That's because those kinds of speakers are severely limited and compromised as a basic design concept, not because of any inherent issue with bass reflex loading per se.
Now come listen to my floorstanding two way with a 15" woofer in a 180L bass-reflex box tuned to 23Hz...
haha...no bad news that's credible, and no anger either 🙂
Just gets tiring seeing bass-reflex nonsense continued to be parroted.....
You know, even setting aside the inherent inability of a small speaker to have much low end no matter how it's designed...
maybe small 2-way stand or shelf speakers are simply too physically small to install adequately sized Bass Reflex ports, even for their small woofers....?
So maybe you're right about bass-reflex, as far as for the particular set of limited speakers you've chosen.....
Don't know, don't care really...
Which come to think of it....this thread is about 'Best Compression Drivers"...
How many 2-way stand or shelf speakers use compression drivers? My guess is damn few, if any.
Let's ditch this conversation, shall we 🙂
off the top of my head:
https://www.stereophile.com/content/fleetwood-sound-company-deville-sq-loudspeaker
"The handsome, bass-reflex Fleetwood DeVille SQ is rated at 94dB/W/m. Its nominal impedance is 8 ohms. Its cabinet stands 24" high, 18" wide, and 10" deep. The front-baffle edges are beveled. The compression-driven, polymer-diaphragm tweeter is loaded with a natural-wood–finished conical horn. A high-efficiency, 8" paper-cone woofer with a phenolic grille (footnote 1) handles the mids and low frequencies."
https://fleetwoodsound.com/product/excelsior/.
https://pureaudioproject.com/trio15-open-baffle-speakers/
If they are being supplied by BMS then it would likely also be from BMS:
https://www.bmsspeakers.com/index.php-41.html?id=bms_8s215
though they mention Italian and BMS is German, so perhaps it’s B&C or Faital Pro for their source.
https://bcspeakers.com/en/products/hf-driver/1-0/16/de110-16
https://bcspeakers.com/en/products/lf-driver/8-0/8/8FMB51-8
https://www.bmsspeakers.com/index.php-41.html?id=bms_8s215
though they mention Italian and BMS is German, so perhaps it’s B&C or Faital Pro for their source.
https://bcspeakers.com/en/products/hf-driver/1-0/16/de110-16
https://bcspeakers.com/en/products/lf-driver/8-0/8/8FMB51-8
Last edited:
👍 OK then, so the last drivers I posted are probably the closest.
If I was trying to emulate a design like the DeVille (8” with 1” CD) I’d try for a monopole result similar to this design:
https://ggntkt.de/en/model-m1/technische-daten/
-using these drivers:
https://www.parts-express.com/Peerl...pression-DFM-Driver-8-Ohm-264-1466?quantity=1
https://www.parts-express.com/Dayto...MI8-v43_HVgAMV3y7UAR0uBQSSEAQYBCABEgL25PD_BwE
If I was trying to emulate a design like the DeVille (8” with 1” CD) I’d try for a monopole result similar to this design:
https://ggntkt.de/en/model-m1/technische-daten/
-using these drivers:
https://www.parts-express.com/Peerl...pression-DFM-Driver-8-Ohm-264-1466?quantity=1
https://www.parts-express.com/Dayto...MI8-v43_HVgAMV3y7UAR0uBQSSEAQYBCABEgL25PD_BwE
Last edited:
what do we think about:
Dayton Audio PM220-8 8" Wideband Midbass Neo Driver
X
FaitalPRO HF108R 1" Neo
https://www.parts-express.com/pedocs/specs/294-1054--faitalpro-hf108r-spec-sheet.pdfor
B&C DE500-8 1" Neo Titanium
https://www.parts-express.com/pedocs/specs/294-608--bc-de500-spec-sheet.pdfor
FaitalPRO HF10AK 1" Neo
https://www.parts-express.com/pedocs/specs/294-1011-faitalpro-hf10ak-8-specifications.pdfwith
ES-1000 Circular Horn No.1207
https://josephcrowe.com/products/es-1000-circular-horn-no-1207-3d-cad-modelHorn tweeters crossed ~ 1300Hz - 1500Hz ?
Problem there is the waveguides dispersion - it’s not nearly as wide as the German design. Circular waveguides don’t trade vertical for horizontal so you can’t achieve a wider pattern horizontally.
This one is better, but still not as good:
https://josephcrowe.com/blogs/news/horn-no-2007-with-peerless-oc25sc65-04
-but perhaps good enough, and the tweeter in that bi-radial is good enough (unless you just have to have a CD).
This one is better, but still not as good:
https://josephcrowe.com/blogs/news/horn-no-2007-with-peerless-oc25sc65-04
-but perhaps good enough, and the tweeter in that bi-radial is good enough (unless you just have to have a CD).
Last edited:
got it, so how about the following horn / 1" CD https://josephcrowe.com/products/es-600-bi-radial-wood-horn-no-1978
Note that the intended finished loudspeaker design is with a super-tweeter; so above about 2.6 kHz it starts becoming directive horizontally, and if you like better sound-stage width like l do then you’ll want a wider horizontal pattern (of at least 110 and preferably 140 degrees to 8 kHz or higher) which would necessitate the integration of a wide horizontal dispersion super-tweeter (and really it’s almost a full tweeter down to nearly 3 kHz).
With a super-tweeter and a large format CD it would prob. be excellent (though the top of the horn that the super-tweeter is on top of should have a lossy felt pad to absorb the “bounded” vertical’s).
With a super-tweeter and a large format CD it would prob. be excellent (though the top of the horn that the super-tweeter is on top of should have a lossy felt pad to absorb the “bounded” vertical’s).
this one is interesting https://josephcrowe.com/blogs/news/speaker-no-1680
but, given the woofer is only crated at 90dB sensitivity efficiency, I'm not clear as to why he designed the speaker with a compression driver rather than horn loading a 1.5" dome tweeter
1.5" is extremely rare (Scan Speak and Seas) and expensive.
Agreed though, the CD isn't needed - a good choice in 1" or 1.2" tweeter would have also worked while providing less pressure loss at higher freq.s relative to the average and off-axis.
You do get something more subjectively dynamic with a 1" CD though, and sometimes better perceived clarity though often depth of field can take a "hit" depending on the CD.
You can also play the loudspeaker LOUDER with fewer compression artifacts as you increase spl. along with lower non-linear distortion below cross-point, which may have been a design/use concern. (..I'm sure this was the deciding factor for the GGNTKT speaker that I provided a link to.)
For a fullrange 2-way it's still pretty good, I'd just prefer to see a more consistent polar and one that was at once wider at higher freq.s and less wide below 1 kHz.
-it is of course also beautiful wood work. 🙂
Agreed though, the CD isn't needed - a good choice in 1" or 1.2" tweeter would have also worked while providing less pressure loss at higher freq.s relative to the average and off-axis.
You do get something more subjectively dynamic with a 1" CD though, and sometimes better perceived clarity though often depth of field can take a "hit" depending on the CD.
You can also play the loudspeaker LOUDER with fewer compression artifacts as you increase spl. along with lower non-linear distortion below cross-point, which may have been a design/use concern. (..I'm sure this was the deciding factor for the GGNTKT speaker that I provided a link to.)
For a fullrange 2-way it's still pretty good, I'd just prefer to see a more consistent polar and one that was at once wider at higher freq.s and less wide below 1 kHz.
-it is of course also beautiful wood work. 🙂
Last edited:
-I don’t know if this one has been mentioned or not, but it’s pretty interesting IMO:
https://www.kartesian-acoustic.com/copie-de-cmp35-vpa
https://www.solen.ca/en/products/cmp65_vpa-8
about $280 US seems like very good value
https://www.kartesian-acoustic.com/copie-de-cmp35-vpa
https://www.solen.ca/en/products/cmp65_vpa-8
about $280 US seems like very good value
Hi,
depth of field, to me, depends on how you define it: Loud early reflections in room seem to make phantom sound farther away, but also diffuse in a way and clarity suffers like you describe.
Reducing early reflections by attenuating sound towards first specular reflections and / or affecting delays with positioning and listening distance greatly affects the perception depth. In my experience, when effect of room to perceived sound is reduced the sound comes closer to me in general, but depth is now what is on the recording and not what the local room makes it. Some records can sound far away, while some sound in your face close, some records have both. Hearing depth that is in the recording is true depth to me, it has clarity and depth, and waveguides help achieve this in a domestic room. Perhaps poor waveguide can draw attention to itself with resonances/diffraction and ruin it.
So, either one of the two can be better for some: depth that is baked in the recording, or depth imposed by local room early reflections. Better depth is depends on which one you like, communicating it can be misleading without describing both, so wanted to expand on this. What do you think?
I think the depth that is baked in the recording will also be imposed by local room early reflections. You can't separate them unless in a anechoic chamber.
Yeah, unless you arrange speaker setup so that sound localizes inside the head like with headphones, which must mean hints of local environment are practically minimized. Except for bass due to long wavelengths room is always involved. I can achieve sound localization inside head like so: two person sofa at room corner, speakers both sides of the sofa against the walls toed in some. Basically the speakers are both sides of my head, me between speakers, and earliest reflections are very close but quite much attenuated due to sofa and directivity of the speakers, while other two walls and ceiling are significantly far away. Perhaps this can be achieved anywhere, just go between your speakers and toe them in, bring them closer to maximize the effect.
Difference I tried to describe is that moving closer to speakers (walking centerline between speakers) brings the phantom closer to me, moving away from speakers makes the phantom center further away. This is one way to describe depth: how far the sound seems to be, could be behind the speakers or in front, but there is no clarity. At some distance close enough the speakers there seems to a transition where clarity for phantom center suddenly happens, and now also depth in the recording is more apparent almost like 3D presentation.
Playing with the transition, if I move further away sound gets more 2D and moves further away from me, could be behind speakers but its just flat and clarity is gone. Difference at the transition is like stepping into the sound, or stepping out of the sound, two very different perceptions of depth: flat with some distance from me, or real depth that depends on what is on the recording, in which case both clarity and depth happens. Yeah, there is some room involvement as its not inside my head like it could in extreme case.
I understood ScottG described clarity and depth as opposite things that compete but to me they come together so it is just different description of perception of depth and what one is looking for. Perhaps I misunderstood what he wrote 🙂 I just wanted to bring forward there is possibility for confusion depending how people understand and hear depth. I don't even know what actually makes these two perceptions so different, I just hear there is difference and attribute it as effect of room to perceived sound quality.
Difference I tried to describe is that moving closer to speakers (walking centerline between speakers) brings the phantom closer to me, moving away from speakers makes the phantom center further away. This is one way to describe depth: how far the sound seems to be, could be behind the speakers or in front, but there is no clarity. At some distance close enough the speakers there seems to a transition where clarity for phantom center suddenly happens, and now also depth in the recording is more apparent almost like 3D presentation.
Playing with the transition, if I move further away sound gets more 2D and moves further away from me, could be behind speakers but its just flat and clarity is gone. Difference at the transition is like stepping into the sound, or stepping out of the sound, two very different perceptions of depth: flat with some distance from me, or real depth that depends on what is on the recording, in which case both clarity and depth happens. Yeah, there is some room involvement as its not inside my head like it could in extreme case.
I understood ScottG described clarity and depth as opposite things that compete but to me they come together so it is just different description of perception of depth and what one is looking for. Perhaps I misunderstood what he wrote 🙂 I just wanted to bring forward there is possibility for confusion depending how people understand and hear depth. I don't even know what actually makes these two perceptions so different, I just hear there is difference and attribute it as effect of room to perceived sound quality.
Last edited: