Just curious, what are the disadvantages to using a full range driver, rather than a tweeter/woofer combonation? For example, if I used a 3" speaker with a frequency range of 100-20,000 Hz for full range, would sound quality/output be that much different that a typical bookshelf, say 5" woofer/ 1" tweter? (other than the obvious lower freq. range). However, if used in tandem with a powered sub, than this perhaps would be a moot point?
Just asking because I am looking to build a full range speaker using the Tang Band W3-881S 3" driver.
Thanks,
Jeff
Just asking because I am looking to build a full range speaker using the Tang Band W3-881S 3" driver.
Thanks,
Jeff
yoz...I;m not answering your question, as you will see below, but rather I,m also interested in the same project. but with a slightly different driver...check this page out
http://home.new.rr.com/zaph/audio/audio-speaker11.html
I assume it has got to do with reduced power handling...but I suppose it wouldn;t really affect in my application (which is a good pair of speakers for my PC...). I;m having some trouble sourcing such drivers in Singapore too...so if you do know of a good one that does worldwide shipping...lemmi know...
http://home.new.rr.com/zaph/audio/audio-speaker11.html
I assume it has got to do with reduced power handling...but I suppose it wouldn;t really affect in my application (which is a good pair of speakers for my PC...). I;m having some trouble sourcing such drivers in Singapore too...so if you do know of a good one that does worldwide shipping...lemmi know...
The phase cancellation problems of a multi-speaker system tend to color sound by creating a "comb filter" effect at the frequencies near the cross. However, the single driver plan is to let one driver handle the mid/high frequencies to eliminate this and a narrow-range LF driver (banpass boxed sub for example) for the bass. Since hearing is pretty much non-directional below 100Hz, the phase cancellations should be neglible and the comb effect at the crossover should be minimized.
High frequencies would definitely be smoother and more natural with a dedicated tweeter. However, taking into account a price of around ~US$17, that "fullrange" speaker could indeed perform better than a midrange+tweeter+crossover combo costing the same amount.
At higher prices though, I doubt that fullrange speakers can keep up with speakers that are separated into narrower frequency ranges. Otherwise, people would have by now widely given up on using separate tweeters and midranges.
At higher prices though, I doubt that fullrange speakers can keep up with speakers that are separated into narrower frequency ranges. Otherwise, people would have by now widely given up on using separate tweeters and midranges.
I'm a big fan of the full-range driver approach.
Apart from the phase problems at the crossover point, there are problems with dramatic changes in the dispersion characteristics of the different drivers. There are also significant differences in timbre between the cone bass units and dome or ribbon tweeters, often made of a different material.
To make matters worse, the crossover point is generally in the mid-band where our hearing is most sensitive. As Geek has pointed out, these issues are less significant in the bass where wavelengths are longer, hearing is less sensitive and room modes cause large fluctuations in amplitude anyway.
I believe that the main reasons that full-range drivers are not more widely used are:-
1. It's not so easy to manufacture full-range drivers of high quality.
2. The consumer is used to the boom and tizz of conventional speakers and consider that sound to be 'hi-fi'.
3. Most manufacturers are like sheep. Just look at the pictures in any hi-fi magazine.
Good luck with your Tangband speaker, Jeff. One thing though - is the power handling of a single TB adequate for your needs? If not you could use two drivers mounted vertically but as close together as is physically possible.
Apart from the phase problems at the crossover point, there are problems with dramatic changes in the dispersion characteristics of the different drivers. There are also significant differences in timbre between the cone bass units and dome or ribbon tweeters, often made of a different material.
To make matters worse, the crossover point is generally in the mid-band where our hearing is most sensitive. As Geek has pointed out, these issues are less significant in the bass where wavelengths are longer, hearing is less sensitive and room modes cause large fluctuations in amplitude anyway.
I believe that the main reasons that full-range drivers are not more widely used are:-
1. It's not so easy to manufacture full-range drivers of high quality.
2. The consumer is used to the boom and tizz of conventional speakers and consider that sound to be 'hi-fi'.
3. Most manufacturers are like sheep. Just look at the pictures in any hi-fi magazine.
Good luck with your Tangband speaker, Jeff. One thing though - is the power handling of a single TB adequate for your needs? If not you could use two drivers mounted vertically but as close together as is physically possible.
Likewise, people can buy $90 tweeters. Most tweeters work on the same principle as wide-range speakers - ie: they have soft domes, and all of the vibrations are actually partial oscillations which means there are usually lots of underdamped resonances in even the flattest parts of the FR curve. I'm a fan of hard cones and domes so that speaker vibrations are as pistonic as possible. Even if it means that multiple sound sources are needed and that they will interfere with each other. Comb filtering is non-resonant, and is IMO relatively benign in the context of speakers, otherwise nobody would like the sound of line-array loudspeakers.Geek said:Ahhhh, but what if the fullrange is a $90 USD jobbie?
The answer to the question depends much on the full-range driver used and particularly it's size.
If you are lucky will will be able to cover from 90 Hz to around 10K without any crossover and the associated problems described in the previous posts.
In short, I would say that I can't hear any disadvantages but I can see them, if you don't like large sized speakers.
If you are lucky will will be able to cover from 90 Hz to around 10K without any crossover and the associated problems described in the previous posts.
In short, I would say that I can't hear any disadvantages but I can see them, if you don't like large sized speakers.
The full-range speakers that I have seen or used are cones not domes. Many of them, such as Bandors or Jordans, are anodized aluminium, not soft. I believe that the Tangbands are also cones.CeramicMan said:
I'm not sure what you mean when you say that comb filtering is relatively benign. It manifests as a large drop in output at certain frequencies and line-arrays are generally designed to keep it to a minimum. I suggested that, if two TBs were used, they should be mounted as close together as possible because this would minimize comb filtering.
Incidentally, Nuuk, you can do much better than 10kHz with a small full-range driver. I didn't understand your remark about large speakers. Why should they be large?
What I meant was that they tend to be soft and flexible eg: paper Tang Bands, paper is soft and flexible - in the context of frequencies like 5kHz that is; and the Jordan philosophy is to use aluminium that's so thin that their cones are flexible too.7V said:
Though I agree in that if I were to go for a full-range speaker, I'd look for something with a hard cone. Eg: the AuraSound NS3-193-8A, from Madisound and it's priced similarly to the Tang Band one.
Good points, CeramicMan. Personally, I think that the Jordans are too thin and they suffer nasty break-ups as a result. The Bandors though are not as thin and, at the 5kHz frequency quoted, are rigid as anything. The cone contour also contributes to stiffness.CeramicMan said:
Incidentally, as the Bandor drivers are a little thicker than the Jordans, I choose the 4 ohm versions because they have the lowest moving mass. I'm probably over fussy.
Konnichiwa,
Everything is a comromise. Yes, using a fullrange driver instead of a same diameter woofer plus tweeter carries a penalty in some areas and gains in others.
The Fullrange Driver would likely have a much lower maximum SPL (smaller diameter) at low fequencies, less extended and detailed upper treble and I think the point in SPL for complex music (eg large scale classical) where the sound would start to "congest" would be lower than for your postulated Tweeter/Woofer combo.
On the plus side, there is usually a coherence, togetherness and reality to a fullrange system that is highly appealing.
One way around the limitations is of course the kind of system often called "FAST" in Germany, probably best rendered as "Fullrange Assisted". You could use the 3" Fullrange and combine this with a 5" or even 6.5" Woofer (or larger) using a very low crossover point, like 250Hz. If you wanted a higher sensitivity and powerhandling you could use a short line source made out of several of the 3" Drivers (2 - 4 pcs) and combine that with a "serious" woofer.
Both drivers will at least within the crossover region around 250Hz and over a few octaves up and down have a pretty flat frequency and inpedance response, making ths system easily ameanable to a 1st order series crossover with textbook values.
The resulting speaker should have all the positive attributes of a fullrange system but offer the bandwidth and power handling of a classic multiway speaker.
Many, many Years ago I build a similar speaker back in East Germany. This was originally based conceptually on a replica of a commercial speaker then widely sold in East Germany which used a closed basket 6"X4" oval full range driver as "tweeter" and an 8" Woofer in a 20 liter sealed box with a crossover at around 600Hz. These originals did not sound too bad at all, often outperforming expensive imported 2/3/4 Way speakers.
At the time I got the open basked full range version of the same oval driver first from some speakers given to em and started building boxes and picked up cheaply some nice 10" Woofers from russia while on holiday there (the 10" Radiotechnica).
I ended up with a crossover around 300Hz IIRC and a 40 Liter sealed box with a chamber for the "Fullrange" driver and this sounded great for a first DIY Speaker and in fact better than anything what was available commercially then in East Germany.
I went the usual path of HiFi after that alternating between multi-way systems (the most extreme a pair of Coral 5-Way Speakers which however at their core where 3-Way speakers with a wideband midrange and horn supertweeters), Studio Coaxials and Fullrangers.
These days I'm back on Fullrangers for the time being, right now custom made versions of the Supravox Fieldcoil Driver targeted at open baffle operation, supplemented by Subwoofers (REL Quake X 2) and Supertweeters (Visaton TL-16H).
Sayonara
nrgy said:
Everything is a comromise. Yes, using a fullrange driver instead of a same diameter woofer plus tweeter carries a penalty in some areas and gains in others.
nrgy said:
The Fullrange Driver would likely have a much lower maximum SPL (smaller diameter) at low fequencies, less extended and detailed upper treble and I think the point in SPL for complex music (eg large scale classical) where the sound would start to "congest" would be lower than for your postulated Tweeter/Woofer combo.
On the plus side, there is usually a coherence, togetherness and reality to a fullrange system that is highly appealing.
One way around the limitations is of course the kind of system often called "FAST" in Germany, probably best rendered as "Fullrange Assisted". You could use the 3" Fullrange and combine this with a 5" or even 6.5" Woofer (or larger) using a very low crossover point, like 250Hz. If you wanted a higher sensitivity and powerhandling you could use a short line source made out of several of the 3" Drivers (2 - 4 pcs) and combine that with a "serious" woofer.
Both drivers will at least within the crossover region around 250Hz and over a few octaves up and down have a pretty flat frequency and inpedance response, making ths system easily ameanable to a 1st order series crossover with textbook values.
The resulting speaker should have all the positive attributes of a fullrange system but offer the bandwidth and power handling of a classic multiway speaker.
Many, many Years ago I build a similar speaker back in East Germany. This was originally based conceptually on a replica of a commercial speaker then widely sold in East Germany which used a closed basket 6"X4" oval full range driver as "tweeter" and an 8" Woofer in a 20 liter sealed box with a crossover at around 600Hz. These originals did not sound too bad at all, often outperforming expensive imported 2/3/4 Way speakers.
At the time I got the open basked full range version of the same oval driver first from some speakers given to em and started building boxes and picked up cheaply some nice 10" Woofers from russia while on holiday there (the 10" Radiotechnica).
I ended up with a crossover around 300Hz IIRC and a 40 Liter sealed box with a chamber for the "Fullrange" driver and this sounded great for a first DIY Speaker and in fact better than anything what was available commercially then in East Germany.
I went the usual path of HiFi after that alternating between multi-way systems (the most extreme a pair of Coral 5-Way Speakers which however at their core where 3-Way speakers with a wideband midrange and horn supertweeters), Studio Coaxials and Fullrangers.
These days I'm back on Fullrangers for the time being, right now custom made versions of the Supravox Fieldcoil Driver targeted at open baffle operation, supplemented by Subwoofers (REL Quake X 2) and Supertweeters (Visaton TL-16H).
Sayonara
I wouldn't expect to go as low as 70 Hz with a 3 inch full-range driver Steve!
By using the large diameter FR's (10 inch plus) they can run right through the frequency range that contains 95% of the music without having a crossover.Of course I am basing this on using an OB arrangement although I apperciate things change with a box (for the worse
)
When I was at Paul Messenger's getting the speakers reviewed, we noticed that his pen recorder was recording significant output at 20Hz with the Little Awesome bass speakers turned off. This was just with 2" Bandor drivers, although I use four of them each side.Nuuk said:
I wouldn't expect to go as low as 70 Hz with a 3 inch full-range driver Steve!
I see what you mean with the 10" full-rangers. If you visit EAR's factory, you will hear Tim de Paravicini's large box speakers with large full-range drivers. If you're lucky, he'll turn the volume up and take you out of the factory and across the car park to demonstrate how realistic they sound, even at a distance! They had the old drivers with Alnico magnets.
I'd say that large full-rangers are a good way to go.
John K's plans for the TB W3-871S does indeed produce a very smooth sounding system. I've tested it with and without the notch filter and the difference is noticeable. He recommends the sealed designs for increased power handling over vented and in fact doesn't offer a vented design like the Creative Sound Solutions Elf designs. The CSS designs offer a little more bottom end. While John's design does offer better power handling it is still somewhat limited in the single driver configuration. However, if you mate the sealed design with a 5" woofer such as the W5-704S and put in an even order XO at ~500Hz power handling goes way up. I've just started on this particular approach so it'll be a while before I come to any exact conclusions. For a PC speaker it's hard to find anything better than the single W3-871S design. When considering price, performance, size and versatility for use in a low power/near-field application I've not found anything that can touch it.
Combining the John K. W3-871S 0.1ft^3 design with notch filter and a small "subwoofer" creates a PC speaker system without rival in it's price range. John offers a description of a small inexpensive "sub" but there are many to choose from for this application.
Disclaimer: Using the term "subwoofer" in this way is not really accurate but it's become the common venacular.
Disclaimer: Using the term "subwoofer" in this way is not really accurate but it's become the common venacular.
Konnichiwa,
Yes, in those old days of the last millenium when the Great Wall of Berlin was the pride and joy of every citizen (NOT).
A lot of the RFT stuff was actually rather good. We used to joke "RFT = Reicht Fuenf Tage" (lasts 5 days) but there is a lot of classic RFT out there that is more than a few cuts above the average. With some TLC any of the old Heli KG Sensit Series stuff can sound great (especially their valve Kit). The K-20 "Kugellautsprecher" may have had it's problesm but in many ways it too was rather outstanding.
Go RFT Hunting would be my suggestion, especially the better Pro and Semi Pro stuff and a few select generic "HiFi" Models (BR-25/50 I hope I don;t have to mention specifically).
Sayonara
sek said:
Yes, in those old days of the last millenium when the Great Wall of Berlin was the pride and joy of every citizen (NOT).
sek said:I still got some lovely speakers working at home.
RFT standard chassis, though, but nice. They were constructed at home in the mid-80s
A lot of the RFT stuff was actually rather good. We used to joke "RFT = Reicht Fuenf Tage" (lasts 5 days) but there is a lot of classic RFT out there that is more than a few cuts above the average. With some TLC any of the old Heli KG Sensit Series stuff can sound great (especially their valve Kit). The K-20 "Kugellautsprecher" may have had it's problesm but in many ways it too was rather outstanding.
Go RFT Hunting would be my suggestion, especially the better Pro and Semi Pro stuff and a few select generic "HiFi" Models (BR-25/50 I hope I don;t have to mention specifically).
Sayonara
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.