Both drivers sound great, but it would be foolish of me to say that the HM100Z0 doesn't sound as good as the FST because I simply don't know. My mind cannot remember back that far.
The system that used the 100Z0s was quite different and used a completely different design approach - not to mention the differences between the two HM100Z0s that I've got. One shows a more ragged breakup and one of the two is at least 1dB more sensitive then the other. That aside I do intend on trying them again at some point, especially as I've got the DSP going now can better compensate for the minor differences between the two. The old system was active too, but analogue, so didn't quite have the flexibility.
The FST in this system happens to sound better then anything I've heard before, but then this is the first system I've put together using the DSP and I'm sure that helps. Both the DSP and analogue versions of the active crossovers are self built though so were/are tailored (more so on the analogue version) to suit the system (gross driver mismatches not included), rather then using an off the shelf component. Whether or not the HM100Z0 would keep the pace given the same system I don't know - it will be easy enough to try out at some point, but due to my health that's not going to happen for some time.
I can say that the W15CY001 definitely sounds smoother and more detailed then the HM130Z0 and the FST trumps the W15, so it'll be interesting to see exactly how the HM100Z0 might compare one day.
I will say one thing though, B&Ws implementations of the FST are off towards an extreme and do invite many system compromises as a result. Their choice of a higher crossover point causes many issues in the off axis response, something they say is helped by the way in which the Kevlar cone radiates sound - ie the radiating area gets smaller as frequency increases and thus helps keep up the off axis. If this does anything it's only minor to say the least.
The other main issue is the cone break up.
FST in red.
The cone itself behaves fairly well, but does exhibit a strong-ish resonance at around 3.3khz.
As you can see this causes a large bump of greater then 10dB in the 3rd 4th and 5th harmonics. Luckily this doesn't cause issues further down the response like it can do with metal cones, so providing you crossover early enough you can avoid it. Also you can see that the cone is going through a region of controlled breakup beyond around 5khz. The hump at around 1.5khz is diffraction related.
Now B&Ws implementation has all of those issues presented to the listener and you can see this in stereophiles measurement of the 800D2.
This will no doubt provide you with a certain presentation and could perhaps explain some of the deficiencies or issues you've heard when listening to B&Ws loudspeakers. Of course you may have listened to it implemented in systems not produced by B&W.
This isn't to knock B&W, they've designed a fantastic driver and one that does, on the whole, allow them to crossover how they want (high) without causing too many issues, but it is still a game of compromises.
The wave-guide allows the FST to be used up until around 2.5khz without off axis issues and keeps the distortion hump at 3.3khz out of the picture too. With a standard 1" dome you'd be looking at an xover point of around 2khz or lower I reckon.
Here's the distortion profile for the FST + scan/wave-guide, 2nd order @ 2.5khz at what I would consider a loud listening level.
The system that used the 100Z0s was quite different and used a completely different design approach - not to mention the differences between the two HM100Z0s that I've got. One shows a more ragged breakup and one of the two is at least 1dB more sensitive then the other. That aside I do intend on trying them again at some point, especially as I've got the DSP going now can better compensate for the minor differences between the two. The old system was active too, but analogue, so didn't quite have the flexibility.
The FST in this system happens to sound better then anything I've heard before, but then this is the first system I've put together using the DSP and I'm sure that helps. Both the DSP and analogue versions of the active crossovers are self built though so were/are tailored (more so on the analogue version) to suit the system (gross driver mismatches not included), rather then using an off the shelf component. Whether or not the HM100Z0 would keep the pace given the same system I don't know - it will be easy enough to try out at some point, but due to my health that's not going to happen for some time.
I can say that the W15CY001 definitely sounds smoother and more detailed then the HM130Z0 and the FST trumps the W15, so it'll be interesting to see exactly how the HM100Z0 might compare one day.
I will say one thing though, B&Ws implementations of the FST are off towards an extreme and do invite many system compromises as a result. Their choice of a higher crossover point causes many issues in the off axis response, something they say is helped by the way in which the Kevlar cone radiates sound - ie the radiating area gets smaller as frequency increases and thus helps keep up the off axis. If this does anything it's only minor to say the least.
The other main issue is the cone break up.
FST in red.
The cone itself behaves fairly well, but does exhibit a strong-ish resonance at around 3.3khz.
As you can see this causes a large bump of greater then 10dB in the 3rd 4th and 5th harmonics. Luckily this doesn't cause issues further down the response like it can do with metal cones, so providing you crossover early enough you can avoid it. Also you can see that the cone is going through a region of controlled breakup beyond around 5khz. The hump at around 1.5khz is diffraction related.
Now B&Ws implementation has all of those issues presented to the listener and you can see this in stereophiles measurement of the 800D2.
This will no doubt provide you with a certain presentation and could perhaps explain some of the deficiencies or issues you've heard when listening to B&Ws loudspeakers. Of course you may have listened to it implemented in systems not produced by B&W.
This isn't to knock B&W, they've designed a fantastic driver and one that does, on the whole, allow them to crossover how they want (high) without causing too many issues, but it is still a game of compromises.
The wave-guide allows the FST to be used up until around 2.5khz without off axis issues and keeps the distortion hump at 3.3khz out of the picture too. With a standard 1" dome you'd be looking at an xover point of around 2khz or lower I reckon.
Here's the distortion profile for the FST + scan/wave-guide, 2nd order @ 2.5khz at what I would consider a loud listening level.
Attachments
Extremely clean sounding, extremely detailed and very easy to listen to. The one remark that I've had repeated about how the system sounds is how you can literally hear 'everything'. And these are comments coming from people who are acquainted with good sound.
I am thrilled with the way they sound because the £185 each that I paid for the drivers wasn't exactly to be sniffed at. Especially as I already had the W15CY001s as a darned good alternative already.
I really do wish that more of the usual drive unit manufactures would come up with higher sensitivity mid drivers with a well controlled upper end, very low distortion and high sensitivity. Of course you tend not to be able to exploit the sensitivity unless you go active, or are building a very sensitive system from the ground up, so perhaps the market for such a driver is quite small. You do however minimise power compression, even in a 'low' sensitivity passive design, most of the power might be dumped into a resistor, but still the driver doesn't compress.
I am thrilled with the way they sound because the £185 each that I paid for the drivers wasn't exactly to be sniffed at. Especially as I already had the W15CY001s as a darned good alternative already.
I really do wish that more of the usual drive unit manufactures would come up with higher sensitivity mid drivers with a well controlled upper end, very low distortion and high sensitivity. Of course you tend not to be able to exploit the sensitivity unless you go active, or are building a very sensitive system from the ground up, so perhaps the market for such a driver is quite small. You do however minimise power compression, even in a 'low' sensitivity passive design, most of the power might be dumped into a resistor, but still the driver doesn't compress.
I'm curious whether your comment that the off axis response of the FST driver "takes a header" above 1.8Khz is based on an actual measurement or is just supposition based on the size of the driver ?
It seems to be at odds with the horizontal off axis response measurements of, for example, the Signature 800:
B&W Signature 800 loudspeaker Measurements part 2 | Stereophile.com
"However, fig.5 shows the manner in which the 800's output changes over the 30 degrees window used to derive the anechoic response in fig.4. It hardly changes at all, which is astonishing given the fairly large radiating diameter of the midrange unit and the high 4kHz crossover frequency. This suggests excellent dispersion, with equally superb, stable stereo imaging."
To be fair, the claimed 4Khz crossover looks more like 3Khz to me, but still...
There is a lot more going on with the FST driver than appears on the surface - the effective cone area is quite small at high frequencies due to cancellation of adjacent out of phase quadrants of the outer part of the cone, something that is discussed in the white paper.
Mounting the driver in a spherical baffle may be part of the issue too - DIY mounting of the driver on a conventional flat baffle is unlikely to get the same results.
And that's after the frequency response has been digitally EQ'ed fairly flat ? Just to be sure all that "detail" isn't really just a peak in the presence region
I find the same with with some sensitive full range drivers used as wide band midrange drivers - even after they have been EQ'ed to be very flat there is a certain something that I can only describe as "clean and detailed".
The FST driver probably has more in common with full range drivers at the high frequency end than it does with conventional midbass drivers.
Exactly my thought.
A high sensitivity midrange driver sounds good regardless of whether you have to pad it down to match the woofer - due to the lack of power compression and dissipation in the driver itself, along with the (typically) light cone, etc. As long as the L-Pad resistors are fairly over-rated in size so that they don't experience slow moving power compression of their own...
Having that bit of extra sensitivity in the midrange really helps give you more flexibility in response shaping as well, if its a fully passive design. If you barely have enough sensitivity without the network you're fairly limited in the amount of network compensation complexity you can have before the losses are too high to match sensitivities, and correcting dips is completely out of the question...(but possible when you have a few dB to spare)
Last edited:
And that's after the frequency response has been digitally EQ'ed fairly flat ? Just to be sure all that "detail" isn't really just a peak in the presence region
Exactly. Although hammering it flat isn't all that hard. I needed to use two notches, more out of I can, rather then I strictly need to. The hump due to diffraction needed smoothing out, as did the cone resonance at 3.3k. If you crossover steeper, with a 4th order acoustic, a 4th order electrical filter is enough to smooth out the bump at 3.3k though.
I whacked a LT on the lower end of the driver to sort out the high Q hump and then added a 2nd order highpass for a fourth order to the woofer. The wave-guide needed three notches though, so yeah, quite a complex crossover all in all, but when done digitally it is a walk in the park.
A note about the cabinet though. I am in the process of making a mimic of the marlan enclosure that B&W use in the 800 series. So far it's been very straightforward, the only issue is my health due to personal injury which has prevented me from finishing not only it, but many other things recently. Hopefully that will sort itself out (although we're probably looking at months here
) and I can then make a build thread on it.That was a +/-15 degree window - virtually useless.
Here is +/-60 degrees:
B&W 802D loudspeaker Measurements | Stereophile.com
What makes you think that maintaining a flat response as far out as 60 degrees off axis is actually important though ? (Serious question)That was a +/-15 degree window - virtually useless.
Here is +/-60 degrees:
B&W 802D loudspeaker Measurements | Stereophile.com
It seems to be almost taken as a given by many that speakers must have flat response out to extremely wide angles without "holes", (it makes sense from an engineering perspective) yet this position just isn't supported by actual studies on how we hear and perceive high frequencies which show that the listener axis (direct path) response at high frequencies by far and away predominates our perception of tonal balance, especially above about 2Khz. (Just look at Tooles studies including speakers of different power response characteristics, as well as a number of later studies by other authors)
The same studies show that modest dips (a few dB) in the power response above these frequencies are more or less unnoticeable and of no consequence if the listener axis response is flat, and that there is no evidence that the specular reflection from the sidewall needs to be spectrally the same as the on axis response either, or even that its desirable to do so. ("Fixing" the horizontal off axis holes will actually reduce the direct to reflected ratio of the strongest early reflection...)
Thanks to the curved "baffles" the B&W's have none of the variations that you might see between on axis and near off-axis (out to 15 degrees or so) with a flat square baffle, which is what John Atkinson was commending in the link I posted.
This will tend to lead to very stable imaging as you wont be getting significant upper mid/treble variations as you move your listening position around a bit and go slightly off axis from the speaker. (One of the main reasons for "narrow sweet spot" in many speakers IMHO, is significant on to slightly off axis variations due to diffraction ripples, particularly in the treble)
I realise that there is a large philosophical divide with two opposing view points here - those that believe that maintaing a flat response out to extremely wide angles like 60 degrees is important and who obsess over power response and power response holes, a position that generally leads to drivers that are quite small for their covered frequency range and low crossover frequencies, and at the other extreme those who are more concerned about on axis response and dynamic performance, (headroom, low distortion etc) which tends to lead to larger drivers and/or higher crossover frequencies.
My issue with obsessing too much over wide off axis response and power response is that it inevitably results in too much compromise in the dynamic performance of a speaker - a midrange driver that is too small, or using excessively low crossover frequencies which then put a lot of strain on the tweeter, all in the name of a parameter that has been shown to not matter nearly as much as people think.
I think the FST driver is a good example of bucking that trend - and 5th elements results with it show that not only is it a capable driver, but with the right network correction it could even be an exceptional one.
B&W weren't idiots when they selected the size of driver and high crossover frequency "despite" power response holes, there are other more important attributes of the driver that make it an excellent performer, and the proof is in the listening tests.
What I will say though is that having seen the crossover of the Nautilus 802, they are "minimalist" to the extreme, leaving the 3.5Khz peak uncorrected. With the same crossover frequency and a notch to smooth out that bump they could have sounded even better, so it's interesting to see 5th elements feedback of what they can sound like with proper equalisation. (Very few drivers sound outstanding without at least some response shaping)
Sorry if I've gone on a long ramble here, but the whole off axis response vs dynamic performance debate is a hot button topic for me, and I think its useful for people on either side of the debate to stop and consider for a moment whether their position is based on solid perceptual research or whether its based more on "engineering ideals" which may or may not be connected to the reality of how we hear
Last edited:
I'm not sure that maintaining a flat response to 60 degrees or more off-axis horizontally is important (..and this is really freq. dependent). I could go into *what* I think important (and at what freq.), but that's way beyond this thread (..and I currently don't have the time).
Just showing +/- 15 degrees however isn't terribly useful.
The added dispersion in the measurement shows you, as you noted, that the lower treble response (2-4k) isn't being disturbed by diffraction. That's useful. It also shows you that if you want better linearity as an average that you need to listen to the loudspeaker almost on axis. That's also useful.
Of course it's extremely useful to a designer for developing something that doesn't look like an abrupt "join" between the mid and tweet off-axis.
Sorry, I realize not the depth you were looking for..
Last edited:
So smooth power response and polar response doesn't matter?
So all these speakers with smooth power response and polar response and flat frequency response that i've heard, don't actually sound better than all the speakers i've heard with flat frequency response that are forward and aggressive unless you pad down the tweeter???
I'm just really confused
I don't think that is what Simon was trying to say exactly. Loudspeaker design is one of great compromises and it is often difficult to get everything you want to come together without sacrificing something somewhere along the way.
I think what he was trying to say perhaps (and he will correct me if I am wrong) is that in some circumstances it might be preferable to have a small dip off axis because it allows you to satisfy something else that will bring about greater gains.
He also mentioned that these allowable dips have to happen above a certain frequency too which cannot be ignored. It stands to reason that the higher up and further away from 2khz you go, that an off axis dip would then become less noticeable.
I agree with him in that reducing the off axis energy is beneficial, such as when using a wave-guide and I've had great success with the ones that I've used. This is of course a very controlled method for tailoring what the off-axis does though, but it stands to reason that a purposefully placed hole in the off-axis of a design with a conventional tweeter could bring about audible gains - getting that right of course could be very tricky.
I think what he was trying to say perhaps (and he will correct me if I am wrong
) is that in some circumstances it might be preferable to have a small dip off axis because it allows you to satisfy something else that will bring about greater gains.He also mentioned that these allowable dips have to happen above a certain frequency too which cannot be ignored. It stands to reason that the higher up and further away from 2khz you go, that an off axis dip would then become less noticeable.
I agree with him in that reducing the off axis energy is beneficial, such as when using a wave-guide and I've had great success with the ones that I've used. This is of course a very controlled method for tailoring what the off-axis does though, but it stands to reason that a purposefully placed hole in the off-axis of a design with a conventional tweeter could bring about audible gains - getting that right of course could be very tricky.
I think what he was trying to say perhaps (and he will correct me if I am wrong
Well my issue was concerning the toole studies he was concerning.
My interpretation of those studies, off hand, is that the dips in power response introduced by even order crossovers, are mostly inoffensive (especially because they occur in a plane that doesn't get reflected as blatantly back to our ears, IE 90 deg off axis vertically), but mismatched directivy indexes are not a desirable trait, (and it's most certainly a huge issue with the B&W speaker in question).
I get that the crossover's impact becomes less audible at 4khz than at 2khz, but i couldn't justify "the B&W compromise" even if there were no cone breakup whatsoever.
Off axis / reflection point response and total sound power response dips, to me, are very different even though they're very similar. Does that make sense?
My interpretation of the studies in question was always that, yes, small drivers are in fact desirable but we shouldn't fret about even order crossovers' impact on power response. After all, isn't wide directivity what led to things like the the infinity MRS, the 4" revel midrange (not to mention the overall 4-way design of the Salon2), the extremely robust 5.25" JBL midrange, the infinity 4" primus midrange (that in their own studies this speaker has outperformed the B&W speaker), and their accompanying shallow waveguide loaded DI-matching tweeters? I've always interpreted the studies as suggesting that it's preferable to optimize for even, wide polar response than to have a largish single driver cover a wider range at its expense. That yes, flat FR is most important first and foremost, but so is smooth sound power with only the dips introduced by even order crossovers as acceptable, not dips/peaks introduced by mismatched DI.
I feel as if i've even read Sean Olive state somewhere the importance of similar 60 degree measurements. He's not a loudspeaker engineer.
Now narrower directivity speakers are a different deal, but the key to note is that they're still not sacrificing the even-ness of reflected sound.
Oh I agree with you, the B&W compromise is far too much of a compromise, especially as there are other options available to them.
I would have been more impressed if they'd actually used a more complex crossover to smooth out all of the drivers innate problems too though. I can understand a manufactures/designers desire to keep the number of series elements in a crossover down, but I do not understand the desire to keep the number of shunt components down - ie a well placed notch filter would have been a very good idea.
It is also true that the simple networks that B&W seem to favour on the tweeter side wont offer much protection at all. The 800 series are aimed at being able to deliver very high SPLs, so certainly a shallow xover at a more appropriate xover frequency wouldn't suffice either. The only real option would be for B&W to adopt something like a 4th order ~2khz xover if they really wanted to push the FSTs issues and the off axis problems out of the picture, something they clearly do not wish to do. Or they could use a wave-guide moulded into the marlan head unit.
One would have thought that they would have tried lower and steeper xovers, but then you don't know. Perhaps they are also aiming for a particular type of sound and the higher xover makes that happen.
RE the off axis comments, I agree with those too, but what I was meaning was that under certain situations in some rooms, having an off axis dip somewhere might be a very good idea. Or rather, if it could be shown that a small shallow off axis dip of say 3-4dB between 3-5khz for example would deliver a greater sense of clarity or if on the whole, reducing room reflections by X dB in a particular frequency band would give you a more relaxed listen, then perhaps this could be exploited to some degree. Of course I am making up examples here, but you can see what I am getting at.
I would have been more impressed if they'd actually used a more complex crossover to smooth out all of the drivers innate problems too though. I can understand a manufactures/designers desire to keep the number of series elements in a crossover down, but I do not understand the desire to keep the number of shunt components down - ie a well placed notch filter would have been a very good idea.
It is also true that the simple networks that B&W seem to favour on the tweeter side wont offer much protection at all. The 800 series are aimed at being able to deliver very high SPLs, so certainly a shallow xover at a more appropriate xover frequency wouldn't suffice either. The only real option would be for B&W to adopt something like a 4th order ~2khz xover if they really wanted to push the FSTs issues and the off axis problems out of the picture, something they clearly do not wish to do. Or they could use a wave-guide moulded into the marlan head unit.
One would have thought that they would have tried lower and steeper xovers, but then you don't know. Perhaps they are also aiming for a particular type of sound and the higher xover makes that happen.
RE the off axis comments, I agree with those too, but what I was meaning was that under certain situations in some rooms, having an off axis dip somewhere might be a very good idea. Or rather, if it could be shown that a small shallow off axis dip of say 3-4dB between 3-5khz for example would deliver a greater sense of clarity or if on the whole, reducing room reflections by X dB in a particular frequency band would give you a more relaxed listen, then perhaps this could be exploited to some degree. Of course I am making up examples here, but you can see what I am getting at.
I think this has a lot to do with 2 things:
- what people call "sound philosophy": looking at B&W they have more or less ALWAYS favored a high crossover point. I refuse to believe that the B&W engineers are not aware of the advantages of power response - I think they did a very conscient choice here.
- I vaguely remember one of their whitepapers explaining this choice being based on the superior dynamic capabilities of a speaker having the tweeter crossed high (4kHz or so). I know this is a debatable point, as the speaker migh sound more "dynamic" this way due to a lot of reasons, including midrange breakup and distortion, but I found myself prefering the same setup in a few DIY constructions: yes, a lower crossover point sounds "smoother", but there is a certain very involving something in having most of the vocal range covered by a single speaker that has a larger radiating area than a 1" tweeter (and has no breakup in the covered region, of course)! That being said, that does not necessarily imply DI differences as high as they seem to be with B&W FST.
Last edited:
B&W 802 D
http://www.stereophile.com/content/bw-802d-loudspeaker-measurements
B&W 802 N
http://forums.audioholics.com/forums/loudspeakers/63334-b-w-nautilus-vs-sonus-faber-cremonas-6.html
I am not sure (do not have sufficient data), but the difference seen between the on axis listening window and the sound power curve of the FST midrange unit, seems already fully developed until about 2Khz.
Maybe beaming of that midrange unit does not get much worse in the octave from 2-4Khz, due to "shrinking" of the effectively radiating surface area of the cone, if it works virtually like claimed in that particular range ...
Neglecting those resonance issues around 3Khz and the question of smoothing those for now ...
When crossing to a 1" tweeter we can choose now, where to place the blooming of in the dispersion pattern of the box:
- around 2 Khz ?
- above 3 Khz ?
Using most conventional midrangers or woofers i would opt for a lower crossover frequency, to keep discontinuity in dispersion pattern and sound power as small as possible. But now assuming this midrange unit being "a bit different":
Both options will give a different "sounding" and due to absorption in most rooms rising with frequency, maybe the higher crossover frequency is not that unattractive: Sounding less "offensive" above the presence range and give some "detailed", "silky" and also "wide" notion. I mean, we want to sell it, so it has to sound "good", doesn't it ?
Instead of asking whether crossing around 2Khz or e.g. around 3,5Khz one could ask, why not a waveguide is used for the tweeter, to smooth out the discontinuity in the dispersion pattern, that would also occur - possibly in a more moderate form - when crossing that configuraton at 2Khz.
But that does not seem to conform with the "tweeter on top" / "diffraction free" tweeter mounting (and also design and marketing) concept.
At least one could ask the question, why the speaker is not tuned to be virtually flat on axis in the 1Khz ... 6Khz region, and why the on axis response resembles in a way the sound power curve, thereby even worsening the effect.
http://www.stereophile.com/content/bw-802d-loudspeaker-measurements
B&W 802 N
http://forums.audioholics.com/forums/loudspeakers/63334-b-w-nautilus-vs-sonus-faber-cremonas-6.html
I am not sure (do not have sufficient data), but the difference seen between the on axis listening window and the sound power curve of the FST midrange unit, seems already fully developed until about 2Khz.
Maybe beaming of that midrange unit does not get much worse in the octave from 2-4Khz, due to "shrinking" of the effectively radiating surface area of the cone, if it works virtually like claimed in that particular range ...
Neglecting those resonance issues around 3Khz and the question of smoothing those for now ...
When crossing to a 1" tweeter we can choose now, where to place the blooming of in the dispersion pattern of the box:
- around 2 Khz ?
- above 3 Khz ?
Using most conventional midrangers or woofers i would opt for a lower crossover frequency, to keep discontinuity in dispersion pattern and sound power as small as possible. But now assuming this midrange unit being "a bit different":
Both options will give a different "sounding" and due to absorption in most rooms rising with frequency, maybe the higher crossover frequency is not that unattractive: Sounding less "offensive" above the presence range and give some "detailed", "silky" and also "wide" notion. I mean, we want to sell it, so it has to sound "good", doesn't it ?
Instead of asking whether crossing around 2Khz or e.g. around 3,5Khz one could ask, why not a waveguide is used for the tweeter, to smooth out the discontinuity in the dispersion pattern, that would also occur - possibly in a more moderate form - when crossing that configuraton at 2Khz.
But that does not seem to conform with the "tweeter on top" / "diffraction free" tweeter mounting (and also design and marketing) concept.
At least one could ask the question, why the speaker is not tuned to be virtually flat on axis in the 1Khz ... 6Khz region, and why the on axis response resembles in a way the sound power curve, thereby even worsening the effect.
Last edited:
B.t.w there are some interesting 2" widerangers on the market, which can be used to make up rather homogeneous 2 way concepts.
The discontinuity in power response can be mitigated at crossover frequency, when compared to a 1" tweeter. Naturally there will be a bit of "sparkle" missing at the top end (again due to power response). Can be a good compromise nevertheless and an option for making up more homogeneously radiating speakers with those FST style midrangers too.
This is a possible way to go without a tweeter WG and even "no baffle" concepts (like B&W 800 series) can be realized with those widerangers ("mid-tweeters" ?).
The discontinuity in power response can be mitigated at crossover frequency, when compared to a 1" tweeter. Naturally there will be a bit of "sparkle" missing at the top end (again due to power response). Can be a good compromise nevertheless and an option for making up more homogeneously radiating speakers with those FST style midrangers too.
This is a possible way to go without a tweeter WG and even "no baffle" concepts (like B&W 800 series) can be realized with those widerangers ("mid-tweeters" ?).
Last edited:
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.