I vote troll'n'dash.
jeff
please keep your voting to yourself.
I haven't given any input because as I had already mentioned, I haven't heard any good quality full range driver. So, I still following this thread, listening to what you experienced people have to share.
I was just kidding (wink), but I did manage to lure you out.
Not sure this thread has much value.
jeff
I've skipped a few pages but I certainly thought the thread started out interesting. It reflected a question I'd been asking myself and had taken a while to explore.
Unlike the tube/solid state debate, I don't see a great divide between fullrange and multi-way speakers. They're just drive units. How many you use depends on application and the results you want to achieve.
Not being inclined to build horns or large line arrays, I'll probably explore the FAST route to get better dynamic range from a single driver and see how that stacks up against my active system. Ultimately, I don't much care how I get there as long as the music sounds realistic and isn't constrained.
And for anyone who doubts the benefits of a system capable of handling large swings of output - have you ever stood in a room with an opera singer singing at full throttle?
Unlike the tube/solid state debate, I don't see a great divide between fullrange and multi-way speakers. They're just drive units. How many you use depends on application and the results you want to achieve.
Not being inclined to build horns or large line arrays, I'll probably explore the FAST route to get better dynamic range from a single driver and see how that stacks up against my active system. Ultimately, I don't much care how I get there as long as the music sounds realistic and isn't constrained.
And for anyone who doubts the benefits of a system capable of handling large swings of output - have you ever stood in a room with an opera singer singing at full throttle?
It's all just a bit of fun, I think? If it was just the music there would not be much of a forum.
I was a poor apprentice back in the 60's listening to very restricted UK AM pop radio or records on a one note bass radiogramme. Music can still be evocative, even on transistor radio.
It is only now, with high quality internet radio and better audio equipment that I am really appreciating what was being produced back then compared to today's offerings. I'm refering to popular music.
I really don't think one needs much in the way of equipment to get pleasure from music. Hey, 30 years ago we listened to cassette tapes which was then hifi.
Terry
Musicality is directly related to the waveform - actually it is described entirely by the waveform that reaches the ears including volume envelope and nothing else!!
The difference between complex music and something more simple is in the complexity of the waveform. The simplest waveform is a sinewave and this is quite easy to reproduce as it does not contain any harmonics apart from the fundamental. Anything else can be reduced down to component sinewave harmonics. The way that these harmonics is combined consititues the wave. So what happens if you split the complex waveform into different frequency components and recombine them in a less than perfect fashion - you get a different waveform from what you started with. It follows that the musical experience will be different. Probably a bit technical for some - it's basic signal theory though and the basis of how a CD player works.
A square wave is the hardest challenge and sets the benchmark as it is made up of an infinte number of harmonics. The fact that you can't possibly reproduce all these intact means you can never get a perfect square wave in practice. The very limit of human hearing means you could never hear a square wave anyway! But the rendering accuracy of a square wave from input signal gives a very good indication as how the system will cope with the most challenging demands (complex music if you like). Real music contains many such challenging waveforms and infact would be rather boring if it didn't.
Last edited:
and why is that? why would the thread would have no value? because some people may not share the same opinion as you?I was just kidding (wink), but I did manage to lure you out.
Not sure this thread has much value.
jeff
Last edited:
I think that the actual driver and its mounting arrangement in an enclosure have a very significant effect on how (and if) it is perceived as a separate source, either by position or some sort of response anomaly. I use frequency shaping networks on my 9 - 3 1/2" driver partial array full range HT speakers (4mm Xmax) where only the driver in the center is reproducing above about 6khz, and, from the listening position, there are few or any artifacts indicating this. There is also a negligible amount of phasiness that would be expected from a 'regular' array using all drivers with equivalent or no eq.
Having only one 3 1/2 driver reproducing the high end above 6Khz with up to 10 - 15 db passive xover 'boost' peaking around 25khz for a 9 speaker array seemed like it might be a little bit of a chore for that one driver, so I threw in a protection circuit for that driver. But in truth, there has never been a problem operationally with it, except it perhaps goes a little soft at the highest levels which may not be such a bad idea with a lot of overequalized broadcast material. The two speakers surrounding the center driver handle everything above 1Khz (the approximate baffle step f) to 6khz - all 9 drivers have the same xover bass extension to ~25 hz cutoff. Also, with a total of 72 of these drivers among 8 speakers (total cone area similar to two 15" drivers, and having aluminum cones and rubber surrounds), some definitely physically perceptible bass can be reproduced since these speakers are driven by an Audyssey-equipped HT receiver that eq's them down flat to the 40 - 60 hz range as measured from the listening position.
There is still some doppler at higher levels - I may try to limit the bass response of the center speaker below about 1-200 hz to see how much that improves. Once in a while, I start thinking that I should add some subs for really subterranean bass and to cut down a bit on the Doppler, but these speakers have performed well enough on their own for me not to have done anything further during the last two-three years.`
Having only one 3 1/2 driver reproducing the high end above 6Khz with up to 10 - 15 db passive xover 'boost' peaking around 25khz for a 9 speaker array seemed like it might be a little bit of a chore for that one driver, so I threw in a protection circuit for that driver. But in truth, there has never been a problem operationally with it, except it perhaps goes a little soft at the highest levels which may not be such a bad idea with a lot of overequalized broadcast material. The two speakers surrounding the center driver handle everything above 1Khz (the approximate baffle step f) to 6khz - all 9 drivers have the same xover bass extension to ~25 hz cutoff. Also, with a total of 72 of these drivers among 8 speakers (total cone area similar to two 15" drivers, and having aluminum cones and rubber surrounds), some definitely physically perceptible bass can be reproduced since these speakers are driven by an Audyssey-equipped HT receiver that eq's them down flat to the 40 - 60 hz range as measured from the listening position.
There is still some doppler at higher levels - I may try to limit the bass response of the center speaker below about 1-200 hz to see how much that improves. Once in a while, I start thinking that I should add some subs for really subterranean bass and to cut down a bit on the Doppler, but these speakers have performed well enough on their own for me not to have done anything further during the last two-three years.`
Last edited:
quote Bob Brines: It's the music, you idiots, not the equipment!
Nail hit Very firmly and squarly on the head there Sir, Bravo.
-------------
Quote Colin: And for anyone who doubts the benefits of a system capable of handling large swings of output - have you ever stood in a room with an opera singer singing at full throttle?
Yes Sir, I have and NO HiFi can do that.....well, maybe a little bit, but it sure cant walk up to you after the song / event and say "Hey Darrell, how are you?" or be invited round to dinner.
HiFi dont look as good either.
Nail hit Very firmly and squarly on the head there Sir, Bravo.
-------------
Quote Colin: And for anyone who doubts the benefits of a system capable of handling large swings of output - have you ever stood in a room with an opera singer singing at full throttle?
Yes Sir, I have
and NO HiFi can do that.....well, maybe a little bit, but it sure cant walk up to you after the song / event and say "Hey Darrell, how are you?" or be invited round to dinner.HiFi dont look as good either.
Are you mixing Fourier transfom theory with Nyquist-Shanon sampling theorem????
I can't see the relationship in this context
You are also forgetting that human hearing is not sensible to phase, so "complex music" isn't related to the complexity of the waveform...
its really simple to understand, but this is, in no way, a argument to put the fullrange ahead of a good multi-way.
what about the sinewave that a fullrange CANNOT reproduce? the sub bass for example. Or the break up it need to do in order to make the highs. I'm sure that the sinewave is heavily affected by the break up modes. Also, what about the supposedly perfect sinewave reprodue with a fullrange when the cone excursion is ridiculous because the fullrange needs to reproduce all the bandwith.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.