It's the subject line. Clearly, many of us both appreciate classical and have experience adapting systems to suit.
Thread basically (?) seems to exist to seek validation. It's your experiment to make. If your subject was "Have XXL box with X.XXX cutout, what 5-6" FR drivers <$100 work?" the thread could be 1 page.
Thread basically (?) seems to exist to seek validation. It's your experiment to make. If your subject was "Have XXL box with X.XXX cutout, what 5-6" FR drivers <$100 work?" the thread could be 1 page.
You entirely missed the point of the post.
It was not to find out what drivers will work with certain size box and cut-out.
It was to find out if anyone else with similar hearing loss had found an improvement by going from a 2-Way speaker to a full range.
I'm not sure how I could have made that any clearer. Here is last sentence in the post:
"I know there a lot of full range fans here, so I’m looking for anyone with similar experience that may have traded a quality sounding 2-way for a full range to play classical music and heard any appreciable difference or improvement."
It was not to find out what drivers will work with certain size box and cut-out.
It was to find out if anyone else with similar hearing loss had found an improvement by going from a 2-Way speaker to a full range.
I'm not sure how I could have made that any clearer. Here is last sentence in the post:
"I know there a lot of full range fans here, so I’m looking for anyone with similar experience that may have traded a quality sounding 2-way for a full range to play classical music and heard any appreciable difference or improvement."
Thank you for the reply. The thread is of the form "I wish to use X to do Y". It seeks validation from others who have used X to do Y. The focus is on using X...and refining boundaries of using X. The lack of unanimity/support for using X to do Y could be interpreted as (a) everyone is clueless or (b) the premise of using X to do Y may not be well-supported. Many of us have experience doing exactly Y (and years at it, give or take 2kHz of loss). Most-respectfully, as-expounded in this thread, using X will not do Y.
To use your parlance this entire forum is about using X. And specifically, using it to do Y. There even seems to be some sentiment here that actually X can to it better than Y.
A shame you seem reluctant to go with hearing aids.
I suffer with a firearms related hearing loss and getting good hearing aids helped a lot.
Personally speaking I don't see any single driver speaker beating a good 3-Way or 4-Way, they simply can't do decent enough bass and still have clarity in the mid-range.
I suffer with a firearms related hearing loss and getting good hearing aids helped a lot.
Personally speaking I don't see any single driver speaker beating a good 3-Way or 4-Way, they simply can't do decent enough bass and still have clarity in the mid-range.
This sounds like a good consolidation of the question. I'm sure you're not looking for people to compare the bass response since you can always adapt to a FAST/WAW in the future. I know there have been some responses here that have given as close to an answer for this as you could expect.
Back to the question of cone size. I wanted to express that cone breakup (and size in general) is probably the main reason crossovers exist. While I have to say that some fullrange drivers do a gallant job of circumventing the problem, in general if this were not the case then people would be equalising and extending the high frequency response of large woofers everywhere, even when crossing.
I have high frequency hearing loss and prefer listening to my 6.5" 2-way speakers over full range speakers because the 2-way have more extended low frequency and output potential.
The reduction of high frequency amplitude modulation the 2-way split at 2.6kHz provides for the tweeter more than compensates for any vertical dispersion issues caused by the crossover. My hearing loss is greatest at 4kHz, so the range below that has become more important in listening.
At any rate, without comparing the frequency response and Xmax (linear excursion potential) of your specific 2-way speakers to a specific full range hard to say which would be better.
That said, the 5" TangBand W5-2143 you are considering has an Xmax of only 2.5mm, any low bass at appreciable levels (greater than 79dB at 40Hz) will cause the upper instruments to "gargle".
Many 2-way Piccolo loudspeakers would have no problem at those levels, though there are dozens of loudspeakers bearing that name, so can't say how your current Piccolos would compare.
It's my understanding, and you can help by confirming it or not, that for full range drivers with overall diameters of 5 to 6" the actual cone diameter is going to be around 3.5" and breakup is probably not going to be an issue.
If you get into much larger overall diameters the cones will be larger and then breakup can start to be a problem.
Polar measurements are the way to tell. Otherwise there is much advice here on which drivers are good and what remedies are usually applied to them.
I should have been more specific about my Piccolo speakers. They are a Jeff Bagby design using some excellent SB Acoustics drivers. Specifically, the 5.9" SB15NRXC-30 woofer and SB29RDNC tweeter.
Last edited:
I think this chart of said SB midwoofer illustrates the cone "breakup" AllenB mentioned, and normally would require LPF to tame. Nevertheless, given OP's situation I don't think anyone can predict which will work better: 2-way as is; 1-way midwoofer straight-through on-axis (blue); 1-way straight-through sligtly off-axis (green); 1-way straight-through up-firing (red, more so). It would be an experiment (nonstandard to be sure) to determine benefits vs drawbacks of going crossover-less -- at virtually no cost. And I doubt OP can find a significantly-better $100 fullrange than his SB midwoofer.
(To do more, LX configuration as previously explained.)
(To do more, LX configuration as previously explained.)
Last edited:
I will try showing this using vituixcad.
I have traced the three plots you showed, calculated their average, then compared the average to each angle by itself (these plots are not response plots but differences from the average, also called the Directivity Index). The idea is that if the angle you listen to follows the smooth response of the average, then the late room reverberation will match with the direct sound and it can sound proper and balanced. (Even if you EQ this, the difference remains the same. This off-axis behaviour is built into the acoustic nature of the speaker and gives it it's character.)
Each angle is shown from top to bottom.. 0, 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60 degrees (vituixcad interpolates the angles in between). The most smooth angle would be the third one (20 degrees listening angle).
Now, to look at this in greater detail. It is OK that each angle shows a lower or higher trace than the others. What could be a problem is if they are not as smooth as each other. The wider angles (which aren't as smooth) may be involved in early reflections from the nearby walls, and could sound different. This could draw unwanted attention to them. You might choose to treat those walls.
My other suggestion besides the 10.2MAOP, is the CHP-90.
A cheaper driver.
It gives a very good and even frequency curve.
A cheaper driver.
It gives a very good and even frequency curve.
Hell, I’m 81 and I am confident my hearing ain’t what it used to be, nevertheless I can still hear soundstage and air, no problem.
When you compare the 8ohm TangBand W5-2143 to the 4 ohm SB15NRXC-30 with a good crossover and tweeter the differences are pretty clear.
The SB15NRXC-30 will receive +3dB more power output from a typical solid state amp.
It has almost double the linear displacement, so has about +5dB more clean low frequency, which will roll off at a lower frequency due to the lower Fs.
The sensitivity and displacement advantage add to double (or more) perceived clean low frequency potential, a requirement for sense of "space" and "weight" if subwoofers are not employed.
The tweeter's response is smoother and it's dispersion more well behaved than any "full range" speaker I've seen, also assisting in imaging realism, especially from off-axis room reflections.
The SB15NRXC-30 would have a very large advantage in presenting the dynamics in classical music compared to the W5-2143.
I doubt you could find any full range driver that would fit in your box that would be an improvement over what you have, assuming the crossover was built to Jeff Bagby's specifications.
Art
I don't really want to use the SB midwoofer above the 2 KHz crossover point. There is no way it can compete at the top end with the SB tweeter already in use and there is a great deal of classical music in that range from 2 to 4 KHz. It would means compromising the high end just for the sake of removing some possible issues with a crossover, and that's not a good tradeoff for me.
Art,
Thanks for your excellent analysis. You have me thinking that this change to a full range that I have been discussing may not be such a great idea after all.
When Jeff Bagby wrote up his paper on the Piccolo he thought it was outstanding and was as good or better than many speakers costing much more money. That was one of the reasons I bought the kit from Meniscus and have not been disappointed.
Now I'm starting to think that if I want to try a full range I need to go something much higher end, like an MAOP, in order to hear a real difference.
Maybe you would like the Alpair 11MS better.
11MS has better faster transients. If that's what you're looking for.
It is the fastest I have heard among many drivers. Dynamic excellent. Strong base.
Then it goes up in level around 6 - 7kHz.
Please read reviews.
https://www.soundimports.eu/en/mark...3cAryxqxswV7vFxGxQwrP6e-IZIecdjwaAldFEALw_wcB
11MS has better faster transients. If that's what you're looking for.
It is the fastest I have heard among many drivers. Dynamic excellent. Strong base.
Then it goes up in level around 6 - 7kHz.
Please read reviews.
https://www.soundimports.eu/en/mark...3cAryxqxswV7vFxGxQwrP6e-IZIecdjwaAldFEALw_wcB
Last edited:
Looking at the frequency response curve for this driver compared to the Piccolos that I have now there is a dramatic difference. Very large FR perturbations for the Alpair 11MS versus a virtually flat response curve for the Piccolos. So, I don't see the advantage.
Also, how you are able to determine it has faster transients?
Also, how you are able to determine it has faster transients?