What are the Principal Virtures and Shorcomings of Full Range Speakers

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jump to Latest
#21
raul_77 said:
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
Click to expand...

That very much depends on the type and application of the feedback.

Shoog
 
#22
Back to topic: the FR, or WR if you prefer, mimics the microphone intrinsically. Then, if we feel the need we can augment the bottom and/or the top but the middle is unmolested by any divisive filtering. FR is better at revealing the moment an acoustic recording was made. Of course most music is phoned in these days, so there is no moment to be saved for posterity in that case.
 
#24
Shoog said:
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
Click to expand...

+1

For my part, I am constantly amazed at the implicit put down of many vintage FR or wide-range speakers by those who insist the old-timers armed only with their slide-rules, experience and aural acuity, could not possibly have designed anything that compares to current technology.

Like Shoog...tried many versions of modern FR drivers--Fostex, Tangband etc.-- none compare to my Wharfedale SFB/3s, Richard Allens, RSCs or Isophones or Philips in OBs particularly when price is factored in.😀

The advantage of FR or WR implementations using vintage FR or WR drivers is higher sensitivity and a sense of dynamic immediacy that the large knot of capacitors resistors and inductors in multi-ways absolutely chokes the life out of...IMO...
 
#25
Philosophil said:
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.
Click to expand...

Hi Phil,
Your academic/intellectual approach is most useful and much needed. Like many forums, the majority of contributions posted on Diyaudio.com often comprise of anecdotal opinion, subjective in nature, with little or no authoritative/validated research to afford any reliability to what's being said. A good example of this phenomenon has already arisen in some posts in support of vintage wide-band drivers on the basis that others have criticised their acoustic performance. However, there's no reference to any independent comparative testing between newer and older wide-band designs in these posts. As far as I know, the only recent independent comparative analysis was done in Japan by Ozawa Takahisa San-Japan, a well respected audio tester and author based in Tokyo. He did an analysis of the DIATONE (Mitsubishi) P-610DB, DAITO VOICE DS-16F and the original metal coned Alpair 12, referenced here (reproduction by permission of MJ Magazine Japan, translation by Yasushi Matsumoto San from the original MJ Magazine Japanese publication in early 2010):

http://ansaht.com/uv638jed4/ALP/MJ_3-2010.pdf

Ozawa san's published work indicated performance gains in the newer Alpair 12 driver against the older units in relation to dispersion, power-handling, range output and 2nd./3rd. order distortion. This should come as no surprise as design knowledge, materials and production technologies have advanced over the last few decades. However, we should also acknowledge that evidenced based testing like that published by MJ of Japan can only give some indication of performance gains; For there's little or no serious validated or authoritative research that assesses any connective relationship between the technical performance of acoustic transducers and the cognitive perception of human hearing. One simple anecdotal paradigm is one of mine; I have both a pair of original Alpair 12 units and a mint condition pair of Diatone P-610 drivers. In the past I've derived equal pleasure from both sets of drivers. I've operated them within their particular technical performance specifications; The outcomes being quite different from each other, with little prospect of making a preference other than on personal taste and circumstance.

Anecdotal/subjective opinion might in the future offer a body of evidence available for use in a content analysis, likely best evaluated in one of the "soft sciences" given its non-imperical nature. However, it may be best evaluated against the back-drop of technological development to a propelled symbiotic relationship too/with attitudinal changes in consumptive behaviour. I've attached a chart which gives some indication in changes to a timeline relating to the shift away from single-point-source to multi-way systems; Advances in technology being the originator but demand further adding to the phenomenon. Few of the original full-range transducer designers in the earlier part of the 20th. century could have predicted the progression from original High-Fidelity reproduction (being true to the musical source as possible) to the increasingly digitised audio world where many sources contain sounds that bear less resemblance to any naturally generated output.

As regards the future of Full-Range drivers, my own personal belief is they will play an increasingly important roll in consumer products. That it is possible to extend usable performance from single cone full-range transducer designs, my efforts over these last years are to this affect. The human race is consuming and wasting resources at un-sustainable rates. The development of modern Full-Range drivers capable of extended range with better usable mechanical properties will be a future requirement, since the rate of materials consumption applied to multi-way systems will gradually become non-viable.

Food for thought. Phil - hope this helps you.

Thanks
Mark.
 

Attachments

  • changes-in-application.jpg
    changes-in-application.jpg
    146.3 KB · Views: 278
Last edited:
#26
Thanks again, Mark. Picking up on some of your points, I would think that a full accounting of the virtues and shortcomings of something like full range speakers would likely require some combination of quantitative and qualitative considerations. I certainly agree that broader economic and environmental considerations should be included in this as well and want to thank you for bringing it up.

I'm not sure how you feel about adding links to the articles you mentioned in your previous post in this thread, but I for one certainly think they would be a welcome and much appreciated addition.

Thanks,
Phil
 
#28
One disadvantage of crossovers is a mismatch in dispersion at the crossover frequency. At that point, the woofer is usually starting to "beam" and the crossover brings in a tweeter. Being at the low end of its frequency range, the tweeter has wide dispersion. So you get a narrowing and then abrupt widening of the dispersion, which is more or less the power response and then should vaguely make the room response.

A single wideband drivers' dispersion should just keep narrowing, in a much smoother way.

The wideband also has an advantage that all the sound comes from the same spot, not from separated woofers and tweeters. This can create a more coherent sound image, and is why you see point-source coaxes from KEF, Thiel, and others.

And if you want high sensitivity, seems like it's pretty much only widebands which offer that any more.
 
#29
head_unit said:
One disadvantage of crossovers is a mismatch in dispersion at the crossover frequency. At that point, the woofer is usually starting to "beam" and the crossover brings in a tweeter. Being at the low end of its frequency range, the tweeter has wide dispersion. So you get a narrowing and then abrupt widening of the dispersion, which is more or less the power response and then should vaguely make the room response.
.
Click to expand...

not with 3 way.
 
#30
One of the main disadvantages of FR is poor WAF (which is not their fault anyway) derived from the big enclosure they need to benefit from at least some good bass.

Not my problem, as I don't care about WAF and use corner loaded horns. 😀

Rephrased could be: FR usually end on small square boxes and people use to run from them after a while...

Just my humble opinion...
 
Last edited:
#31
In order to enjoy single driver speakers in your music system you must, accept their limitations (few) to reap their benefits (many)!
My advice to anyone interested in this hobby is to get a pair of drivers, build some boxes and have some fun!!

Larry
 
#33
Full-rangers seem very attractive when it comes to DIYing for multi-channel HT systems using nearly a dozen channels. A single 4"-5" in a small sealed cab per channel, connected directly to the receiver (run full-range without high-pass), flanked with several carefully designed subs (2nd order low-pass), placed around a smallish room, would probably make for a nice system of this type.
 
Last edited:
#34
Philosophil said:
Thanks again, Mark. Picking up on some of your points, I would think that a full accounting of the virtues and shortcomings of something like full range speakers would likely require some combination of quantitative and qualitative considerations. I certainly agree that broader economic and environmental considerations should be included in this as well and want to thank you for bringing it up.

I'm not sure how you feel about adding links to the articles you mentioned in your previous post in this thread, but I for one certainly think they would be a welcome and much appreciated addition.

Thanks,
Phil
Click to expand...

Hi Phil,
Glad to be of help. I'll take a look at the articles, some re-writing may be needed to make them easier to read as they are technical papers.

Cheers
Mark
 
#35
raul_77 said:
Sorry for the off-topic. In the article from MJ magazine say: A new enclosure optimised for this driver will be introduced next time in a new issue of MJ magazine.
Have you also this article? Please, can you post here? Thanks
Click to expand...

Hi Raul,
The enclosure design and plan were published in the following MJ magazine print issue. No scanned (legal) copy is available (that I know of) sadly.
Cheers
Mark.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom