Which A6.2 there is a metal & a paper. I find these very good, both flavours. Did you give thenm a proper break-in, your reaction is diametrically different than most people’s take.
Every loudspeaker is a compromise, perhaps they do not suit your needs.
The WAWs or subwoofer are a step towards what a multiway can bring without a lot of the downside compromises.
With the quality of the best FRs available today, and relieve them of the heavy-lifting in the bass, and you can get a world-class system.
dave
Oh, I don't know. There's plenty of basic motors, over or underhung. Then there are lots of motors over & underhung with some variety or other of shorting / plating ring applied somewhere around the polepiece -aluminium, copper &c. And some with that and / or a similar ring / plating to the rear of the structure. And then some with full symmetric drive, with the VC gap plated as well. I've had plenty of HD distortion variations with drive level; usually the symmetric drive variations come out ahead, especially with variable rate / geometry spiders etc. Looking over what notes I have on this machine, they don't really seem to align to anything that I'd put down as 1/2 rated Xmax -I don't doubt your own findings; just noting that mine aren't quite as cut & dried.
Not a good analog. The bleeding edge of FR is in the diy market. THose who buy boxes out of the retial store will have severly limited choice… not because a FR cannot provide a very satisfactory reproducer, but because of the fairly-universl male property of “bigger (or more) is better”, I have seen speakers with tweeters XOed at 20k just so they could have 2 drivers. And those with a driver in every possible spot on the bafflle.
Every loudspeaker is a set of compromises, Mr Geek’s accepatble compromises do not include the special qualities a good FR brings to the table. Why is he even here?
dave
Sounds about right. But it seems fairly popular with the Bonecke clones, but it is a $10-15 driver.
dave
Passive XOs are hard, particulalry with the large values needed in a WAW, why bi-amping makes so much easier and more flexible.
An example, while we got away with 1st order active on our big MTM, the passive is 4th order. Tysen could be biamped at 250-350 Hz, the passive was moved up to 450, further away from the resonant impediance peaks.
dave
Based on what i have read in text books on hearing research, the impact of this is very minimal.
dave
I choose drivers that do not have significant dispersion issues.
Lens have a FR which is much more limited than the bandwidth of the FR. They may bring improvements insome areas but the downsides usually geatly utweigh any improvements.
And if you follow Geddes, you want a FR with limited dispersion. In this case, natural as opposed to needing a big waveguide to get the dispersion needed. Simplier and way cheaper. And many forget that budget is often one of the biggest compromises that have to be made.
dave
Are they bringing it back? The SDX7 (or SDX7 mk2). One of my favorite small woofers. They do need work right out of the box, 3 decreasingly thick coats of mod-podge to lock the loose fibres in place dramatically improves teh HF performance, from a wild ride in the top octave to a smooth roll-off with a somewhat more extended top. Only good to a bit about 1.5Khz, do not really a midBass, but it is one of the few woofers that works in a sealed box. From surprisingly small to just small.
dave
CSS LDW7. I hope they are as good as the specs. I kind of wanted to try the Purifi, but the price was a bit much to swallow. Sorry, so SDX7 on their WEB.
The Mark drivers I tried were metal.
As I already said, I do understand the " special properties" of a FR. The lack of phase and lobing issues across the critical band. There is a clean but naturalness to vocals. Timing does matter to our brains. That is why I keep hoping one of these "wide band" drivers will show up that is smooth enough without copious DSP and can do 1 to 4K. Can you point me to a better one than the Alpiar?
And YES, no FR for sale is a perfectly valid comparison as if they actually could match even a middle of the road multi-way, someone would make them.
I was actually responding to post 1, where what the OP desires would be wonderful, if it existed.
The Mark drivers I tried were metal.
As I already said, I do understand the " special properties" of a FR. The lack of phase and lobing issues across the critical band. There is a clean but naturalness to vocals. Timing does matter to our brains. That is why I keep hoping one of these "wide band" drivers will show up that is smooth enough without copious DSP and can do 1 to 4K. Can you point me to a better one than the Alpiar?
And YES, no FR for sale is a perfectly valid comparison as if they actually could match even a middle of the road multi-way, someone would make them.
I was actually responding to post 1, where what the OP desires would be wonderful, if it existed.
Right. It's the component values that are the killer, mainly in the impedance flattening LCR Zobels. That said, it does mean you get a very nice amplifier load. 😉
Good but as nice IMO, just a re-labeled driver by someone else, i can’t recall the brand name ATM (old man syndrome, it will come to me), but i am not supposed to tell anyway.
dave
'Full range are a niche romantic hobby. Fun I guess, but not how to achieve realistic sound reproduction.'
Nothing wrong with having a niche romantic hobby of any kind, imo. Achieving realistic sound reproduction isn't necessarily anyone's goal nor should it be, necessarily. It's comparatively expensive and complicated for one thing. Two things. The value of doing this is the enjoyment someone gets out of it, making and hearing. Whether that is because it's realistic or because it's successful according to their priorities doesn't matter. Necessarily.
Nothing wrong with having a niche romantic hobby of any kind, imo. Achieving realistic sound reproduction isn't necessarily anyone's goal nor should it be, necessarily. It's comparatively expensive and complicated for one thing. Two things. The value of doing this is the enjoyment someone gets out of it, making and hearing. Whether that is because it's realistic or because it's successful according to their priorities doesn't matter. Necessarily.
Last edited:
And growing leaps & bounds.
Realistic reproduction? What is that. We can only create a pale representation of realistic, the set of compromises is very large. And it does not exclude FRs. The best are capable of things (in a real event) that few, if any,multiways achieve. WAW are an effort to decrease the sonic compromises, and they work pretyy well. The budget part of the compromises usually takes a BIT hit to do it.
Now looking atthat budget, 1 FR, vrs a woofer+a tweeter+an XO, one is going to significantly decrease the probable quality of the parts to get teh quantity of parts needed. TO get comparable quality of parts, the budget has to be expanded. But then one could get (if available) a better FR so the cycle continues.
One has to look at all the compromises.
dave
OK, adding a woofer sounds like lot more complexity. For now, I will stick to building Pencil and see how it goes, as it should be straight forward build. If later on woofer is needed, I will venture out in the wild.
Thank you all for your help. Now, waiting on the A10p to arrive.
Thank you all for your help. Now, waiting on the A10p to arrive.
The pensils i've build (for others) did not need a sub, but those were with the 10.3 and the 11MS. But as the 10P is on the low end almost the same as the 10.3 i guess a sub will be only needed for very bass depending music or HT or for high volume.
And on 'reproducing music realistic", the music you listen to (except classical music, and even that is not always realistic) is not realistic, it's recorded in a studio, mostly in small parts and assembled in the mix and heavy processed to make a fake image of a live performance at it's best, and mostly even not that, just made to sound good on as much systems as they can. So bein anal about "realistic reproduction" is actually fooling yourself. In best case (with studio monitors in a treated room) you hear exact the same as the mixing and mastering engineers, but the goal should be to sound good. And what sounds good is in a large way subjective, but somewhat uncoloured or only a bit harmonic distortion and relative flat frequencyresponse and dispertion certainly helps. But it's not so that the cleaner the sound, the better it sounds for everybody. Some like a touch of harmonic distortion, and a more "sloped down on high freq" sound. And some like strickt point source over multiway point source and think that is more important than a clean sound...
And on 'reproducing music realistic", the music you listen to (except classical music, and even that is not always realistic) is not realistic, it's recorded in a studio, mostly in small parts and assembled in the mix and heavy processed to make a fake image of a live performance at it's best, and mostly even not that, just made to sound good on as much systems as they can. So bein anal about "realistic reproduction" is actually fooling yourself. In best case (with studio monitors in a treated room) you hear exact the same as the mixing and mastering engineers, but the goal should be to sound good. And what sounds good is in a large way subjective, but somewhat uncoloured or only a bit harmonic distortion and relative flat frequencyresponse and dispertion certainly helps. But it's not so that the cleaner the sound, the better it sounds for everybody. Some like a touch of harmonic distortion, and a more "sloped down on high freq" sound. And some like strickt point source over multiway point source and think that is more important than a clean sound...
Last edited by a moderator: