Just thought I would start this as a good single resource for people who may be curious about Full Range speakers and were seeking more information. I realize there are other resources out there that address this, but they often represent a single point of view and I thought it might be helpful to have multiple views on the topic in a single place that is easily identifiable by its title.
Since this is intended as a source of information for the curious, then an honest presentation of the virtues and shortcomings of Full Range speakers devoid of personal attacks and flame wars would be ideal. If the response turns out to be positive then perhaps we could consider posting similar threads about specific full range designs (e.g. Horns, Transmission Lines, Standmounts, and so on) to follow, but for now it is probably best to try to keep it as general as seems reasonable.
Thanks.
Since this is intended as a source of information for the curious, then an honest presentation of the virtues and shortcomings of Full Range speakers devoid of personal attacks and flame wars would be ideal. If the response turns out to be positive then perhaps we could consider posting similar threads about specific full range designs (e.g. Horns, Transmission Lines, Standmounts, and so on) to follow, but for now it is probably best to try to keep it as general as seems reasonable.
Thanks.
Hi Larry,
I don't have any questions about this at the moment. I've actually perused a good many of full range discussions here and elsewhere by now (been following things on and off now for a couple of years) and, while I'm obviously still learning, I didn't start this thread for me. Reading through all those many threads and posts is very time consuming, especially when you have to glean the relevant information from threads that meander across a wide variety of topics and issues. This thread was intended to help anyone who might be wondering about Full Range speakers but was just starting out. I was hoping it might serve as a kind of one-stop overview of the general virtues and shortcomings of Full Range speakers to help give the newly curious an obvious place to begin their search (at least that was my intention).
Ok I will start it off. My favorite advantage of full range is that it is simple: 1 driver, straight connection to amp without any crossover. Disadvantage: cannot do high SPL's.
Thanks xrk971. This is the kind of thing I was thinking of, but it might help to include a short explanation of why simple (e.g. no crossover) is a virtue. What is it about crossovers that complicates speaker design and production? (The same goes for the shortcomings surrounding SPL.)
I am no crossover expert but I know they are tricky to design. Furthermore, they introduce frequency dependent phase shifts due to their reactive nature. This reduces the coherence of the sound from the drivers. The ear is very sensitive to phase of sound and if it's messed up, sounds unrealistic and stereo phantom imaging is ruined.
High SPL capability is needed for larger venues or pro audio usage and gives more dynamic headroom for music with wide dynamic range like classical.
There is a way to get higher SPL from a full range driver and that is to use lots of them in a line array.
High SPL capability is needed for larger venues or pro audio usage and gives more dynamic headroom for music with wide dynamic range like classical.
There is a way to get higher SPL from a full range driver and that is to use lots of them in a line array.
Full range is only "simple" if you're not the guy tasked with designing the drive unit. By getting rid of the crossover you just dump all the problems onto him.
Hi Phil,
You've created an interesting thread. Hopefully it will attract sensible comment. I'm possibly the only member of Diyaudio with a foot in both camps when it comes to designing and making drivers. I'm currently in Australia designing pro-woofs for use in guitar amps, while at the same time developing another Full-Ranger.
All classes and sub-classes of audio transducers have their relative strengths and weaknesses, a critical factor is their application within a system.
I've got some articles on the design and construction of Full-Range single-point-source drivers that were translated for publication in Germany. If your 100% serious about making time and effort to create a Full-Range resource, should you like me to contribute, please let me know.
Thanks
Mark
Last edited:
I don't think phaseshift is that much of an issue on its own. It happens in nature all the time and our brain has developed into dealing with it. We are simply not that sensitive to it. Just like we are not that sensitive to small slow changes in loudness but are very much sensitive to transients and fricatives and other "contrast" filled sound.
The only real trouble with phase is the narrow band that is localised spatially by our head creating an obstruction that delays and attenuates those wavelengths.
And FR still has some phase issues, only less and with softer transitions.
The phase shifts can have an indirect effect though. Namely in the crossover region, where interaction happens between the two of more drivers in a normal speaker. And that is especially bad because is happens abruptly and right in the most sensitive regions of human hearing.
The advantages of FR for me is much better coherence in the upper part of the spectrum. You are not listening to a tweeter but to a relatively homogeneous source.
Also, the small light driver allows for little but very dry and precise bass. And if in a well designed cab, very well integrated with the upper bass.
While beaming is a problem, the gentle fall-off of small FR drivers are much more natural to the ear than the weird holes and dips in the middle of the speechband that regular two or threeway speakers suffer from.
Disadvantages are beaming and low dynamic range.
You are going to hear a lot of crazy talk about doppler distortion or frequency intermodulation, breakup modes and coloured highs. Truth of the matter is that those points are moot at best and has mostly been dealt with either in driver construction or cabs. Normal speakers also "suffer" from these ailments to almost the same or somewhat the same degree.
Beaming and DR can be dealt with in a number of ways. Small driver in a "FAST" (horrible but irritatingly compulsively useful pseudo-term ;-) The "Bose 901 way". IE reflections/reflectors and/or multiple drivers. Or you can use a supertweeter.
The only real trouble with phase is the narrow band that is localised spatially by our head creating an obstruction that delays and attenuates those wavelengths.
And FR still has some phase issues, only less and with softer transitions.
The phase shifts can have an indirect effect though. Namely in the crossover region, where interaction happens between the two of more drivers in a normal speaker. And that is especially bad because is happens abruptly and right in the most sensitive regions of human hearing.
The advantages of FR for me is much better coherence in the upper part of the spectrum. You are not listening to a tweeter but to a relatively homogeneous source.
Also, the small light driver allows for little but very dry and precise bass. And if in a well designed cab, very well integrated with the upper bass.
While beaming is a problem, the gentle fall-off of small FR drivers are much more natural to the ear than the weird holes and dips in the middle of the speechband that regular two or threeway speakers suffer from.
Disadvantages are beaming and low dynamic range.
You are going to hear a lot of crazy talk about doppler distortion or frequency intermodulation, breakup modes and coloured highs. Truth of the matter is that those points are moot at best and has mostly been dealt with either in driver construction or cabs. Normal speakers also "suffer" from these ailments to almost the same or somewhat the same degree.
Beaming and DR can be dealt with in a number of ways. Small driver in a "FAST" (horrible but irritatingly compulsively useful pseudo-term ;-) The "Bose 901 way". IE reflections/reflectors and/or multiple drivers. Or you can use a supertweeter.
Last edited:
I am by no means an expert/overly experienced with them, that's my disclaimer. Here's how I think of them in simple terms:
Pro: they can be simple
Con: they can be too simple
That over simplifies it of course...
Pro: they can be simple
Con: they can be too simple
That over simplifies it of course...
I'm thinking of attempting to prototype a driver design idea that I have rambling around in my head...maybe over Christmas break I'll get started on it. It ought to bring a laugh or two. 😱
I have settled on using fullrange speakers from the beginning. My experiences can be summerized as follows;
-whizzer cones are rarely successful, they attempt to introduce a top end extension but introduce cone interactions which make for a very ragged sound.
-I have settled into a pattern of using three drivers, so the wideband description is best. Why ? almost none of the FR speakers do it all well. I roll in a tweeter with a single cap at about 10khz which takes it out of the critical human speech range. I roll my woofers in at about 400hz - but this is a function of baffle width rather than the true capabilities of the FR driver. many of the larger FR speakers can go down to very low frequencies given the chance.
-They new what they were doing with FR drivers back in the 1940's and these FR speakers will generally outperform most modern offerings. My favourites are Isophon. However they are designed for Open Baffle and only really work well in OB setups. I used a set of driver in a BIB Voight pipe for over 5years and they always had a sibilance problem - this was cured by moving them into OB. The message is that these highly damped designs don't like any back loading.
-The advantage of these vintage designs is that most are over 100db/w sensitivity which means that high quality 2w amplifiers can be all that you need to drive them. Detail is what you gain from this arrangement.
-unfortunately xmax tends to be low so they are easy to overdrive into distortion if you turn the bass up to much, this again encourages me to use a bass helper to remove the load from the main FR driver.
-these vintage drivers can be very modestly priced. My current main speakers are Greatz field coil drivers which cost me just €130. Not quite as neutral as my big Isophon drivers - but they do some things very well indeed.
-The one time I heard a fostex driver I found it performed less well than my vintage drivers which leads me to suspect that many modern offerings costing many times the amount of vintage speakers are in fact just not as good.
Hope those thoughts help.
Shoog
-whizzer cones are rarely successful, they attempt to introduce a top end extension but introduce cone interactions which make for a very ragged sound.
-I have settled into a pattern of using three drivers, so the wideband description is best. Why ? almost none of the FR speakers do it all well. I roll in a tweeter with a single cap at about 10khz which takes it out of the critical human speech range. I roll my woofers in at about 400hz - but this is a function of baffle width rather than the true capabilities of the FR driver. many of the larger FR speakers can go down to very low frequencies given the chance.
-They new what they were doing with FR drivers back in the 1940's and these FR speakers will generally outperform most modern offerings. My favourites are Isophon. However they are designed for Open Baffle and only really work well in OB setups. I used a set of driver in a BIB Voight pipe for over 5years and they always had a sibilance problem - this was cured by moving them into OB. The message is that these highly damped designs don't like any back loading.
-The advantage of these vintage designs is that most are over 100db/w sensitivity which means that high quality 2w amplifiers can be all that you need to drive them. Detail is what you gain from this arrangement.
-unfortunately xmax tends to be low so they are easy to overdrive into distortion if you turn the bass up to much, this again encourages me to use a bass helper to remove the load from the main FR driver.
-these vintage drivers can be very modestly priced. My current main speakers are Greatz field coil drivers which cost me just €130. Not quite as neutral as my big Isophon drivers - but they do some things very well indeed.
-The one time I heard a fostex driver I found it performed less well than my vintage drivers which leads me to suspect that many modern offerings costing many times the amount of vintage speakers are in fact just not as good.
Hope those thoughts help.
Shoog
For me, the chief advantage of full range is simplicity. Crossovers are a pain for beginners. The interaction of the drivers to each other, and to the crossover don't always obey theory.
Secondly, cost. Good drivers are not cheap; and a good fullrange is often cheaper than combined multi range units. And inductors, if you want to experiment with crossovers aren't cheap.
Major disadvantage is lack of variables. If there is not enough "air" in the fullranges sound, there is not much you can do about it. Unless you are willing to be creative, baffle step loss will be an issue. You can mess around with correction circuits, (but then have to wonder if you would do as well using a multi range design.)
For me, a full range design, with no corrective circuitry has a type of sound that I really like, but it is not a perfect sound.
Secondly, cost. Good drivers are not cheap; and a good fullrange is often cheaper than combined multi range units. And inductors, if you want to experiment with crossovers aren't cheap.
Major disadvantage is lack of variables. If there is not enough "air" in the fullranges sound, there is not much you can do about it. Unless you are willing to be creative, baffle step loss will be an issue. You can mess around with correction circuits, (but then have to wonder if you would do as well using a multi range design.)
For me, a full range design, with no corrective circuitry has a type of sound that I really like, but it is not a perfect sound.
For me one of the big 'pro' is that a FR crossoverless conected to a amplifier is a active system. And if conected to a valve SE without feedback is a active and balanced system.
This only works satisfactorily with very particular drivers and enclosures. Get it right and everythings fine but it makes for a very inflexible system. For me its far better to apply a bit of local feedback to make the speaker-amp relationship a bit more predictable and make the amp more versatile.
Shoog
Thanks, Mark. I like the idea of setting up a resource like this, but I'm not sure I have the time and resources needed to do it right. My knowledge of web related tools (e.g. software, web page design, maintenance, and so on) is very limited and my knowledge of the technical side of electronics is perhaps even more so (and I really mean that). As an academic, most of my research efforts are directed towards advancing my own work in the philosophy of nature, the philosophy of technology, and so on, which dominates most of my intellectual life. My interest in DIY speakers and such is simply an extension of my love for music and and my interest in hands-on hobbies (e.g. woodworking, home renovation projects, etc.). I also love the spirit of sharing and cooperation that is expressed on sites like this. I guess my effort to start this thread comes from my many years of experience as a teacher. Having a single, easily identifiable resource that offered multiple perspectives on the topic might be a good help to those developing an interest in this kind of thing, and if their interest grows they will naturally progress to other, more advanced discussions of these and other related issues.
There are a few great posts here, by the way. Keep them coming. I'd add something myself, but I would just be repeating ideas that I've read from others (rather than ideas that are grounded in my own knowledge and experience), so I leave that work to those who have more experience in these matters and are better informed.
Hi Shoog,
But this convert the conection to unbalanced, and lost the advantages of the balanced conections.
I have, test and listen many amplifiers for years. My preferred are a Audio Innovations First Amplifier, really magnificient sound, is a SET without feedback. Other good amp that I have are the Deltec DPA 50S, with very big feedback, that extends to the loudspeakers conectors, is a very good amp, but I like very much the Audio Innovations.
Yes, I like the SET without feedback. The Audio Innovations sond best (to me) that the DPA, with any (reasonable SPL) loudspeaker.
Regards
But this convert the conection to unbalanced, and lost the advantages of the balanced conections.
I have, test and listen many amplifiers for years. My preferred are a Audio Innovations First Amplifier, really magnificient sound, is a SET without feedback. Other good amp that I have are the Deltec DPA 50S, with very big feedback, that extends to the loudspeakers conectors, is a very good amp, but I like very much the Audio Innovations.
Yes, I like the SET without feedback. The Audio Innovations sond best (to me) that the DPA, with any (reasonable SPL) loudspeaker.
Regards
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.