Depends which. 😉 I did a prototype a few years ago that could do 22Hz - 18KHz, but as you'd expect, it came at the price of lousy sensitivity (about 77dB 1m/2.83v) and rotten power-handling (almost zero LF dynamic headroom), so from my POV, not worth the effort, even for an extreme nearfield. Sounded okay close up with some spoken word, but even a recording of my friend Julie playing whistle was about at the limit.
Thanks!
I have one truly 20-20 kHz+ system that does (can't remember the name ATM), but it's a prototype designed for high end HT apps, though IIRC one is damaged and not designed to be repaired and if it was ever sold retail I've long since forgotten; instead was sold to (can't remember) in modified form for use in boating apps and may to this day for all I know and don't recall if it has/had as wide a BW.
Hi Scott,
It is difficult even for a multi-way system to combine wide range, quality, response, 3D sound field, and localization at a high level.
My goal is to achieve this with a single full-range system.
I'd say that's 'the goal' full stop -we're running up against the laws of physics, but it doesn't stop us trying anyway. 😉
I have used 15”-3ways in the past, but eventually came back to full range.
I think most of us on the full range forum prefer the full range sound to the multiway.
We are all challengers！！！
I think most of us on the full range forum prefer the full range sound to the multiway.
We are all challengers！！！
Greets!
Well, to date the closest AFAIK is the Western Electric/Altec 755 three way w/mechanical XOs and while it's only full range for the times it's based at least near enough on the (20*20000)^0.5 = ~632.456 Hz mean; which in turn = ~13543/pi/632.456 = 6.816" diameter, i.e. the 755's 8" frame size.
IOW, your goal IMNSHO should be to obviously improve upon it and to date I've yet to do it, just 'pick' at various price range consumer/prosound drivers to get them up to something approaching the 755's performance, nor auditioned any others' attempts that met the criteria.
Well, to date the closest AFAIK is the Western Electric/Altec 755 three way w/mechanical XOs and while it's only full range for the times it's based at least near enough on the (20*20000)^0.5 = ~632.456 Hz mean; which in turn = ~13543/pi/632.456 = 6.816" diameter, i.e. the 755's 8" frame size.
IOW, your goal IMNSHO should be to obviously improve upon it and to date I've yet to do it, just 'pick' at various price range consumer/prosound drivers to get them up to something approaching the 755's performance, nor auditioned any others' attempts that met the criteria.
I would say that using a single driver is the fundamental basis to achieve this - and something no multiway speaker can do in a truly convincing way. I have done advanced multiway dsp crossover speakers and have own expensive Genelec SAM monitors. All sounding inferior to a simple tower construction with chn110 or the Sibelius loudspeaker.
Maybe a WAW construction crossed below 80 Hz is the holy grail to get higher spl ?
Last edited:
How do you find it vs chp 90 or maop 10?
what do you think about this: https://www.markaudio.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/MAOP5MA200M-standmount-.png
what do you think about this: https://www.markaudio.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/MAOP5MA200M-standmount-.png
Yes!!!
Cost performance is almost equal.
The difference in price is the difference in sound quality and usability.
You can decide according to your budget.
MAOP10 for quality, CHP-90 mica for naturalness, and MA200-M for low-frequency extension and three-dimensional sound field.
Each has its own characteristics, so you can choose according to your preference.
The cost performance of MAOP10 is a bit low.
I don't use electrical filters, so I have no idea about the URL box.
Last edited:
I do, mainly because I designed it 😉 -it works well in the context of what it is though.
'In a nutshell' then, all we need for a true 'FR' driver are these three + extended LF, HF blended together @ much greater efficiency to get sufficient dynamic headroom @ vanishingly low distortion. Talk about knocking down the 'walls of science'!
With the exception of the Babb prototypes I have this applies to all so called 'FR' drivers I'm aware of in general, though of course some can trade efficiency for BW if the Fs is low enough. Really just depends on desired max SPL and how dynamic the recording/broadcasting is.
I have come to realise that @nandappe TQWT box plans being used by others to create Sibelius clones (10.2 driver) with good results - basically increasing the rigidity with thick oak wood. It will be interesting to see how these compare with something similar using MA200 …
Attachments
Last edited: