A can of worms indeed...
I'll just throw out the Fane 15-300TC as an option, expecially since you can actually get decent bass out of it even in open baffle. No box required, OP says he has lot's of DSP power so...
At 6 liters the no-brainer would be a closed box. I would probably pick the Tang Band W5-1611 since I know it very well, very good driver overall. Not "outstanding" in any way really, just does a good job, sturdy design, good sound, takes a little bit of punishment.
I'll just throw out the Fane 15-300TC as an option, expecially since you can actually get decent bass out of it even in open baffle. No box required, OP says he has lot's of DSP power so...
At 6 liters the no-brainer would be a closed box. I would probably pick the Tang Band W5-1611 since I know it very well, very good driver overall. Not "outstanding" in any way really, just does a good job, sturdy design, good sound, takes a little bit of punishment.
I think Dayton PA130-8 could work in 6L down to a solid 80Hz. It has great sensitivity and lively sound. Specs say 0.24 Cu ft vented alignment with 80Hz F3 is ideal. That’s just a smidgen over 6L. 88dB full range for $18.
Dayton Audio PA130-8 5" Full Range PA Driver
Dayton Audio PA130-8 5" Full Range PA Driver
In addition to Hofmann's Iron Law noted above, two other tradeoffs are relevant here, given your criteria. One is, although on paper DSP and a megawatt amp can force deep bass out of anything, a small driver with limited excursion will sound absolutely horrible when driven in that manner, due to nonlinear distortion. For this reason, most designers - while raving about the ability of 3" aluminum drivers by HiVi or Aura to go low - still recommend inserting a high-pass filter to avoid driving them below 80Hz or so. Physics (and ears) dictate that loud deep bass requires a "large enough" driver, regardless of the enclosure size.
That leads to the other tradeoff, regarding extended highs: larger drivers can provide extended highs if you don't require wide dispersion. However, again constrained by physics, any larger driver that shows an extended high end on axis will have limited high-frequency dispersion and sound duller off axis. On the other hand, limited dispersion has a benefit of making the overall sound in the room less sensitive to reflections off the ceiling and side walls.
Another thought is that, while targeting a small enclosure, you have a choice between selecting a driver that is designed to work optimally in a small enclosure, versus stuffing a different (not always larger) driver into a small enclosure even though that particular driver would have gone deeper in a larger enclosure. Free software such as micka.de/en or WinISD can give an excellent idea of what the bass curves would look like in each case. When using those products, pay attention to the total box QL, as it can greatly influence the outcome. Good luck and enjoy the journey!
That leads to the other tradeoff, regarding extended highs: larger drivers can provide extended highs if you don't require wide dispersion. However, again constrained by physics, any larger driver that shows an extended high end on axis will have limited high-frequency dispersion and sound duller off axis. On the other hand, limited dispersion has a benefit of making the overall sound in the room less sensitive to reflections off the ceiling and side walls.
Another thought is that, while targeting a small enclosure, you have a choice between selecting a driver that is designed to work optimally in a small enclosure, versus stuffing a different (not always larger) driver into a small enclosure even though that particular driver would have gone deeper in a larger enclosure. Free software such as micka.de/en or WinISD can give an excellent idea of what the bass curves would look like in each case. When using those products, pay attention to the total box QL, as it can greatly influence the outcome. Good luck and enjoy the journey!
I love my Fane 12-250TC's.
Triple cone for HF good extension.
A have a pair in a sealed cabinet and love the sound.
Very loud. Not massive bass but passable for a full range drivers.
Triple cone for HF good extension.
A have a pair in a sealed cabinet and love the sound.
Very loud. Not massive bass but passable for a full range drivers.
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.
With regards to large vs small FR units, space and intended application sort of dictate the size of the speaker. Which in turn will limit the size of a suitable driver, "whatever fits" is the answer anyway.
Hmmm... This "beaming" thing. I've never heard a driver that does not beam. I think cone profile also has a lot to do with it, even some small drivers sound quite bad off axis.
In my limited experience, and I am currently looking into this a little bit, something as basic as a perforated metal grill in front of a large FR unit, can to a certain extent reduce beaming and help distribute the HF energy more evenly.
Personal opinion: Small FR units have their uses, charm and appeal, but if a single driver is your goal: get the largest one possible. Even the most basic signal source has some kind of EQ these days, even a simple 3 point bass/mid/treble kind of EQ can get you a long way. Don't have to get crazy with all kinds of majick-mojo to get a satisfying result. As they say: "There's no replacement for displacement".
For low-ish SPLs and lots of DSP, I'd grab the biggest full-range driver that'll fit in the desired cabinet, add a couple of PRs tuned to the lowest desired frequency, and EQ the rest.
The thing to remember is that larger cabinets are more efficient at low frequencies, but smaller cabinets can (via EQ) have the same frequency response so long as the drivers are being operated within their limits.
FWIW, I had a pair of FE126eNs (FE126E w/P10 treatments) in about 2L each hitting 40Hz. Not a lot of SPL, but enough for desktop applications.
Chris
The thing to remember is that larger cabinets are more efficient at low frequencies, but smaller cabinets can (via EQ) have the same frequency response so long as the drivers are being operated within their limits.
FWIW, I had a pair of FE126eNs (FE126E w/P10 treatments) in about 2L each hitting 40Hz. Not a lot of SPL, but enough for desktop applications.
Chris
In the analysis, a rigid flat radiator is assummed and the extimates of dispersion is based on this, but cone shape, dustcaps, whizzers, and how well the designer has gotten to the holy grail of the outside of the cone decouples from the inside as frequencies increase play a huge role in dispersion.
Depends on how loud you want to play. I have yet to hear a FR bigger than 8” that i could live with (of course no one can hear them all) and those are limited on the ground. The sweet spot, IME, is 4-6”, depending on how much bass you need, how big an enclousre, and how much bass you want.
If you want it all, it is hard to beat a well done 3 or 4” with helper woofers, ideally bi-amped. A WAW (Woofer Assited Widerange).
dave
I do mostly agree with you Dave, except I've never heard a (TRUE) 6" that I really liked. Change the small stand-alone FR's sweetspot to 4"-5", and 2" to 3" can be great with a helper woofer.
There are some few exceptions, but in general most small FR's with whizzers are not to my liking.
Whizzers seem to just work better at drivers 10" and bigger.
12" and 15" with whizzers? Yes please!
And with regards to optimal size of the driver, that's an automatic result from:
I just think, that if you're dead-set on using 1 single driver, you want the most full-range sound possible from that 1 driver and also provided that you have the space for it. Bigger is better, because it will in most cases result in: less frequency modulation from cone movement, more SPL per watt, deeper bass, and in some cases less distortion overall.
But again, it depends on what you need/want/have room for etc.
Take this as opinionated BS if it helps to avoid some kind of flame war.
There are some few exceptions, but in general most small FR's with whizzers are not to my liking.
Whizzers seem to just work better at drivers 10" and bigger.
12" and 15" with whizzers? Yes please!
And with regards to optimal size of the driver, that's an automatic result from:
I just think, that if you're dead-set on using 1 single driver, you want the most full-range sound possible from that 1 driver and also provided that you have the space for it. Bigger is better, because it will in most cases result in: less frequency modulation from cone movement, more SPL per watt, deeper bass, and in some cases less distortion overall.
But again, it depends on what you need/want/have room for etc.
Take this as opinionated BS if it helps to avoid some kind of flame war.
-within your constraints (..it's ultimately a spl-limited design, but max 90db 1m should be good even with modest baffle-step compensation):
https://www.newark.com/dynavox/55-5535/4-full-range-speaker-20-watt-6/dp/78Y7667
You would be FAR better-off though with a "FAST" design using the Fountek FR88EX as the mid-tweet and a side-mounted woofer for your bass extension and baffle-step compensation. ..perhaps the SB Acoustics SB15NBAC30-4. Total price under $100 per loudspeaker.
Last edited:
The best ones do not have whizzers, they are not needed.
Whizzers seem to just work better at drivers 10" and bigger.
Big drivers tend to struggle mid-top, smaller ones with ultimate loudness and bass impact (but not necessarily bass extension — some of those big FRs do not go low). Big drivers typically also require big boxes.
That most of the music is in the midrange drives my preferenc efor the smaller drivers.
dave
The term WAW (Woofer Assited Wideband) is the preferred nomenclature.
The FR88ex is one of the OK ones, but there are better for similar price. If you go the side mounted route we have found things work out on a number of fronts with 2 woofers, 1 each side mounted push-push.
dave
All of the 3” could be classed as semi-FR.
The FE88ex has audible issues up top (they do not show on your graph). I prefer the FF85wk but it has issues as well (which mostly go away once i am done with them [but at that point they are quite a bit pricier]). Probably the best out of the box is the Mark Audio Alpair 5.2/3. A cheaper alternative migh tbe the CHN-50 but i have yet to hear mine.
The Scan 10F often touted is very smooth, but lacks top (Scan calls them mids) but there is a cheaper one (still pricey) that promises to be closer to FR.
The TBs i have heard have all been coloured in some way (except for one set of prototypes ende dup with). Listened to many more, but have mostly forgotten about them.
dave
Here is the FF85wk non-linear (another driver I've recommended where greater eff. was required along with being less directive off-axis).
It's overall more linear on and off axis, at least on an "infinite" baffle. The higher order distortion is however quite a bit worse, especially with increased output - so it needs more(steeper) filter or a much higher freq. for it's high-pass.
From what I've seen of Mark Audio drivers, they aren't as linear while also having higher high order non-linear distortion. Of course that's not saying they don't sound better for a given spl and design - but that what I've seen doesn't seem to match objectively.
Attachments
Last edited:
You have to listen to them.
I pay little attention to measured distortion (after Geddes), instead listening for all the small, low level information that allows them to image well, to put skin on voices, and let you pick out the details of instruments and such.
ie looking at the sea floor instead of the waves on the surface. Of course those are important as well, but the former are all to often missed.
In the WAWs we have done with FF85 line level XO is typically 250 Hz 1st order (up from the 180 Hz we started at), more to give more upper bass, lower midrange impact. These WAW have been listened to extensivily by many and they make few excuses (to paraphrase a numbe rof the comments).
It should be noted that none of the WAWs we have built have not had EnABLed drivers, which certainly has an impact on performance.
dave
To be more specific, distortion is important, but what we measure is not all that useful. What i am more interested in, is loss of information. Too lose as little as possible from the source to the ears. Some wise wisdom bestowed on me by Julian Vereker.
dave
dave
