclosures. They were corner loading Acoustas and so old they were designed to reflect the sound off the back wall. Everyone wanted to know what they were and they sounded more limited but much nicer than the multi-ways on demonstration. (I think I was probably the only one there who recognised them but then I don't read the hi-fi press much these days.)
Actually Ted Jordan says he prefers wide bandwidth rather than fullrange as a term. His new JXR6 goes a different route again, having been designed from the HF down but with a driver for bass (below 150-250Hz) being a requirement.
It all depends how important the midrange is to you - the coherence and imaging of the wide ranger is something I wouldn't now throw away for extra extension at the frequency extremes. BUT - my room ain't huge and I rarely listen to rock or at unrealistic volume levels.
Another little anecdote - a demo at a hifi manufacturer's a year or so ago was completely skewed by the presence of a pair of old Lowther enclosures. They were corner loading Acoustas and so old they were designed to reflect the sound off the back wall. Everyone wanted to know what they were and they sounded more limited but much nicer than the multi-ways on demonstration. (I think I was probably the only one there who recognised them but then I don't read the hi-fi press much these days.)
Ah, there you got me. My hearing doesn't reach 20kHz but I can hear the difference when a tweeter is added (or, come to that, the difference between the HF of the JX92 and the JXR6 from Jordan). There are technical reasons why adding a tweeter has some disadvantages as well as some advantages. I'd like to hear Jim's Jordan/ribbon sometime to see if it overcomes my prejudices.
MJK said:
AH.. but then consider how a typical SET tube amp (output impeadance "tap" dependent) reacts with an increase in impeadance. Additionally of course you'll need to look at the current capability of the amplifier - which if inadequete may provide more bass due to the impeadance interaction, at again the cost of dynamic variations in spl. So in this instance bass (actually upper bass lower midrange) is often not only NOT compromised - its usually "fuller" (with increased spl) at some expense to dampening.
As to T-amps.. well thats entirely dependent on the chip/configuration/power supply. Don't make the mistake of lumping in all T-amps to the lowest powered Tripath chip based amps. Those amps (i.e. Sonic Impact) sound a bit different than the other higher powered versions, (like the UCD modules) AND Sonic Impact was notorius for improperly blocking DC at the input with an undersized capacitor - thus leading to a loss in output below 100 Hz. Even still - I have a 3-way 91 db bass-reflex run fullrange (with only a small value cap on the tweeter), and bass correction on a Sonic Impact - and in fact the lower bass (40 Hz) is probably the best I have ever heard on this speaker even at levels nearing 100 db.
I also don't "buy into" the dynamic contrast argument for most music. Note that most recorded music is VERY compressed dynamically, usually staying within +/- 4db from its average - the exceptions are of course large orchestral works where you could expect crescendos to be +15 db from the average. If you listen at higher average levels - say 90db, (particularly because in a noisy enviorment), then yes you could easily clip a small amplifier with orchestral material and suffer power compression with "soft" clipping amps.
All of this of course is also dependent on the average eff. of the driver and its loading. If you drop the loudspeaker eff. much below 90db - then for the most part you are simply limiting your maximum spl to "medium" loudness (i.e. not "loud").
With all that in mind, I think the argument fails for most everything BUT orchestral material and average loading. Drop the spl much below 90db on average - and then yes, I'll "buy-into" the argument.
With regard to lowthers, similar drivers, and the mis-named appilation of "fullrange"..
The myriad of loading schemes for lowthers are not neccesarily designed to "extend" the freq. response to achieve anything like the ubiquitous definition of a true fullrange response (i.e. 20Hz to 20kHz). In fact there are very few designs trying to extend the driver's response anywhere near its fs (let alone 20 Hz). Most are simply trying to provide an acoustic version of BSC in the mid to lower midrange in conjunction with impeadance gain and a good tube amp. This isn't what they advertise of course (..but you know what they say about believing in advertising).
Ocassionally some try for more - but rarely is to increase extension, rather its "directed" at the upper freq.s trying to achieve a flatter response on-axis (usually with a front horn - a classic example being the TP1).
Nor are these common loading schemes simply directed at improving freq balance from the lower midrange up. A LOT of this is directed at decreasing excursion - and all of the benefits that doing so can provide a driver like a lowther.
Then the question arises - if they aren't striving for true extension and they are adding a sub anyway - whats the point? Why not simply go 3 way OR extend the sub to higher freq.s with a higher slope and a more "shallow" lowpass?
The answer: They have tried and failed. You should well know that among the legion of posts of digruntled lowther driver owners that the topic of low freq. extension with proper "blending" AND without compromising the lowther's strengths is the second most complained of lowther aspect. (..The MOST complained of aspect is the rising response on-axis that can't simply be "toed-out" because of the whizer and its axial response "shaping" that extends to almost 1kHz where the 1-3kHz passband is unlikely to be attenuated at the same rate as freq.s above 3 kHz with "toe-out".)
This then leads to your question/answer of:
"..if you use a high powered SS amp, a correction circuit, and a simple ML TL enclosure I believe all of these issues are resolved."
and this is where you'll get somewhat "curt" responses like:
"A watt is a watt ?? Beginner.. is all I can politely say."
To many people your "corrections" provide the proverbial "one step forward, 3 steps backward". Flat response? Sure. Extended response? Sure. Sounds better - to some extent yes, but otherwise no. In effect the "magic" is gone and it wasn't a freq. response aberation. And THIS is why lowther owners "suffer" - i.e. they have had a taste of "magic" but at the expense of 2 severe flaws and they have found that "correcting" the flaws leads to a loss of the "magic". Does this mean that your approach won't give them the "magic" they crave? No. But based on their past experiences they more than likely reason that it will not provide the magic they crave. Of course in reality each listener would have to experience both approaches to make a serious determination, and unfortunetly that is unlikely to happen for most.
This then poses the question: Have you heard both approaches (i.e. yours AND a very good set amp with back loaded horn)?
To perhaps eluduciate on the "magic" aspect of "fullrange" drivers and loading vs. "passive" eq. alteration please consider the subjective comments of Tony Gee's experiences with the fostex 206e:
http://www.humblehomemadehifi.com/Solo206.html
A few things to note here:
1. the "eq." here is only for the upper midrange and compared to a BSC eq. - has comparitivly small component values (..i.e. its likely to have less effect on sound quality than what you propose).
2. the tube amp was likely to be of lesser quality than a very good SET amplifier, and probably a bit less reactive to impeadance. (I'd expect the middle of the midrange to be slightly depressed with this design as a result).
3. the "whizzer" of the 206e is smaller, with a more linear "tapper" off-axis than the lowther. (i.e. "toe-out" is more effective with this driver than the lowther).
The far side
Hi,
oh boy, was this combination a pleasure to listen to and it was for the very first time that I thought on giving up on building electrostats
That´s the high end of dynamic FR that shows You how far You could come
FR-driver AER in a kind of ´horny´ open baffle, without any EQing between the AER and the fabulous KR VA320 SET (~20W). Accompanying dipole-bass with a quad of 10" per side. Active crossover @150Hz and a high power stage for the bass. As vinyl source the big MusicalLife with an Koetsu Urushi.
when You´ve heard this driver, You´ll never again waste any thought on Lowther crap
This baffle looks like a horn but doesn´t give any funktion other than that of an open baffle. But surely optics and stability are worth the effort
Driving a high-SPL FR with such babies (and cutting bass off) can be a fantastic sounding solution.
jauu
Calvin
Hi,
oh boy, was this combination a pleasure to listen to and it was for the very first time that I thought on giving up on building electrostats
That´s the high end of dynamic FR that shows You how far You could come An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
FR-driver AER in a kind of ´horny´ open baffle, without any EQing between the AER and the fabulous KR VA320 SET (~20W). Accompanying dipole-bass with a quad of 10" per side. Active crossover @150Hz and a high power stage for the bass. As vinyl source the big MusicalLife with an Koetsu Urushi.
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
when You´ve heard this driver, You´ll never again waste any thought on Lowther crap
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
This baffle looks like a horn but doesn´t give any funktion other than that of an open baffle. But surely optics and stability are worth the effort
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
Driving a high-SPL FR with such babies (and cutting bass off) can be a fantastic sounding solution.
jauu
Calvin
jdybnis said:
Nope. It goes audibly higher than the JX92 and measures to 30kHz, which takes it well into super tweeter territory. It has the sort of natural sound you get from a good electrostatic.
BTW, one thing which alluded to by Shoog's comments earlier is the amount of development which has gone into fullrange drivers since the 60s. Apart from a few honorable exceptions (Lowther, Jordan, Fostex etc) the rest of the industry has concentrated on multiway systems, for whatever reason (probably commercial). Even the ubiquitous dome tweeter (a horrible device if ever there was one) has received more attention. Lowther has developed its line by careful increments over the years, Jordan has pushed into new areas but has difficulty getting mainstream manufacturers to invest in his ideas. If the industry heavyweights had put resources into a wide bandwidth, single cone driver, I wonder where the state of the art would be now?
The reason is Physics. The parameters for bass reproduction are diametrically opposed to those for treble reproduction.
They did. Which is why we have some terrific, state of the art headphones. Which is exactly where a fullrange driver belongs.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with using a "fullrange" as a midrange, like MJK, etc. suggest, since that is exactly what they are. Incapable of good bass or treble reproduction, they can certainly cover a wide enough region to get most of the music,
but utterly improbable to produce it all - in high fidelity, in a living room, as opposed to earbuds.
Good thing there are a trillion woofer/subwoofers and tweeter/supertweeters - whatever you want to call them, to "help" as suggested (as if a tweeter in a good old "3-way" is unhelpful or just outright antisocial?). If it's blasphemy to call that a 2-way or 3-way, so be it.
cheers,
AJ
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.