coaxial vs fullrange

I'm sure planet10 is a far more reliable source than say genelec, sonos, ascend acoustics, harman, etc....

Insults? Wiggins did some good work for Sonos, but they make shlock, Genelec does some serious work but driven by ts specific market. Harman have a range from crap to superb, again heavily driven by the markets it serves. each has its own experiences and expertise.

I have my own experience and knowledge, deep in places, shallow in others. Hifi is such a large space of budgets/needs/taste. Despite

Full ranges tend make compromises that simply don't need to be made. Just use a damn tweeter and stop going backwards in time/speaker development.

Tweeter adds the compromise of an XO and a physically displaced tweeter. Plus if you are adding it to a FR, the cost of the tweeter & XO.

Many people are happy with their FRs, across all levels of listening experiece & training.You’ll justb have to love with that fact.


dave
 
If one absolutely needs perfect time/phase coherence, than FIR DSP is the cure for coaxials. Nowadays, with cheap DSPs and class D amplifiers, I don't see what is there to object.
On the other hand, some deficiencies of fullranges can not be cured with DSP at all. So the winner is clear - coaxial.
But if one wants simple system, than good fullrange plus a little bit of EQ is viable solution and may bring a lot of musical satisfaction.
Appreciate an explanation why a good fullrange driver cannot be DSP optimized, and more easily than multi-way and coaxial (of the same size-class), for coherent very high fidelity music and transcient response. I don't have DSP (other than smartphone) and am genuinely interested (and have read relevant FIR threads).

Narrow dispersion is a limitation for both fullrange drivers and tweeters at high frequency (wave not much larger than transducer become directional). Fidelity is fundamentally limited by bandwidth -- at the ears. (I've done the KEF LS50 Meta and the holographic coherence zone was still very narrow despite cone-waveguide-distortion-effects.)

OP might consult this long "working" thread on coaxial ragged response, which I hogged 10% (27/269 msgs).

And
Even after semi-monopolizing the Fullrange Photo Gallery with multi-way coherent minimalist point-source-wannabe experiments, I still find it puzzling and mysterious -- the cause-effect relationships among time-alignment, phase-alignment, transcient-perfect response, venue-airyness, pinpoint-imaging, and holographic-depth. Perhaps SOTA DSP with rigorous protocol could test, disentangle, and demystify.

I'm convinced time-misalignment reduced perceived depth (and I'm not alone). I can have it all, and pretty quickly, by aligning acoustic centers first, then phase.

It's been truly enjoyable to whip up a coherent speaker or two, that placed musicians quite specifically and beyond the wall, and then to hear and discover new things in old music.
 
Wiggins did some good work for Sonos, but they make shlock

Uh huh, whatever you say mr, forum person who can never provide data to back up their claims.

Sonos-Roam-Spin-60.png

Genelec does some serious work but driven by ts specific market.

And that market is people who care about accurate audio reproduction.


Many people are happy with their FRs

I have heard this a lot in DIY audio, and it's probably the most empty statement one could make about a speaker.


You missed my point entirely. My point was that OP, and really everyone here should stop taking anecdotes as evidence of anything other than "This person likes this". OP asked a question that is largely technical in nature, and I provided him with an accurate comparison between two types of speakers and backed up the comparisons with data. Your arguments fall entirely down to subjective anecdotes which really are not helpful in the slightest. How is the OP or anyone else supposed to verify your experiences?


Tweeter adds the compromise of an XO and a physically displaced tweeter. Plus if you are adding it to a FR, the cost of the tweeter & XO.

Yeah that's just not really a problem though. The compromises are full range makes are worse than the ones a multi way creates. If it were the other way around, full range drivers would actually exist outside of ripping off hobbyists and diy forums. It's just not a great way to reproduce audio in various ways.

The days of speaker guru's and such are over. If one cannot provide objective information to go along with their subjective impressions, the info shared is meaningless. You're at home here though because a lot of users just eat up much of the crap that is spewed. I've said about all I need to here, I'll leave you all to it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sonce and adason
Seemingly flat amplitude FR chart for a multi-way, but without phase/step/impulse response information, is misleading at best.

I actually have some Lowthers but not front-horn. My PM6A 15ohm Al-coil rolled-whizzer after necessary-double-notch in 17L TLonken sounded relaxing and quite dry (in a high-fidelity way). My PM2A ticonal in Fidelio back-horn sounded excellent but not as resolving/dynamic as my better diys.
 
p.s. I don't have large classic Tannoy for comparison with Lowther; Precision 8/woof (diy experiment) just so-so. OTOH Faital HF108 CD has wider VHF dispersion horn-or-not but some other issues (to be worked out).

Compare that with the dispersion of a 3/4" dome tweeter in a waveguide.
"Too good to be true" tweeter / waveguide available or unobtainium? Thanks.
 
Last edited:
Well, since the zero mention on the particular setup and expectations, besides a vague mention of horn and Lowthers,
I will stick to the best answer available when there's no information other than "what's the best?" and the following replies (relevant or not) that are thrown in the mix....

The answer is 42.