Here’s the thing…..the farther the cone travels to produce the low frequency output you desire, the worse the the midrange and treble performance due to the Doppler shift so in essence, everything folks love about single driver FR sound goes out the window. You are FAR BETTER OFF with a smaller FR driver crossed over to a woofer in the 200-300hz range. If that’s not possible, even a closely located subwoofer crossed at 100hz would be much better than what you propose. Think of it this way……what you’re asking for is a Ferrari with studded snow tires…….
True, I do this now with a pair of full range Visaton BG20's crossing at 100hz with a sub. Initially I wanted to rebuild the BG20's form sealed cabinets into a bass reflex with output to about 70hz from 100hz to be able to cross over just a little lower. And it got me thinking more about lots of full range drivers being used in larger towers in bass reflex and/or horn designs without a bass woofer. Sure, some still feel the need for a tweeter or feel the need to add a woofer, etc. Maybe I will too. Won't know until I experience it for a while. I guess I'm trying to go "too wide band" for wide band here.
Then again maybe I was thinking incorrectly that with a reflex system where the cone isn't having to travel much as the port is resonating, that it would be ok?
Very best,
Hi,I found the TB quite coloured, even after a bunch of fixes:
The Markaudio are notable in that compared to most FR have significant xMax and are all now fitted with arrectors when you start to approacj =h Xlim.
If you are looking for something really good, versatile, and given the superb performance at a REALLY decent price to play with is the MA CHN-110. Dirt cheap basket, but once you screw it to a baffle it is more of less a non-issue. They do need a bigger box.
I am just starting to wotk on boxes for these. As an illustration there will bve 3 Classic Golden Ratio boxes, 13, 17, 30 litres (my reflex alignment), which show the wide range of box sizes that can be mnade to work. And then there ar ethe TLs (quarterwave designs) and horns which can get quite large.
dave
Oh yes, this really is a coloured driver! I can even see it! Jokes aside, 1808 is not bad after a little bit of correction.
All the best
Mattes
Hi,
If you´re crossing at 100 Hz or a little bit lower, with a bigger driver you won´t need a large Xlin, and won´t need a reflex box either. And if you are into Visaton, there´s also the B200. Again not bad, needs a bit of correction. Limited Xlin.
All the best
Mattes
I'd be happy with a smaller driver even. Mainly just want to try and get that 60hz~18+khz range in one go if possible. I'm ok with smaller drivers. I just know a smaller driver won't be able to do that lower end without a lot of excursion which as someone else pointed out will wreck a lot of other parts of the bandwidth. But I figured bass reflex reducing excursion at the tuning would help potentially with that issue and allow a little bit lower bandwidth, like 60~70hz maybe.
I'm currently enjoying the BG20's in a 0.5 ft^3 sealed cabinet, it peaks at 100hz and rolls off under there. It sounds fine crossed over to a sub. But, I'm just curious to re-build and try another cabinet design and while at it, maybe some new drivers.
Very best,
While very true if done right, one of the compromises we all need to make is Budget. In most cases a WAW will cost a lot more.
Take a good FR (a smaller one will likely be a bit cheaper than a big one), and add woofer(s) and XO.
Our inexpensive WAW uses FRs that cost about $100, woofers $200, if you have a spare amp in the closet, the PLLXO can be <$10, if you do the passive that could add as much as $300+ to the parets cost.
https://www.planet10-hifi.com/planset/TysenV2-promo-171217.pdf
dave
Last edited:
I have a WAW planned in the future, using smaller 3" full range drivers and some larger 8" woofers for bass. I wanted to experiment with a driver facing forward like normal and a 2nd driver facing up, like the old Castle towers I've seen. For that one I'll do the passive crossover and all that.
I think for these monitors, I'd like to avoid doing a passive crossover at this time and instead try to just get as much as I can out of a smaller mini tower size cabinet, bass reflex or tappered horn, with a 4~8" full range driver. Really hoping to get that 60hz to 18~20khz range if possible. This will mostly be used relatively near field, doesn't need to project over 12+ feet. More like 3~6 feet listening space depending on where I'm sitting in my office when listening. And these have sub support and active DSP/EQ as I have plenty of those electronics.
The Mark Audio's really have my attention currently, so inexpensive, great numbers it seems for the purpose here. I just wish they looked different, like Lii Songs.
Very best,
I think for these monitors, I'd like to avoid doing a passive crossover at this time and instead try to just get as much as I can out of a smaller mini tower size cabinet, bass reflex or tappered horn, with a 4~8" full range driver. Really hoping to get that 60hz to 18~20khz range if possible. This will mostly be used relatively near field, doesn't need to project over 12+ feet. More like 3~6 feet listening space depending on where I'm sitting in my office when listening. And these have sub support and active DSP/EQ as I have plenty of those electronics.
The Mark Audio's really have my attention currently, so inexpensive, great numbers it seems for the purpose here. I just wish they looked different, like Lii Songs.
Very best,
I would suggest taking xmax numbers without any clarification with a grain of salt. IMD is arguably a huge deal in fullranges and whether it's a "physical xmax" (as in xlim) or a linear excursion xmax is super important. Considering how much MA put effort on exotic cone materials and so on, I doubt they've optimized their nonlinearities very well - I might be wrong, though.
The Kartesian might be one of the few with actual linear stroke and gets down to 40-50Hz ported, but it's still a 4inch woofer. It also has uncannily wide and smooth dispersion in the upper octaves, if the datasheet is trustworthy
The Kartesian might be one of the few with actual linear stroke and gets down to 40-50Hz ported, but it's still a 4inch woofer. It also has uncannily wide and smooth dispersion in the upper octaves, if the datasheet is trustworthy
Last edited:
Well if that's in your plans perhaps take a look at my micor55 LX. I have to-date listened to several combinations of such -- carefully chosen -- and in general I've found these experimental, minimalist LX configurations to deliver much higher quality in resolution, wide directivity, dynamics, frequency range, soundstage, and realism, than the component drivers singly. 1+1>2. As if, the ear/brain did real-time interferometry on the LX-couple (as well as the normal stereo-pair/binaural 3D sense of hearing). Please note my minimalist LX drivers are electrically crossover-less, relying on natural attenuation: baffle-loss/open-baffle/small-sealed high-pass, off-axis/slot-loaded low-pass; their acoustic centers are aligned as much as possible, and much closer together than
normal baffle mounting would allow -- they sound as one.
It's a pretty easy experiment to stack one speaker of a pair on top of the other, approximating LX or mini-tower/castle.
https://www.diyaudio.com/community/threads/full-range-speaker-photo-gallery.65061/post-7675238
On the thread topic of FR+BR, I'm afraid that has been a deadly combination for my enjoyment of music. 1-1~0.
Last edited:
Thanks, I'll try a few simulations with it.
Thanks, sure, I totally get that their xmax is not likely linear nor an indicator of much. But, I know having some xmax capability is better than not. Lord knows I've plenty of drivers with limited xmax and how quickly I find those limits.
Thanks, interesting, will look for more on this!
I'm not sure I understand what you're saying about the FR+BR for enjoyment of music, are you saying you dislike it?
Very best,
Right, I dislike the way BR resonances, though punchy at the port frequency, often hummed/droned above it, and overall failed to integrate with the speed and clarity of the fullrange driver running straight-through. The better the FR, the more obvious the BR disparity. I'm no expert on BR diy but my "audiophile" Joseph RM7XL and Monitor Audio Studio (various sizes) etc really didn't go low enough for acoustic-instrument music (low 40ish hz necessary). I think BR response generally graphed better than they sounded (many technical causes); and below port resonance the leaked backwave just cancelled the direct output from the driver. Since FR drivers typically aren't bass monsters, said port frequency are likely too high.
On the other hand, reshape the BR into a so-called ML-TL, so that Helmholtz port resonance is replaced by quarterwave resonance, and everything changes. (The story of this forum.)
p.s. If willing to experiment ad-hoc, simply brute-force a cardboard divider into a BR to form a "TL", the line taper straight or contracting if driver Qts is low; taper expanding if Qts is high (ML-TQWT).
On the other hand, reshape the BR into a so-called ML-TL, so that Helmholtz port resonance is replaced by quarterwave resonance, and everything changes. (The story of this forum.)
p.s. If willing to experiment ad-hoc, simply brute-force a cardboard divider into a BR to form a "TL", the line taper straight or contracting if driver Qts is low; taper expanding if Qts is high (ML-TQWT).
Last edited:
Well, the RM7XL has a nominal Fb of around 42Hz - 45Hz per John Atkinson's measurements in Stereophile. However, the averaged over 50° response shows a rising response trend through the tweeter running a couple of dB hotter than the midbass so the subjective balance is going to be skewed toward the HF even if the nominal LF response is adequate for open E string double bass (42Hz, give or take a whisker). Monitor Audio, whatever their other merit may be (and often can be) do sometimes tend to have some characteristics that can give the impression of taking away from the low end a bit -exact cause depending on the specific design.
What you're describing ('punchy at the port frequency, often hummed / droned above') is fairly characteristic of using a generic alignment -QB3, B4 or similar; it can also happen (to a point) with acoustically small enclosures tuned low, when GD / step can have some excess. The obsession with squeezing the most from a pint-pot, low Vas units that understandably took hold from particularly the '80s, as hi-fi increasingly shifted to the consumer goods market hasn't helped there either. Inadequate damping of internal or panel modes, or an over-long duct with obvious self-harmonics (ducts being 1/2 wave resonators) are other issues to keep a beady eye on. Assuming a suitable driver though, a well-designed vented box or bass reflex (historically speaking, they're probably better separated out) shouldn't sound like that, hence good construction, a well-designed alignment and the old click test GM (and muggins here also) keeps talking about is as valid now as ever.
A good MLTL can be preferable & is one of my 'go to' preferences. Remember most short types are actually quite highly forced though, so won't give as much help at Fb as you might think; at the end of the day, all vented boxes, whatever the type, will unload 24dB/octave at some point -it just depends where.
Normally I'd use an ML-horn (tapped expanding ML pipe) for slightly lower Q units as it tends to provide a slightly (slightly) broader gain BW and for a given Fs those units are likely to benefit from the extra help, short of shifting to a more complex form of horn loading. There isn't usually much in it though.
What you're describing ('punchy at the port frequency, often hummed / droned above') is fairly characteristic of using a generic alignment -QB3, B4 or similar; it can also happen (to a point) with acoustically small enclosures tuned low, when GD / step can have some excess. The obsession with squeezing the most from a pint-pot, low Vas units that understandably took hold from particularly the '80s, as hi-fi increasingly shifted to the consumer goods market hasn't helped there either. Inadequate damping of internal or panel modes, or an over-long duct with obvious self-harmonics (ducts being 1/2 wave resonators) are other issues to keep a beady eye on. Assuming a suitable driver though, a well-designed vented box or bass reflex (historically speaking, they're probably better separated out) shouldn't sound like that, hence good construction, a well-designed alignment and the old click test GM (and muggins here also) keeps talking about is as valid now as ever.
A good MLTL can be preferable & is one of my 'go to' preferences. Remember most short types are actually quite highly forced though, so won't give as much help at Fb as you might think; at the end of the day, all vented boxes, whatever the type, will unload 24dB/octave at some point -it just depends where.
Normally I'd use an ML-horn (tapped expanding ML pipe) for slightly lower Q units as it tends to provide a slightly (slightly) broader gain BW and for a given Fs those units are likely to benefit from the extra help, short of shifting to a more complex form of horn loading. There isn't usually much in it though.
Much thanks. Joseph/Monitor Audio Studio didn't noticeably do that hum/drone thing (being "audiophile" extremely well built) just not reaching nearly as low as adverised, I felt. (The RM7XL was not as loud as my 3.75L Maeven below 50hz; the Mo Studio 2 and 10 needed subs else no plucked doublebass.) Most other BR (commercial speakers) I've heard, did that hum/drone thing.
It’s certainly possible……but the exercise has little performance value and lots of limitations. I think the laws of physics have been bent as far as they can with MLTLs and the like…..there’s simply no replacement for displacement
As for bass, as an engineer I’ve developed my own rules of thumb based on decades of practical experience. Foundational to almost all music is the open E string of bass guitar tuned to standard……41hz. Musically, it’s in every scale over and over and over……there’s no escaping the open E drone and it’s almost always droning pre chorus or verse. Everything I design on the bass end MUST produce 41hz natively…..meaning not through a port or other resonant feature. In listening AB tests, the difference cannot be overstated….it’s huge how the groove and timing are improved. In essence what I’m saying is you NEVER want 41hz coming from anything but the driver directly…..the fundamental MUST be time aligned and in phase with the harmonic. Now there’s the reality of music performed below standard tuning….well…..hey….you can’t win em all but some are better than none.
You’re never going to achieve this with driver designed for full range operation. If you look at some design options fundamentally, and one iteration a tower ish enclosure……enclosing the fullrange driver in its own sealed and well damped box with a Q of 7 would be ideal. NOW you could use that lower enclosure volume for a resonant system tuned to 25hz or so. (My rule is an octave below at 20hz but that’s not always practical…..30hz is a fair compromise) Mount the bass driver at the top and time align it to the FR.……..you won’t believe what your ear/brain tells you…..it’s that good.
Most 8” drivers with an Fs below 30hz can do this effectively when used in an EBS system (extended bass shelf). The drawback here is the size of the box…..we’re talking 2 cuft. But if the FR in on top of that and at seated ear height, that’s 30” of vertical space and 10” width of displacement to work with. Doable with a deep box which BTW makes MLTL design much easier.
Upfiring woofers sound fantastic when done well. I’m prototyping an upfiring 10” woofer which fires at a 10” sphere enclosure housing a repurposed KEF coaxial driver that will run from 250-20k. So far I’m just on the woofer design and tweaking the response around the sphere by adjusting the distance and trying different port tunings and locations. I avoid the need for any fancy bass alignment by using a 10”which has a lower Fs…..a simple rear firing port gets the job done.
Last edited:
Thanks,
I will do a full range + bass woofer next build, separate from this one. I already have the hardware for it. The cabinet tower is tuned around 25hz bass reflex for the bass woofer and crossing over around 100hz with a smaller pair of full range drivers, one firing up like an old Castle. It's an experiment based on some fun things I've seen. But have not listened to.
For this current monitor, it will likely just be a single full range driver and squeeze as much as I can from it without getting into exotics. Plus an excuse to buy more drivers, right? And maybe ultimately I will abandon a single full range driver in a cabinet altogether after listening to it a while and go back to a 2 driver setup for the reasons you stated, to get native 41hz and above output. Though currently my sub does this job, so maybe I'm not that sensitive to this and I'm simply not a refined listener.
Very best,