That should be doable without a lot of fuss.
Time to do it.
You know what PT Barnum said.Or maybe the crossover wasn't sorted. Did you miss where people here have sorted crossovers with good results? OEMs almost never do this.
What mechanism do you think prevents full ranges from having this phenomenon? I'll give you a hint: none.
I don't think you've listened to too many speakers. My home built speakers don't do this at all.
All you've done is flap your gums. Start building.
Pretty much.
Most people are so clueless anyway. Acoustics is voodoo without some kind of understanding of physics. I admit it's not exactly intuitive.
It cracks me up when lay people talk about watts and other electrical topics. They've been pumped up with a bunch of crapola.
It might appear so from a limited practical point of view, but the problem begins when people try to understand what a point source is and they say to themselves.."what is it about a synergy that makes it different." It's the wrong place to start.
Consider one of a synergy's practical limitations. As frequency falls and the mouth looks smaller, the mouth becomes a second radiator. The point source ideal becomes a mess. This applies until frequency gets so low that everything looks tiny and it doesn't matter any more.
That is a property that can apply to any speaker and not just a synergy. Consider the way that a multi-way speaker uses a dome as it is acoustically smaller. By comparison, a full-range speaker is big at high frequencies and causes lobes which are not point source behaviour.
Any single driver with a whizzer and dust cap has two mechanical XOs even if it has a single glue joint, so with just a dustcap, one.
In effect, the glue joint
In theory, but not necessarily since a driver will be pistonic from Fs to the VC's diameter frequency, i.e. 1" dia. = ~13543/pi/1 = ~4311 Hz and above this point will be its TL action as the signal travels in/on the diaphragm with its pistonic action distorting/comb filtering with it and why whizzers are often used to 'shout down'/blend with this lower gain composite signal.
Due to this, the $0.98 tweak is pretty much mandatory on every whizzer, so curious how it impacts the DLVX8's alleged superior mids: Modifications
In short, you ideally want pistonic all the way to at least 8 kHz = ~0.54" dia. VC, but then power handling is too low to do the <500 Hz Hz BW, hence the need for separate mid drivers.
The dust cap of course is where the highest frequencies emanate.
Indeed; ancient long story short, a then local Altec engineer quipped that the more technically correct monopole confused way more folks than point source.
Yes that's a misnomer. I understand it to actually be average power available with a sine wave signal. It is useful for comparison purposes. It certainly doesn't tell us everything about how much voltage and/or current an amplifier can deliver. I test everything and into a nominal 8 ohm load I've seen as little as 12% of rated continuous power to 125% continuous rated power; and with a little as 0 dB headroom (actually negative
) to almost 4 dB headroom for transients. How many consumers understand this nuance? Many will believe everything because they don't know everything.
Of course, and any well sorted speaker will behave as a point source from a long enough distance.
From Wikipedia
It's a mathematical concept and when we talk about point source light or point source sound, we're talking in relative terms. It's a singularity and there is no such thing in reality as an absolute singularity.
About the title of this thread...
Of Course multi-way is flawed.
Nothing's perfect in the world of electronically RE-produced sound.
You can get satisfyingly close, yes.
Decades ago, it was said that a single speaker would be best, as long as it could reproduce the full spectrum of sound equally.
But that's impossible, naturally, because of physical limitations.
So 2-ways were invented as a huge improvement.
And then 3-ways....
And those idiotic 4,5,6 ways the japanese started making.
Those were made to "impress" people, a marketing tool.
Advent, and a few others, had it right with simple 2-ways, and it worked just fine.
Less..... is better.
Of Course multi-way is flawed.
Nothing's perfect in the world of electronically RE-produced sound.
You can get satisfyingly close, yes.
Decades ago, it was said that a single speaker would be best, as long as it could reproduce the full spectrum of sound equally.
But that's impossible, naturally, because of physical limitations.
So 2-ways were invented as a huge improvement.
And then 3-ways....
And those idiotic 4,5,6 ways the japanese started making.
Those were made to "impress" people, a marketing tool.
Advent, and a few others, had it right with simple 2-ways, and it worked just fine.
Less..... is better.
Really? Just made to impress people?
One of the very best systems I've ever heard was a DIY 5way. The owner has had many people through his place to listen and I doubt anyone has come away unimpressed with what it's capable of.
To date, I think the best system I've ever designed and built was my 5 way FLHs, though the current 4 way is pretty close and takes up much less room. Few people have seen it, and I designed it from an engineering / performance perspective, so whom am I trying to impress?
When I was younger in my 20's, and working in an audio salon selling stereo, we got those multi boxes in.. the sansui's.. the pioneers... to my sharp ears they sounded aweful
Honky, harsh, ear-bleeding.
I opted to own a smooth sounding pair of Advent Smalls back then.
Sure, those sounded bad. But how does that relate to a modern implementation?
It likely doesn't.
But I was merely explaining the increasing complexity and negative possibilities of such systems.
The more you "play" with a system, the chances of attempting to correct for discrepencies there are.
I like to stay simple, and that can result in a better chance of purity, faithfulness.
Only if you don't know what you're doing.
No.
Purity and faithfulness to what? The original signal? Then there are plenty of ways for a 2 way the stuff that up because you're stretching components to the limits of their performance.
And like I said, it's never a perfect transducer.
One has to understand and respect that.