IMO the classic woofer shape (plenty of surface area outside of the dust cap) is inherently superior to a dome. Even with single suspension, the surround has more leverage to prevent the coil from pivoting sideways.
Transverse waves combining at the centre of a dome also seem like a potential problem. A so-called phase plug could be one way to fix that.
Transverse waves combining at the centre of a dome also seem like a potential problem. A so-called phase plug could be one way to fix that.
Well, the way the pioneers looked at it was to XO at the mean between Fs and the VC's diameter, so assuming a 100 Hz Fs, 1" dia. VC, then ~13543/pi/1 = ~4311 Hz, so sqrt(100*4311) = ~657 Hz, ergo in the 6-700 Hz range, but this assumed very little Xmax (~1/8"_3 mm), so factor in today's greater Xmax and it could be (much) lower.
For sure, a sufficiently large baffle would be the simplest acoustical solution for an acoustical problem. 😉
and you have experience yourself with various modern small fullrange?
if so, which fullrange you tried?
Yes, crossovers are evil. But the lower you can put them the better, under 400 Hz, and if the centre-to-centre is less than a quarter-wave at the XO frequency, the more of the evil you shed. Hard to do but if you can achieve that and a first order XO (not easy), they can almost disappear.
dave
atleast crossovers are far less of an evil than using inadequate drivers which are either unsuitable for treble, or bass (depending on size) or unsuitable for both at the same time. 20-20khz = 1000:1
the issue isnt how much experience i have with fullrange drivers, its the fact that a speaker using them are never going to be "good"
would you use a humvee for street racing or a kawasaki? thats basically the point of a 3-way speaker, use the range where you have the parts that are optimized for them. would you use tweeters as subwoofers? no, you shouldnt do the opposite either.
thats a point. but you have 25 drivers + subwoofers. a speaker with 4 could do a lot of that. the dispersion will be different ofcourse.
im mostly refering to the silliness of speakers with 1 driver or 2 drivers and no crossover, and they come with all kinds of absurd prices, riding the myth of "clean signal" or whatever nonsense. regardless of technology they will never work.
im mostly refering to the silliness of speakers with 1 driver or 2 drivers and no crossover, and they come with all kinds of absurd prices, riding the myth of "clean signal" or whatever nonsense. regardless of technology they will never work.
Well, 4 speakers couldn't do all of it because the dispersion is the main reason to do an array like this. 🙂
It does have extra filters to emphasize that goal.
It does have extra filters to emphasize that goal.
I pose a challenge.
A. 2-way with XO made according to diyaudio's high technical standard
B. run-of-the-mill commercial 2-way
C. simple fullrange-driver speaker of comparable cost to B
D. high-end fullrange driver in competent cabinet
An impulse test, judged using "my" area-delta distortion measure*, on the reproduced wave envelope vs ideal impulse. A listening test for realism, forceful pluck of a guitar string. A stereo imaging test.
* (area under one wave envelope but not the other) / (area common to both)
Applied to 1-way (bandwidth-limited) and 2-way (HF-restored) "ideal" speakers: https://www.diyaudio.com/community/...gns-why-go-for-3-way-then.391639/post-7167908
A. 2-way with XO made according to diyaudio's high technical standard
B. run-of-the-mill commercial 2-way
C. simple fullrange-driver speaker of comparable cost to B
D. high-end fullrange driver in competent cabinet
An impulse test, judged using "my" area-delta distortion measure*, on the reproduced wave envelope vs ideal impulse. A listening test for realism, forceful pluck of a guitar string. A stereo imaging test.
* (area under one wave envelope but not the other) / (area common to both)
Applied to 1-way (bandwidth-limited) and 2-way (HF-restored) "ideal" speakers: https://www.diyaudio.com/community/...gns-why-go-for-3-way-then.391639/post-7167908
Last edited:
I dont use subwoofers
I use 15" woofer in 150L cab, 3 way system.
this I agree
but im building a speaker using 12" + 4" wideband, xo around 300hz. I expect this system would make a few 3 way run for cover
I look forward to seeing the evidence. There are of course pretty solid reasons why wideband drivers are not used as midrange drivers never mind tweeters in 2 or 3 ways designed for a high technical performance / studio use. Doesn't mean they aren't well suited to a range of different types of DIY builds just not high fidelity of the studio kind.
Why ? Most fullranges (2-3-4" ) are advertised as fullrange or midrange for 3 way. I trust the maker! Why I shouldn't trust them ?
In the market I picked Monacor (spx 20 and spx 21) and Aurasound Whisper and the Scan Speak 10 F... They all sound good...still I don't get the "high fidelity of the studio kind".
Now I fear I didn't get to the point of high fidelity of the studio kind!
Should I worry?
Naaaah...
In the market I picked Monacor (spx 20 and spx 21) and Aurasound Whisper and the Scan Speak 10 F... They all sound good...still I don't get the "high fidelity of the studio kind".
Now I fear I didn't get to the point of high fidelity of the studio kind!
Should I worry?
Naaaah...
what evidence do you need? many wideband drivers measure flat from 2-300hz up to 15khz.
VERY few multiways meet 20-20k. And to get to 20Hz costs lots of money.
It is always about compromises. The seemlessness that a good FR gives (and there are those out there that in the right box will do 9.5 octaves) has created a whole lot of interest in FR, there has to be something (i know that it is), and those who do not at least try are left with less.
dave
Last edited:
Compromises are made for the weight of the membrane and the material of it, plus many other things that contribute in making the loudspeaker. low cycles are better done by heavy membranes, fast cycles by light ones; if the area ( plus the geometry) is little, it's also better for minimizing cone flappiness ( yes, techy word...).