Well, how about we collectively agree that the use of "full range" simply means that you can feed the driver "full" bandwidth signal within its specified operating range without risking immediate self destruction - as would likely be the case with most tweeters, regardless of their technology.
Just don't expect such a system to actually deliver ""full bandwidth realistic / THX reference levels" or whatever your personal benchmark might be. Depending on the application, such as extreme full body immersion home theatre systems, there are a lot of "conventional" multi-way systems that would have trouble meeting some folks' expectations.
consensus, here? 🙄
googlyone - I think most who've experimented with both would agree that even the most simplistic approach with active ( i.e. passive line level) offers advantages over passive high level - in many cases at comparable or even lower cost.
ScottG - I found this on the internet, so it must be true, even if Mr Darling doesn't attribute his source:
audio spectrum
We could carve up and redefine the above ad naseum and get entangled in semantic guano (that'd be a first) - is there a absolute industry standard for sectional breakdown of the audio bandwidth that we could adopt without risk of future argument? Seriously, as much as I enjoy a creamy snark with maple syrup and pink salt topping, I'm curious about that.
Just don't expect such a system to actually deliver ""full bandwidth realistic / THX reference levels" or whatever your personal benchmark might be. Depending on the application, such as extreme full body immersion home theatre systems, there are a lot of "conventional" multi-way systems that would have trouble meeting some folks' expectations.
consensus, here? 🙄
googlyone - I think most who've experimented with both would agree that even the most simplistic approach with active ( i.e. passive line level) offers advantages over passive high level - in many cases at comparable or even lower cost.
ScottG - I found this on the internet, so it must be true, even if Mr Darling doesn't attribute his source:
audio spectrum
We could carve up and redefine the above ad naseum and get entangled in semantic guano (that'd be a first) - is there a absolute industry standard for sectional breakdown of the audio bandwidth that we could adopt without risk of future argument? Seriously, as much as I enjoy a creamy snark with maple syrup and pink salt topping, I'm curious about that.
Sub and super-sonic normally mean below and above the speed of sound, respectively.
Infrasonic refers to below range of audible hearing and ultrasonic as above the frequency range of normal hearing.
Infrasonic refers to below range of audible hearing and ultrasonic as above the frequency range of normal hearing.
ScottG - I found this on the internet, so it must be true..
..is there a absolute industry standard for sectional breakdown of the audio bandwidth that we could adopt without risk of future argument? Seriously, as much as I enjoy a creamy snark with maple syrup and pink salt topping, I'm curious about that.
😀
For the recording industry, that graph pretty well displays the "standard".
A derivative is also on the bottom of the graph (of the link I provided) that displayed instruments and voices relative to middle C.
Again though, it's based on a flawed standard - and it creates other problems.
Ex. A soprano singing a high (relatively) pure tone (maybe as high as 1.5k), is most definitely singing in the treble region, which is relatively synonymous with "high freq.s".. and yet if using the recording industry standard that high treble sound is somehow now "transmuted" into the "midrange" (..and not even the upper midrange at that). The result makes no sense, and I can assure you that treble in this context was used L O N G before the recording standard above.
This example may seem stupid, but lets place it into audible context.
Try producing each of these sounds with your voice (..even try it with a falsetto voice).
The top of the midrange as expressed in the recording standard above is higher than 2 kHz.
Here is a 2 kHz tone:
2khz - YouTube
Would you describe that sound as a "midrange" sound?
How about a 1 kHz tone:
Bars and Tone 1 kHz -10 dbFS - YouTube
Again, an almost 262 Hz tone is described as "upper bass" within recording standard. Does this sound like bass to you (upper or otherwise)?
Test Tone Middle C Reference 261hz Sound Effect
The recording standard is IMO - moronic. 😉
Last edited:
Full range is the accepted term and happens to be title of this forum in DiyAudio. Now you want to change the meaning of that? where do the numbers come from for your "wide-range" three's in numerology? , that's simply midrange territory. I'm sure there must be more to the story that you were 'essentially banned' for suggesting a change in Audio Karma's definitions too. Full range isn't a silly term, but most agree the FAST is.
edit> Bob your input is steering this thread off the road into a ditch.
Last edited:
maybe Bob was referring to the "Telephone band" - which was certainly for years considered to be a "full enough" compromise range of frequencies for resolution of transmitted spoken voice?
Since it's bass assisted, why not add a 'B'?
"BAWL"
The double (or multiple?) entendre seems appropriate given the varying opinions on this kind of thing.
2way forum is needed 😀
Two is specific number, noticeably more that one but severely less that many.
Last edited:
You seem to propose it partly in jest, but I agree in all seriousness since I grew up with 'full-range' meaning a single driver speaker system and way back at the beginning this was a telephone's very narrow mids, lower treble BW, though of course over time this expanded as technology increased a recording's bass and treble extension to the point where a typical single driver speaker can't reproduce all that's on some recordings at any tonally balanced SPL due to limited LF power handling.
GM
GM
only partly 😉
grammatic number - singular\dual\plural or 3 numerals in primitive languages - one\two\many ))
grammatic number - singular\dual\plural or 3 numerals in primitive languages - one\two\many ))
Hmm, the two old charts I'm aware of that held sway for so long used either the female's highest fundamental [~1 kHz] as the beginning of treble with bass down to 20 Hz and mids from 500-5 kHz if a three way or [2 kHz] if using decade spreads: 20- 200, 200-2k, 2k-20 kHz.
The latter are all 3.322 octaves wide, well within the range point source drivers can handle, so seems a good choice to define the basic bass, mids, treble from a technical POV and easy to remember.
Beginning in the early '70s, 'audiophiles' started chopping them up into finer segments to make themselves seem important or some-such, I don't recall ever seeing any bone-fide justification for it.
GM
I say forget the "numbers" and focus on defining the concept > >
once the concept is nailed down into words ( not numbers ) then an acronym may present itself.
my 1st stab> A Single full range driver is relieved of some of it's wide band duties in the bass regions by utilizing a woofer/s and electrical network to accommodate for its combined acoustic transfer functions according to the selected drivers and baffle alignment. eg added BSC compensation.
once the concept is nailed down into words ( not numbers ) then an acronym may present itself.
my 1st stab> A Single full range driver is relieved of some of it's wide band duties in the bass regions by utilizing a woofer/s and electrical network to accommodate for its combined acoustic transfer functions according to the selected drivers and baffle alignment. eg added BSC compensation.
Last edited:
Yup, that just flows, dunnit?
LCOTW
"It seems to be different every time I hear it, Mr Lee, exactly what does it actually mean?"
- "someone just really wanted it to spell 'S.H.I.E.L.D.', "
LCOTW
"It seems to be different every time I hear it, Mr Lee, exactly what does it actually mean?"
- "someone just really wanted it to spell 'S.H.I.E.L.D.', "
Yup, we should tell the boss that it should be called 'single driver systems' and move all the FAST to the multi driver forums.
I'm about to have dinner so y'all can take it from here.
Cheers.
Well I 'm sure you've finished yer veggie burger & multigrain toast appetizer - what's the main course tonight?
Yeah, hard to argue against FAST being multi-ways
Unless we start a new class for the 'tweeners ?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.