Where does "fullrange" end and "two-way" start?

[keladrin]

Originally posted by AJinFLA

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.


AJ

I disagree with this statement completely - think a full-range has a definite place in the hi-fi market. If you look at most popular standmounts they rarely go below 45Hz. This is well within the -3db range of a good full-range such as Jordan. The performs well up to 15KHz (the limit of most people's hearing) and offers imaging second only to headphones. I have lived with full-range drivers for 26 years, periodically reverting to 2 or 3 way systems for comparison - these just don't offer the 'natural' sound.

The Jordan manages to 'bend' the rules of physics because of its tailored flex, presenting an 'optimum' diameter for each frequency and easily outperforming standard cone speakers at all frequencies above 45hz.

Even my 3-way system needs bass-support below 35 Hz and this is what a sub-woofer is for. The only alternative is reverting back to the days of massive cabinets with 12 inch woofers - they would not even fit in most modern rooms.

I will be looking at the JX6/subwoofer combination next - agreed the treble will be slightly clearer (but maybe not the imaging).

[felixx]

I look deep and I'm 100% that 4 drivers is Peerless 10" SLS.
Calvin achieved 25 hz....but the Fs on SLS is only 28...on paper.
In other link's is 33hz.
I think is needed a lot of boosting and eq.
I don't know about how is doing in "xmax. terms".
Thoughts?

[KimBOlesen]

Hi

I have for some time now thought of skipping my BLH with FE168EZ and try using the FE168EZ with a Front horn and using a dipole (sub)woofer for covering the low end.

Is it possible to place a subwoofer dipole close to a back wall? (and offcourse have a good result )


Best regards

Kim Olesen

[felixx]

A dipole woofer or sub.....need space .
It needed at list 90cm to the back wall.

[navin]

Originally posted by keladrin

I disagree with this statement completely - think a full-range has a definite place in the hi-fi market. ...I have lived with full-range drivers for 26 years, periodically reverting to 2 or 3 way systems for comparison - these just don't offer the 'natural' sound.

The Jordan manages to 'bend' the rules of physics because of its tailored flex, presenting an 'optimum' diameter for each frequency and easily outperforming standard cone speakers at all frequencies above 45hz.

I will be looking at the JX6/subwoofer combination next - agreed the treble will be slightly clearer (but maybe not the imaging).

Dont most fullrange drivers need some help at either extreme (below 100hz or above 10kHz)? I'm told that Jim Griffin in fact crosses over the JX92 to a G2Si as low as 3kHz.

Other than Jordan (JX92 etc...), Fostex (FE167, 108/103, etc..) I dont know of many widely accepted (can the Manger and Lowther be considered as widely accepted) fullrange drivers ither than the 3" HiVi, Tangband, or Aura drivers.

The Jordan JX6 too could have the same limitations of other 3" fullrange drivers esp when it comes to bass response.

Which drivers of the ones you have used you find offer the most natual sound?

I am leaning towards using a fullrange with a helper such as the JX92 with the G2si (or maybe even a FE167 mated to a FT96H) and a 12" woofer to cover evreything below 60Hz.

[keladrin]

In my opinion, if a driver goes substantially below 80Hz (the limit of directional bass) then it is sufficient. Using a small to medium driver also offers the advantage of sensible cabinet sizes.

The JX6 just makes this figure, but cutting it this fine may mean you lose some bass dynamics/impact.

The Jordan easily competes with many small woofers out there, usid in medium/small enclosures. Take a look at the Acoustic Energy Aegis Evo 1, for instance - this is a renouned standmount but the spec at 45Hz is worse than the Jordan in a similar box.

Regarding the top end - I think the only question is concerning the sharper dropoff from axis compared to others. This does afford remarkable imaging but also a less splashy top end, that can be an acquired taste if you are used to domed tweeters. With the correct toe in and preamplifier adjustments this is not really a problem, and could be considered an advantage. The ribbon tweeters do offer a smoother, cleaner response at the expense of imaging - you are getting full dispersion again, rather than controlled dispersion. The top end is really a matter of taste.