coaxial vs fullrange

Jump to Latest
#43
Arthur Jackson said:
Maybe I should add that there are good coaxials out there but no one can buy them for DIY purposes?
Click to expand...
I'd say a few of them are available and quite nice.

I have hands on experience with TB W6-2313, which a very nice driver and a beast at imaging. Quite impressive.

I did not try the SBA SATORI MT19CP-8 myself yet, but I am quite sure it is a wonderful driver as well. SBA doesn't have many duds in their lineup. It's on my very short list of drivers to try.

The new W6 and W8 TB line of coax is very nice. Another set has been used in X's TL design and has the owner liking them very much.
SBA, I'm sure, is just as good. I should be able to prove it soon.

So, yes, there are good coax out there.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Arthur Jackson
#44
The TB drivers are exceptional as far as coaxials go. I would love to hear a comparison of their coaxials and their full ranges. That would be interesting. I wish I could come up with a couple grand to do that experiment.

Here is the typical Coaxial FR from the Satori MT19CP-8 Coaxial with Papyrus Cone. This kind of data scares me away from attempting to build a coax system. The frequency response above 2K is horrible.
MT19CP-3.jpg


I think there is a lot going on there that an average hobby hifi guy like me can't fix. The coaxial TB graphs are much better.

Here is a somewhat over-smoothed but much flatter looking frequency response from the W6-1916 6.5" Paper Full Range. Interesting to note that the TB coaxials also 'measure' very smooth. The TB frequency smoother is well known. This speaker is something the average guy can plop in a box and have reasonably good sound straight away.
W6-1916 LMS_S.jpg


This doesn't take into account the difficult to measure aspects of "cymbals appearing in the speaker cone" and "sound stage" that people can hear but modern machines for some bizarre reason can't measure. I think illusion and psychology are stronger factors than measured data. That's just my observation, don't go losing your mind and tell me I'm ignorant and don't understand physics.

My experience with several SEAS coaxials I admit is dated, the new designs from different manufacturers show promise, especially the TB offerings that seem to be well designed. They appear to be a system, not a tweeter stuck on a woofer. They appear to resemble other 'high-end' designs.

One last point before I hop on my tractor, there are planar loudspeakers that produce wide frequency response and are quite remarkable when you think about it. There are some rather large geometry differences, but I don't see why a cone can't be a good full range too.
 
#46
Arthur Jackson said:
The TB drivers are exceptional as far as coaxials go. I would love to hear a comparison of their coaxials and their full ranges.
Click to expand...
They are indeed.
I think one of the reason they are smoother is the much flatter cone profile, compared to the deeper typical woofer cones, like on the Satori. Would probably be a reason for the erratic behavior of the tweeter inside the cone for the Satori.

One more reason is that TB is well known for doctoring the published FR. 🙂

Other TB I have tried are a W4-1052SD in the TABAQ which sounded nice with one notch, a w5-1611saf, that dropped like a brick past 5kHz, so definitively needed a tweet, and the woofer performance was not that stellar either, and the quite nice W8-1772.

That W8-1772 is a very nice one, with treble reaching far higher with a lot less beaming than most 8". The very thin paper cone reacts very nicely, but it desperately needs at least two notches to sound great. In fact, I haven't come up with any TB driver (or any driver from any manufacturer) that didn't need some kind of correction.

Any description that include quotes like "this one has a lot of air", or "details are prominent in this driver" will steer me far away or I know I will need to tame those things to enjoy them.

So, yes, I need to do some type of compensation. I just can't take out a driver out of its box, put it on a baffle and enjoy right away. I guess I'm picky! 🙂
 
  • Like
Reactions: Arthur Jackson and wchang
#47
planet10 said:
It tells an important part of situation.

But it is not complete.

First we have to consider how poor our understanding of the ear/brain works.

And some measures are just MIA.

As an analogy would be a body of water. The FR is a measure of the smoothness of surface but we can’t measure how deep (surface = measured FR, depth is the DDR [ability to do detail, the small bits]).

Those small bits that give allow you to differentiate instruments, reality of voices, ability to throw a good image/soundstage … measure soundstage?

dave
Click to expand...
Dave, can you link to some threads about DDR? Like data prooving it actually exists outside your imagination? How can it be measured? Since different fullrange drivers have different DDR, like MA good, TC9 no good, according to you, there should be some data supporting the claims.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mayhem13
#48
In the near field, full range drivers with a benign break up mode past the listeners effective range of hearing and with suitable bass support can sound fantastic…………but outside of this use case, a well designed 2 way with a tweeter will outperform them at every turn.

Wanna experience the best Coax has to offer when you don’t have any measuring equipment or ability?…..grab a set of KEF Q150 second hand…..add some bracing to the cabinet and laminate the outside with a sandwich of premium plywood and constrained layer damping. Use the included port plugs and cross them to a suitable subwoofer at 80hz…….done.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Arthur Jackson
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom