From the point of view of someone who has sat behind a live mixing console for decades trying to get the voices of lecturers and actors across a PA, I'd say lack of bass has a lot to do with it. Also bumps circa 3kHz and 6 kHz can help. I'll take a little 8" plus horn over a 15" plus horn any day. A high quality fullrange would be the next choice.
A bigger, bassy speaker will sound more impressive, richer, but it won't be as clear on voice. A fought a lot to get smaller, simpler speakers for voice. I didn't always win.
A bigger, bassy speaker will sound more impressive, richer, but it won't be as clear on voice. A fought a lot to get smaller, simpler speakers for voice. I didn't always win.
Bingo! Our peak articulation acuity is at 2 kHz, right at or nearby, where so many cone/dome speakers have an XO whereas a typical 'FR' driver's 1" dia. VC is pistonic out to ~4311 Hz: Contribution to Articulation of .33 Octave BW | GM210 | Flickr
I'm not sure what you mean but I was talking about IMD
Intermodulation Distortion
"IMD often pales into insignificance compared to that created by some loudspeaker drivers, with 'full-range' speakers being one of the worst because they have to handle the entire frequency range. Some people have worked around this by horn loading the driver for low frequencies, but bass horns are impracticably large for most listening rooms. Usefully, while loudspeakers in general have much higher distortion levels than most amplifiers, the effects are generally low-order because the drivers are generally used over a relatively narrow bandwidth. Even wide range drivers can sound very good, provided power levels are modest."
You can build a horn or resonant box if you want.....because a full range lacks bass
IME because they apparently only use an AM radio's 100-5 kHz or maybe a bit higher BW.
FWIW, there's a local radio station that's on both AM and FM mono/stereo at the same point such that I can switch between the two monos and the only audible difference at my age/super abused hearing is the FM is a bit 'fuller' sounding [lower bass cutoff] and must be played a bit louder to get the same speech intelligibility.
Note too that the pioneers initially only emphasized their horn system's 250-2500 Hz BW as being flat and as wider BWs could be put on a movie strip they narrowed it up to 500-2500 Hz, so very 'telling' in what's most important re speech intelligibility.
So Matt, just to be clear, what you’re sayin is that “ it’s all about that bass” - no treble?
which brings us to All About That Bass - Postmodern Jukebox European Tour Version - YouTube
Is it just me, or is Casey - while a pretty decent bass player - rather over rated as vocalist?
Haley, on the other hand ... oops sorry, lost my train of thought
which brings us to All About That Bass - Postmodern Jukebox European Tour Version - YouTube
Is it just me, or is Casey - while a pretty decent bass player - rather over rated as vocalist?
Haley, on the other hand ... oops sorry, lost my train of thought
Last edited:
I believe it's to do with phase too, but also directivity. Most multiways have a crossover right in the frequency range that is key for intelligibility and where your ear/brain has most sensitivity. With physically separated drivers it's a very, very difficult challenge to get flat amplitude and low rates of change in phase with constant directivity across the entire crossover region. Something is going to get mangled. Usually amplitude wins and phase gets mangled with fast rates of change. Directivity suffers too, as soon as you move off the design axis, everything changes again. Martin Colloms' reference High Performance Loudspeakers has some very illuminating 3D plots on different crossover types.
I've heard a few multiways that I think got close to a single driver, I never have with my tinkering! In the end, the best compromise for me was the KEF UniQ approach, but the single driver will always win here. Headphones exhibit the same characteristic, that's another convincer...
I've heard a few multiways that I think got close to a single driver, I never have with my tinkering! In the end, the best compromise for me was the KEF UniQ approach, but the single driver will always win here. Headphones exhibit the same characteristic, that's another convincer...
I feel it is a combination of things:
1. Some elevated frequencies in the mid-band: This is possibly contributing to a more mid-forward sound, and perception of clearer voice; however wide-band drivers with relatively flatter frequency curves also give very good vocal intelligibility.
2. No cross-over in the region where human hearing is more sensitive
3. Relative dynamic behavior of the driver in mid-frequencies vs low frequencies: Wide-band drivers to my ears more dynamic in the mid frequencies vs low-frequencies. The small cone area and low x-max of most wide-band drivers means that bass output (dynamic range) is limited vs mid-frequency output. A 3"-4" wide-band driver has the SD of a typical mid-range, but much smaller than a typical mid-woofer. In my experience, a driver like the Alpair 7.3 can hit 50 Hz range in a well designed cabinet with well defined and articulate bass, but not with gobs of slam or fatness; a 6.5 inch 2 way speaker is likely to sound fatter and more bassy even if the tuning frequency is similar. Wide-band drivers in a well designed cabinet tend to produce an articulate but slightly leaner bass vs typical mid-woofers, and do not muddy the mid-range as much.
4. Less reflected sound: In a typical room, tweeters will splash around high and mid frequencies more and this might smear the sound. A wide-band driver will be much larger than a typical 3/4" - 1" dome tweeter and will "beam" the sound more towards the listener seated in the ideal position. The downside is that is likely the listening "sweet spot" will be much narrower.
And we shall have to respect the SPL level when using a modest sized wide-band driver; if one goes to loud, it will not sound good.
It is possible that well designed multi-ways can also have excellent speech intelligibility. However, getting very good speech intelligibility with a wide-band is usually easier.
1. Some elevated frequencies in the mid-band: This is possibly contributing to a more mid-forward sound, and perception of clearer voice; however wide-band drivers with relatively flatter frequency curves also give very good vocal intelligibility.
2. No cross-over in the region where human hearing is more sensitive
3. Relative dynamic behavior of the driver in mid-frequencies vs low frequencies: Wide-band drivers to my ears more dynamic in the mid frequencies vs low-frequencies. The small cone area and low x-max of most wide-band drivers means that bass output (dynamic range) is limited vs mid-frequency output. A 3"-4" wide-band driver has the SD of a typical mid-range, but much smaller than a typical mid-woofer. In my experience, a driver like the Alpair 7.3 can hit 50 Hz range in a well designed cabinet with well defined and articulate bass, but not with gobs of slam or fatness; a 6.5 inch 2 way speaker is likely to sound fatter and more bassy even if the tuning frequency is similar. Wide-band drivers in a well designed cabinet tend to produce an articulate but slightly leaner bass vs typical mid-woofers, and do not muddy the mid-range as much.
4. Less reflected sound: In a typical room, tweeters will splash around high and mid frequencies more and this might smear the sound. A wide-band driver will be much larger than a typical 3/4" - 1" dome tweeter and will "beam" the sound more towards the listener seated in the ideal position. The downside is that is likely the listening "sweet spot" will be much narrower.
And we shall have to respect the SPL level when using a modest sized wide-band driver; if one goes to loud, it will not sound good.
It is possible that well designed multi-ways can also have excellent speech intelligibility. However, getting very good speech intelligibility with a wide-band is usually easier.
Last edited:
It is a generalization. It only applies to better FRs.
I was contemplating adding a comment similar to yours.
dave
When talking about inteligibility in sound, its about understanding dialogue (vocals). Thats always been the definition. We dont need another one. Its the extra bass that makes the difference. Back when tv was all OTA broadcast and the sound came out of your tv speakers, we mixed tv shows on the large monitors. Some times you couldnt understand the dialogue because it was buried in the music and effects, ( a big no no for tv shows), often we would reply: we will fix it in broadcast, meaning the limited low end of the tv would surface the dialogue. If the producer didnt believe it, we would play it back on the aura tones, 3 inch "full rangers". Enough said.
You wanna bring up un-intelligible...I have never been to a rock concert where the vocals were clear. Well maybe a Los Lobos concert at college 35 years ago when I was right in front and first row (these guys rock, as long as they are not doing the oompa - loompa Mexican stuff - it all sounds like the annoying Chicken Dance)
When anyone asks to "make it sound like a live concert" I just tell them to turn the speakers around toward the wall.
When anyone asks to "make it sound like a live concert" I just tell them to turn the speakers around toward the wall.
Last edited:
I'm here.
This is meant to be a discussion more than a simple ask / answer.
I've been curious why the voice is easier to understand on a full range driver.
I remember a post years back where a guy said his wife (from another country) prefered full range driver watching movies, she could make out the translation easier.
My own 6db time/phase aligned thiels also allow better intelligibility compared to non similar crossover slopes, they went somewhat deep.
I used to think it was phase, but seeing the phase shoot down, that is not quite the answer either.
Sharp transient, or the step response like a thiel or dunlavy.
Or all the high and low stuff hitting you at the same time.
Dispersion limiting, makes sence, less room splashing.
Sort of a better signal to noise ratio of reflections.
My 12" would go loud before the room reverb made a mush out of the sound.
Maybe there is no clear reason why.
I am happy that there are factors that affect it.
I have some 8's coming.
I'm thinking of rolling in some woofers at 6db to run along side of the speakers.
I think it will be interesting if the 6db crossed woofs hurt the intelligibility.
This is meant to be a discussion more than a simple ask / answer.
I've been curious why the voice is easier to understand on a full range driver.
I remember a post years back where a guy said his wife (from another country) prefered full range driver watching movies, she could make out the translation easier.
My own 6db time/phase aligned thiels also allow better intelligibility compared to non similar crossover slopes, they went somewhat deep.
I used to think it was phase, but seeing the phase shoot down, that is not quite the answer either.
Sharp transient, or the step response like a thiel or dunlavy.
Or all the high and low stuff hitting you at the same time.
Dispersion limiting, makes sence, less room splashing.
Sort of a better signal to noise ratio of reflections.
My 12" would go loud before the room reverb made a mush out of the sound.
Maybe there is no clear reason why.
I am happy that there are factors that affect it.
I have some 8's coming.
I'm thinking of rolling in some woofers at 6db to run along side of the speakers.
I think it will be interesting if the 6db crossed woofs hurt the intelligibility.
A few thoughts...
First, a full ranger almost by natural selection, has to have both diminished lows and highs.
Which concentrates sound in the more middle octaves where speech is.
Also, a full ranger is probably going to be a smaller driver to have any high end at all, which helps move it towards sounding more point-source like.
As far as phase....it's relative.
How it tails on the ends, low or high, doesn't much matter when SPL response isn't there anyway.
What full rangers do nicely i think, is have fairly flat phase curve throughout the frequency region they are able to reproduce well.
First, a full ranger almost by natural selection, has to have both diminished lows and highs.
Which concentrates sound in the more middle octaves where speech is.
Also, a full ranger is probably going to be a smaller driver to have any high end at all, which helps move it towards sounding more point-source like.
As far as phase....it's relative.
How it tails on the ends, low or high, doesn't much matter when SPL response isn't there anyway.
What full rangers do nicely i think, is have fairly flat phase curve throughout the frequency region they are able to reproduce well.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.