That is what i suspected. The cheap version of an already coloured driver as midTweeter.dave
No criticism…..but the topic is small fullrange drivers as compared to tweeters…..with modern design criteria, 3-4” fullrange drivers can cover 400hz-15khz with ease, no crossover, perfect phase and a true point source. Adding in a helper woofer is pedestrian at this point.
Agreed……but you fail to report on the naked phase coherent response from 800hz to 6khz where most of the music content lives……….the point source clarity here has value IMO above and beyond some minor ripples in response up around 12kHz……..this is the premise of the post I’ve created here for the sake of discussion.
Not really sure what you mean by it being pedestrian, technically adding a woofer to any driver (full-range or otherwise) at 300 Hz would be pretty much the same routine. And if said driver can't play lower than 400 Hz, it'll need a woofer regardless.
But per the thread title, I can't say that to my ears modern full range drivers are better than tweeters. Of course they generally cover more bandwidth than tweeters, but I still haven't heard a full range driver that IMO wouldn't benefit from a tweeter.
Considering that directivity matching is no longer and issue at 300-400hz , phase wrap around won’t need the same attention if an even power response is the goal so I’d say much easier or ‘less degrading’ than say 2khz. As to needing a tweeter, again, I’m talking smaller FR drivers that have measured useable response out to 15k of which there are many…..and almost as many whose off axis response is equal to that of 33mm domes…….we’re out of the realm of subjectivity here where most of you folks find comfort in measurements. If you have ever truly listened to a full range system with helper woofer and haven’t identified the improvement of a true point source over the telephone band, I’m not sure that scrutinizing dog whistle frequencies furthers your audiophile persuits.
Last edited by a moderator:
Directionality, impulse response, Dopler and more
I prefer a decent coax driver as a good compromise to the theoretically perfect fullrange driver that doesn't exist. Tannoy comes to mind here with the drivers used in their Monitor Golds. If the cone surface area is enough to keep excursion to a minimum while producing sufficient SPL down low, the crossover is designed correctly to provide smooth phase tracking through the midrange and the HF driver can play clean enough to keep odd order distortion under 0.5% at 95 dB, while all together providing +/- 2dB linearity from 300hz to 10k, i would consider this type of speaker a worthy contender to any FR driver made. I've heard several pairs of Monitor Golds and just love the way they effortlessly sound. Thats probably one of the reasons why Bernie Grundman uses them as his main monitors in his mastering studio.
99.9% of larger (than 6") FR drivers I've listened to don't have acceptable treble. They can do well as dedicated midrange drivers, but thats about it. The size limit for hifi quality top end from a standard cone FR is typically about a 4" driver, unless you EQ the driver for on axis linearity and accept poor off axis HF response with large peaks and dips. Thats just the reality of it.
The people who are in love with Lowther drivers (I've heard alot of them myself) are interesting individuals to say the least. Most of them are OK with the massively ragged midrange response and the treble that cuts in and out like a light switch depending on how you turn your head in the so called sweet spot, labeling it as high end audio performance. If they argue their speakers have good phase tracking, it couldn't be further from the truth being that the ragged FR (often more than 10 dB swings either way) represents huge phase shifts that will smear imaging, including the whizzer cone itself contributing to a ton of HF hash and breakup. These speakers tend to sound like large transistor radios with peaky, resonant bass. Sorry, that's not considered hifi in my book. Let's also not forget how much these speakers can cost, so it becomes doubly as insane. A well designed FAST speaker would objectively provide more listening pleasure considering the smoother FR, lower distortion and deeper LF response. I've been given a pair of old Leaks that had a 12" cone driver and 4" wide range. Even with the old 1960s capacitors feeding the smaller drivers, they sounded amazing. No Lowther system I've ever heard came close. I consider Lowther speakers expemsive novelty furniture pieces - their functionality as speakers appear to be an afterthought. Sorry not a fan of that type of sound.
I'm currently dabbling with a pair of Eminence Kappalite 12" coaxs. This is as close as I would get to playing with large HE fullrange drivers. The SS 10F drivers are really nice sounding. I consider them unicorn drivers along with the Peerless TC9FDs. Mated to the right woofer with a first order network, they both are amazing performers.
99.9% of larger (than 6") FR drivers I've listened to don't have acceptable treble. They can do well as dedicated midrange drivers, but thats about it. The size limit for hifi quality top end from a standard cone FR is typically about a 4" driver, unless you EQ the driver for on axis linearity and accept poor off axis HF response with large peaks and dips. Thats just the reality of it.
The people who are in love with Lowther drivers (I've heard alot of them myself) are interesting individuals to say the least. Most of them are OK with the massively ragged midrange response and the treble that cuts in and out like a light switch depending on how you turn your head in the so called sweet spot, labeling it as high end audio performance. If they argue their speakers have good phase tracking, it couldn't be further from the truth being that the ragged FR (often more than 10 dB swings either way) represents huge phase shifts that will smear imaging, including the whizzer cone itself contributing to a ton of HF hash and breakup. These speakers tend to sound like large transistor radios with peaky, resonant bass. Sorry, that's not considered hifi in my book. Let's also not forget how much these speakers can cost, so it becomes doubly as insane. A well designed FAST speaker would objectively provide more listening pleasure considering the smoother FR, lower distortion and deeper LF response. I've been given a pair of old Leaks that had a 12" cone driver and 4" wide range. Even with the old 1960s capacitors feeding the smaller drivers, they sounded amazing. No Lowther system I've ever heard came close. I consider Lowther speakers expemsive novelty furniture pieces - their functionality as speakers appear to be an afterthought. Sorry not a fan of that type of sound.
I'm currently dabbling with a pair of Eminence Kappalite 12" coaxs. This is as close as I would get to playing with large HE fullrange drivers. The SS 10F drivers are really nice sounding. I consider them unicorn drivers along with the Peerless TC9FDs. Mated to the right woofer with a first order network, they both are amazing performers.
From my experience: No
Tweeters are better in terms of soundstage/imaging, fine details and sparkle.
Also in technical way (linearity, distortion, dispersion, etc.)
If you find these crucial I doubt you will be fully satisfied with FR as replacement.
To be honest, I consider FR drivers more like "lifestyle" audio than true Hi-Fi.
Enjoyment in music instead of chasing "ultimate" performance. Thats why Im in the FR side of "the Force" now.
Tweeters are better in terms of soundstage/imaging, fine details and sparkle.
Also in technical way (linearity, distortion, dispersion, etc.)
If you find these crucial I doubt you will be fully satisfied with FR as replacement.
To be honest, I consider FR drivers more like "lifestyle" audio than true Hi-Fi.
Enjoyment in music instead of chasing "ultimate" performance. Thats why Im in the FR side of "the Force" now.
I am aware of the types of things the "full range" crowd values which has been drawn out to some extent in some of the responses above. I am wise enough these days not to baldly state them because it causes offence which will derail the thread which has managed to get back on course over the last page.
At high frequencies it is straightforward to avoid the detrimental effects of resonances with rational engineering. At low frequencies the advantages can outweigh the disadvantages unless size and cost are of no concern. If low cost is a strongly weighted objective then resonating wide bandwidth transducers are part of a rational engineering-based solution. It is why they are the usual choice for cheap non-high fidelity audio devices. For a budget 2 way with a large 10-12" midwoofer a 1.5-2" sized upper frequency transducer would be a natural engineering solution even though these days there is little market demand for such transducers. Setting aside what is given up in a transducer of this size if it is also designed to produce some sort of low frequency output it only makes engineering sense in low cost 2 way designs. As soon as a higher cost becomes acceptable in order to achieve a higher technical performance then an engineering-based solution is not going to involve resonances in wide bandwidth transducers and how best to control them becomes irrelevant.
Of course with a hobby like this high technical performance and engineering-based solutions are not of interest to everyone. No problems until claims are made that contradict basic engineering and we get threads like this.
If you are interested in high sound quality in a room in a home then directivity at 300-400 Hz does matter because it is one of the few tools that can be used to help control the room response in this important but awkward to address frequency range.
Some 2-3" wide band drivers have useable responses out to 15kHz which is fine for budget and audiophile designs. What they don't have is high quality responses (technical rather than audiophile sense) out to 20kHz in terms of clean SPL and optimised directivity which you would tend to find in well engineered speakers such as studio midfield monitors from the established manufacturers (although one might debate the optimum directivity for home use) and a few home audio manufacturers.
I have had at least one room in my home with a speaker using coaxial driver for the past 20 years or so. The benefits of "true point sources" do not require one to put up with the issues of wide bandwidth drivers. Coaxials seem to be difficult to design and manufacture well though.
Directionality, impulse response, Dopler and more
I won't get too technical about it, as that isn't what full range aficionado's do
. Here's my deal, not intended to be Hi-Fi, it's more like My-Fi. Stereo replay I can enjoy.I had a few goals in mind to be able to achieve in my living room. Not many speakers could do what I wanted to try; keeping the frequency response time-aligned as it hits your ears at the listening spot, not at one meter on a design axis in anechoic conditions. Diminish the influence of the room and use ambience fill in speakers to create a more optimized (and controllable) ambience effects of a larger space. Mostly influenced by the body of work from Dr. David Griesinger.
I started with unshaded arrays, as this project worked way better than I ever expected, I decided to try and take it up a notch and use frequency dependent shading to solve a few things at once. Highly influenced by simulation work from a fellow DIY member nc535.
Objectives for this tweak: further reduction of the room influence and solve any combing problem at listening distances.
Creating a large "sweet area" in the process. Optimized at seated height, still balanced sound at standing height.
Vituixcad simulation to design filters for a frequency shaded array to further diminish the influence of room effects for an unshaded 25 driver array:
Frequency shaded array using 25 Scan Speak 10F's per side. The point being the controlled vertical directivity. The horizontal directivity is optimized by to using a specific rounded/oval shaped enclosure and a small waveguide in front of each driver.
(For a single driver the vertical output would look exactly like the horizontal Directivity plot.)
In-room prediction of one (single) driver plus floor and ceiling effects and a frequency shaded array of 25 drivers under the same conditions:
Listening distance 2.7 m, reflective floor and ceiling (absorption level set at -4 dB)
Distortion graph from 200 Hz and up of one frequency shaded array at 80 dB as measured at the listening spot (2.7 m from speaker):
Timing of the wavefront at the listening spot from the earlier, non frequency shaded array:
Stereo pair recorded... graph recorded with APL_TDA in Demo version.
Objective: getting a clean and undisturbed wavefront at the ears that doesn't suffer from floor and ceiling reflections, absorbing all early reflections with absorptive panels placed at first reflection points to reduce their influence.
Absorbing poster behind listening spot, Absorbing panels behind curtains on side-wall. Ambience channels behind listening spot.
IR as measured (RAW) for left channel:
IR as measured (RAW) for right channel:
Prior to using DSP EQ to flatten the output. No high reflection peaks visible at the listening spot.
This is what makes the clean and timed arrival of the wave front at the listening position possible. See? Nothing too technical.
It does satisfy my hunger of enjoying music, it turned my son on to music as well, plus it doubles (with the ambience channels) as a 4.2 Home Theatre setup.
A few listening impressions (of the unshaded arrays) from fellow DIY members can be found through links in the first post of my thread.
To each his/her own, right? I know this isn't for everyone. The point is: do we enjoy what we (like to) do? Heck yeah!
Last edited:
Many good insights. I lust after Leak but can't afford. If vintage alnico bigbutts qualify under the subject of this thread, I have one or two choice ~4" mid-tweeters. Still quite rare.
Whizzer is as hard as co-ax to do seamlessly. I have/had three or four Lowthers but would not call myself a fan (Fidelio PM2A Ticonal is passable). My new old Supravox whizzer-done-right trounces most (anything). My new new (only one source in China) drum-paper 8" is pretty flat and extended; its 5.5" brother is my favorite whizzerless, 4.5" little brother impressive but too bright as-is. I have not owned high-end co-ax. The cheap ones boast of Ti dome....
All that rambling to say, I'd be hard pressed to put forth a modern "fullrange" driver from my collection, as on-par with an excellent tweeter, which is never cheap.
Taiwan has been putting out no-name coaxials like spring bamboo shoots. I'm terribly tempted to try (in Beijing) but the audioclips don't impress or move me enough to pay import prices for locally-made. I don't like Ti dome tweeters.
LOL....without quoting anyone, I get a chuckle after reading some of these responses where folks are chasing 3db peaks and nulls at 15-20k when they simply can’t hear any it anyways. Then they heap on the inability of such small full range drivers to play loud.....adding prolonged exposure,fatigue and damage and round and round we go.
As to the coax fellas....ever see a nearfield measurement of a coax from 1khz up?......not exactly a well greased pompadour i assure you and best case not much better than the formentioned modern fullrange driver. Goal is the same though....point source reproduction through the critical telephone band ( Bell labs guys penned the term, not me....some pretty smart folks there back in the day though) And the coax does suffer from crossover induced phase overlap.......you can execute all you want and many have reasonable success for the effort....to a fault.
Apples to Apples with expectations managed?....I’d wager that blind comparing a well executed MT of say a 180mm woofer and 1 inchish tweeter with a fullrange or wideband driver combined with a woofer ( we can go large here now folks due to the XO point.....8-10” or more is well within reason) that the fullrange system would be preferred for soundstage and imaging hands down. If we throw in the larger woofer Orange, I’d say low end response would be more satisfying to those comparing the two.
As to the coax fellas....ever see a nearfield measurement of a coax from 1khz up?......not exactly a well greased pompadour i assure you and best case not much better than the formentioned modern fullrange driver. Goal is the same though....point source reproduction through the critical telephone band ( Bell labs guys penned the term, not me....some pretty smart folks there back in the day though) And the coax does suffer from crossover induced phase overlap.......you can execute all you want and many have reasonable success for the effort....to a fault.
Apples to Apples with expectations managed?....I’d wager that blind comparing a well executed MT of say a 180mm woofer and 1 inchish tweeter with a fullrange or wideband driver combined with a woofer ( we can go large here now folks due to the XO point.....8-10” or more is well within reason) that the fullrange system would be preferred for soundstage and imaging hands down. If we throw in the larger woofer Orange, I’d say low end response would be more satisfying to those comparing the two.
Clean impulse response. Of course still different from signal, area-delta maybe ~2.5 (difference/common), eyeballing.
Anyone else please?
@mayhem13 - You don't need to quote me. I actually agree that a FR driver can do very well if designed correctly without too much budget cutting by the manufacturer. It could do better than most 2 ways in terms of imaging and bandwidth. The reason i prefer a 3 way over a traditional 2 way is the crossover being able to stay out of the critical midrange, where linear phase and smooth FR are possible even with a crossover steeper than 1st order to the HF. The LF to MF xover is far more critical to get right for best integration and overall timbre.
I am as well; open baffle too, with active crossover/DSP. Admittedly the 4" is a coax (Dayton CX-120) so I guess it's really a 3 way. Out of the box and crossed over at I think 250/5k it sounds good with LFE down to the high 30s.
There's no reason to be snarky, and it appears you started the thread with a question you already were settled on an answer for. I think you're wrong. It's funny how you bring up potential "phase wrap around" issues while attempting to cross a woofer at 300 Hz (which I've never, ever struggled with or seen anyone else struggle with and I know a lot of speaker builders), while you neglect other issues. There's more to the way a speaker sounds than a flat, on-axis frequency response. If that's all that matters we'd only need one tweeter (or in your case one full-range driver), no need for anything else because this one is "flat to 15khz".
So please, post a link to this perfect driver. Then show us all how you used it in a build.