'Bout a single full range driver; crossover-less? ...Free of any mechanical/electrical impediments/detriments.
...Like a piano for example.
...Like a piano for example.
Piano is a 88 way system
I think piano has total 88 speakers because each string has its own sound.
I believe the piano is pure multi way system. 🙂
Also, the string is very thin so it has very wide directivity.
I think piano has total 88 speakers because each string has its own sound.
I believe the piano is pure multi way system. 🙂
Also, the string is very thin so it has very wide directivity.
You mean using a wave guide (horn) to tweeter ?
What I know is that ;
Horn raises the impedance of air so that the efficiency of driver is incresed.
Accordingly, if the horn is used for tweeter, it can maintain the dB in lower frequency.
So, the p.o.c. can be lowered below 2kHz with plain tweeters.
So, do you mean when the upper frequancy is not satisfactory for 6.5" mid, use a wave-guide for lowering the p.o.c. ?
The 6.5 driver has two advantages: lower crossover at the low end, and lower Q peak at the breakup frequency at the high end if a curved profile cone is used. Just a thought based on experience; you experts can argue about why there are a bunch of good systems out there with larger mids. I like 'em, you can go ahead and hate 'em. I prefer music to jabberish.
I would like to hear more about the 6.5" has an advantage for lowering crossover at the low end.
In 2 way, 6.5", 5" and even 4" are used.
And all of them can handle below 100Hz.
Let me assume the crossover at the low end is around 300~400Hz which is typical of 3 ways.
If the drivers should possible to handle at least one octave from crossover point, the midrange should handle below 150~200Hz.
The 4" can even handle below 100Hz, so how do you expect it handles 150~200Hz ?
Then, how do you expect 5"...
I know many good 3 way systems have 6.5" mids.
I'm not disagree the fact.
What I would like to know is the criteria for choosing 6.5" rather than 5" as a mids in 3 way.
If all of the other parameters and measurements are good, criteria is:
- high sensitivity
- presentation of sound
The latter is the thing nobody seems to focus on in this thread. The same frequency range (say 350-2200 Hz) played by 6.5" midrange will sound quite different from 5" or 4" (presuming that all of the speakers compared have low enough distortion and flat frequency response). Larger surface, little heavier membrane etc. will yield different sound.
I personally don't like the sound of 4" midrange. It feels to me like something's missing all the time.
Now, if you are trying to cover up larger frequency range with one midrange and don't need high sensitivity, smaller midrange might be a better option. But even then i would rather use two midrange units to cover larger frequency range - kinda what Linkwitz did in LX521. Other option is one larger midrange with waveguide so you can crossover lover - and that is something i am working on at the moment (B&C DE250-8 + 18sound xt1086 and B&C 6MD38 for midrange)
- high sensitivity
- presentation of sound
The latter is the thing nobody seems to focus on in this thread. The same frequency range (say 350-2200 Hz) played by 6.5" midrange will sound quite different from 5" or 4" (presuming that all of the speakers compared have low enough distortion and flat frequency response). Larger surface, little heavier membrane etc. will yield different sound.
I personally don't like the sound of 4" midrange. It feels to me like something's missing all the time.
Now, if you are trying to cover up larger frequency range with one midrange and don't need high sensitivity, smaller midrange might be a better option. But even then i would rather use two midrange units to cover larger frequency range - kinda what Linkwitz did in LX521. Other option is one larger midrange with waveguide so you can crossover lover - and that is something i am working on at the moment (B&C DE250-8 + 18sound xt1086 and B&C 6MD38 for midrange)
Last edited:
A low crossover point to a woofer of 200Hz or so due to a number of valid woofer design choices would mean a more conventional sized midrange would struggle with SPL and distortion. Making the midrange more efficient to match the woofer/s and tweeter is also a common reason to go bigger particularly if one is considering drivers that are midwoofers rather than midranges.
Their is a price to pay crossing to the tweeter but there are things that can be done like waveguides, upper midrange drivers, low crossover points, etc... juggling pros and cons like this is what makes designing speakers interesting.
That's what I have waited !
Someone tells "the size of sound image".
I'm not sure if it is the same with your "presentation of sound" though.
The someone said that, the larger the midrange, the bigger the sound image.
And if the size is the same, the double mids have bigger sound image than the single one.
What do you think about it ?
I think that we're on the same page here.
I believe that it is not the same if we use two midrange units that have the same surface and similar other parameters to one midrange with bigger membrane - but unfortunately i have no data to back this up. I would need access to a large amount of midrange units to do the listening and measuring tests and see for myself if there are advantages for one over other
For me it goes down to:
- price: 2 smaller units to get the sensitivity of bigger unit against price of 1 bigger unit. Usually it is cheaper to buy one bigger midrange.
- looks: I can't imagine 2 midrange (excluding d'appolito configuration) looking better than one midrange unit in loudspeaker box.
- source of sound: I prefer having as few as i can sources of sound from one speaker front pannel. This is not a problem if you listen from further distance.
What i can guess is - i listened 40Hz bass from 8" woofer and from 15" woofer at absolutelly same SPL and i prefered the 15". If there is that much difference so low where our ear is not as sensitive as is at 1KHz-5KHz i think that there will be difference between midrange units too.
But i can't be sure of anything without experimenting so i don't exclude that 2 smaller midrange units can sound like one bigger midrange unit.
Last edited:
There is similar discussions at PE Tech Talk, about midranges
Advantages and disadvantages of wideband midrange in 3 way design
Dave Pellegrine has a nice double wg design here - wg for a TB 75mm dome
Deltalite II 2512- TB75 1558-AudaxTW25A8 Combo Waveguide
I think that 4-5" midranges sound and image better than 6,5-8" midwoofers. The real point of using a midrange is lost if it is too big! A small mid gives excellently smooth dispersion both horizontally and vertically. A waveguide design has much more directivity and often not so even either. 6½ or bigger drivers also have worse cone breakup resonance (also lower in Fq) that smaller ones.
Troels Gravesen has some nice 3-ways like this new one. ScanSpeak-3W-Discovery It is a shame that directivity measurements are not shown.
He has done even better with this one Ekta-Grande
Advantages and disadvantages of wideband midrange in 3 way design
Dave Pellegrine has a nice double wg design here - wg for a TB 75mm dome
Deltalite II 2512- TB75 1558-AudaxTW25A8 Combo Waveguide
I think that 4-5" midranges sound and image better than 6,5-8" midwoofers. The real point of using a midrange is lost if it is too big! A small mid gives excellently smooth dispersion both horizontally and vertically. A waveguide design has much more directivity and often not so even either. 6½ or bigger drivers also have worse cone breakup resonance (also lower in Fq) that smaller ones.
Troels Gravesen has some nice 3-ways like this new one. ScanSpeak-3W-Discovery It is a shame that directivity measurements are not shown.
He has done even better with this one Ekta-Grande
Last edited:
This is debatable. Some of the drawbacks that you specify are your personal opinion you are entitled to, but the ones that are of a technical nature can be overcome simply by carefully choosing the midrange units and waveguides and some of them can be dealth with by making a good xover.
These are cone breakups and resonances in B&C 6md38. You can compare it to 5" driver measurements from John Krutke's website.
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
Last edited:
I would use a 6.5" mid-woofer if I want better detail in the upper bass region (80Hz~200Hz).
The early Watt/Puppy used a 6.5" mid-woofer. The Watt/Puppy 7 now have a larger 7" with a crossover of approx 2kHz to the tweeter.
Regards
Mike
Wilson WattPuppy measurements, including directivity here SoundStageNetwork.com | SoundStage.com | Loudspeakers
When a large mid is used without a waveguide, horizontal directivity is poor between 3-5kHz, but usually there is vertical lobing int hte same regions. This is easily seen in the measurements above. Just compare horizontal on-axis, directivity and listening window (which includes vertical up to 15¤)
However, this kind of varying directivity is compromised - sound changes when the listener moves and the speaker is critical to room placement.
The present mantra of good loudspeaker design aims to very clean on-axis and smoothly increasing direcivity. This approach has been proven to sound generally best in various listening tests and reveiws. The degree of optimal directivity index (slope) is debatable and also room-dependent. Read Geddes paper http://www.gedlee.com/downloads/directivity.pdf
I know that many people disagree with the statement I quoted and guidelines of Geddes. But most agree. We will never reach total agreement, because people have different priorities and tastes of stereo sound. A thread http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/multi-way/103872-geddes-waveguides.html
Here is an old thread about directivity http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/multi-way/195124-what-ideal-directivity-pattern-stereo-speakers.html
When a large mid is used without a waveguide, horizontal directivity is poor between 3-5kHz, but usually there is vertical lobing int hte same regions. This is easily seen in the measurements above. Just compare horizontal on-axis, directivity and listening window (which includes vertical up to 15¤)
However, this kind of varying directivity is compromised - sound changes when the listener moves and the speaker is critical to room placement.
The present mantra of good loudspeaker design aims to very clean on-axis and smoothly increasing direcivity. This approach has been proven to sound generally best in various listening tests and reveiws. The degree of optimal directivity index (slope) is debatable and also room-dependent. Read Geddes paper http://www.gedlee.com/downloads/directivity.pdf
I know that many people disagree with the statement I quoted and guidelines of Geddes. But most agree. We will never reach total agreement, because people have different priorities and tastes of stereo sound. A thread http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/multi-way/103872-geddes-waveguides.html
Here is an old thread about directivity http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/multi-way/195124-what-ideal-directivity-pattern-stereo-speakers.html
If you cross it lower (say 2KHz) then you don't have to worry about directivity of 6,5" at 3-5KHz.
From Soundstage measurements, one can study measurements of many different speaker types. It is easy to look at differencies in the speakers of same manufacturer, eg. Revel, Dynaudio, PSB
Here are 0-15¤ measurements. Differencies are greater at large angles.
Directivity of a typical 6½" 2-way without waveguide (a small one), Revel Concerta M12
A 2-way 6½" with waveguide Amphion Argon2
A 3-way with 5" mid Revel F12
Here are 0-15¤ measurements. Differencies are greater at large angles.
Directivity of a typical 6½" 2-way without waveguide (a small one), Revel Concerta M12
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
A 2-way 6½" with waveguide Amphion Argon2
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
A 3-way with 5" mid Revel F12
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
Last edited:
To some extent yes, but look at above, there are differencies!
Please read these reviews of two níce 3-ways with small mids. Midrange clarity and purity and imaging is praised. Distortion is not a problem.
Magico S5 Magico S5 Loudspeaker | Stereophile.com
Vivid audio Giya G3 Vivid Audio Giya G3 loudspeaker | Stereophile.com
And here again my measurements of MarkK ER18DXT - a 6½" with small waveguide, crossed at 1,8kHz LR2 versus my 3-way proto with 4" mid LR4 at 3.2kHz. I have not saved vertical measurements, but the 3Wproto was better.
Attachments
Last edited:
Geddes uses 8" midrange in Harper with xover point at 1500Hz. He is the first one who will never use a 5" nor 6" midrange but larger midrange with waveguide. Similar to what i want to do with my 6" midrange.
That doesn't mean that smaller midrange units are bad - it just means that every concept has it's advantages and flaws and that there are room for 6", 8", 10" and even a 12" midrange but in right configuration. The best speakers that i have heard so far had 12" (JBL 4355) and 10" (JBL 4345) midrange units crossed over with a horn.
OT: i stumbled uppon a thread of making loudspeakers from your avatar few years ago. Would you be kind enough to give me the link to the building thread ? Thanks, cheers 🙂
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.