tuga
Legal Alien
I don't understand how you are reaching your conclusion. How does the fact that "large drivers produce less IMD" invalidate the fact that "2-way produces less distortion than a single driver covering the same range"?
3rd edition of Floyd E. Toole's "Sound Reproduction"
- Thread starter Julf
- Start date
I don't understand how you are reaching your conclusion. How does the fact that "large drivers produce less IMD" invalidate the fact that "2-way produces less distortion than a single driver covering the same range"?
cooky1257
pfm Member
I'm not the one originally posting Neumann's 'generalities'-you are, you posted graphs from the large Neumann 3 way vs the small Neumann 2-way to illustrate the benefits of a mid driver-not me. The other stuff you are stating is just conspiracy bollocks from inside your own head. Neumann are very circumspect in their statement-they say 'generally' rather a lot as they are more than aware they and their competitors make/chose to implement 2-way solutions also. Btw -40dB is 1% but in their own specs 3% THD averaged from 100-6khz at max output-what happens below 100hz is where the meat is and they extol using a sub even with their larger monitors(with obvious benefits across the spec range in terms of IMD, THD and group delay.)
Note Max spl 104db THD @10% below 300hz; http://www.neumann.com/downloadmana...=docu0134_KH310_review_S-and-R_en_2013-04.pdf
I'd have a pair tomorrow.
tuga
Legal Alien
Yes, 1%.
Again I am not comparing the small monitors with the M2s, you are.
The Neumann measurements came up to illustrate a point which you just don't want to even consider because "it's JBL and they should know better"...
They should provide an adequate set of measurements like they did for the LSRs and like any reputable pro monitor manufacturer does.
I have nothing further to add.
cooky1257
pfm Member
I've been waiting all thread for you to add anything of value. Ask someone to explain to you the term 'there's more than one way to skin a cat' then you may grasp where I'm coming from, the fact I'm not saying 2-ways must be better(I own 3 ways too! )-unlike your out of date(in terms of the advances in transducer design) dogmatic mindset that's tinged with some weird conspiracy nonsense about JBL aiming for cheapness, loudness not improved performance.. it's utter utter bollocks.
tuga
Legal Alien
The expression 'there's more than one way to skin a cat' is generally used by audiophiles when they have no arguments to add to the conversation.
Some topologies have a higher performance potential than others.
Jim Audiomisc
pfm Member
I didn't say it "invalidated" that. I was pointing out that it actually depends on factors which meant it wasn't invariably true. Depends on the sizes, etc of the drivers you are comparing.
tuga
Legal Alien
JBL have designed a large ported box with a 15" woofer and a wide-band compression driver in a wave-guide for which they claim a frequency response of 20 Hz - 40 kHz; surprisingly there's no reference to amplitude variation nor to low end cutoff but they mention highest SPL for continuous and peak programme.
From my understanding a 2-way direct radiation box in full range doesn't have the same performance potential as a 4-way version of the same speaker, and considering what is available in the market most high fidelity (BnW, Cessaro, Kef, PSB, Revel, TAD, Tune, Vivid, etc.) and pro (ATC, Genelec, Neumann, PSI) loudspeaker manufacturers would agree.
S-Man
StrivingON
Assuming we are still talking about the K2 then FT has published loads of curves of amplitude variation.
Aren't most of the big speakers from the companies you list 3-ways?
cooky1257
pfm Member
And so the BS continues, the M2 is active, has DSP eq inc FIR(so you could eq them within +/- 0.5dB if you wanted to) and as for FR see post 95 and 97. I wouldn't make too much of your understanding if this thread is anything to go by.
JBL also make 3/4 ways that incorporate a midrange driver. You haven't heard an M2 or it's augmented 2 way stable mates, they also have available a top notch 5" mid they use in their concert arrays-they decided they didn't need it. Banging on about a 'compromised topology' without any understanding of how far transducers have come along. Moreover you ignore(or don't understand) that dispersion(off axis Himalayas) issues that crossing from say a 10" bass to a 4" mid-solved by an 750/800hz xover point in a 15"/Horn 2 way topology ie the polar dispersion at xover is the same/similar for both drivers, has knock on benefits in realising some of the design aims this OP was about. Tannoy know this. JBL know this, TAD too as do no doubt all the network designers for those manufacturers you listed. All speaker design is a list of compromises/choices-that's why all speakers don't sound the same.
S-Man
StrivingON
My speakers are semi active 3 ways. -3dB at 10Hz and >20KHz. I think that a full enough range.
I accept that they are limited in terms of volume displacement at VLF if you want to watch movies at modern cinema SPLs, but with music in a domestic living room they can play more than loud enough.
Why do you need to go 4-way unless you want hearing damage or want to fill a hall?
I strongly suspect those JBLs will play louder than my system. It's hard to imagine a situation where they would not be adequate for a domestic application.
tuga
Legal Alien
It's not a matter of loudness. Many 2-way PAs go louder than 120dB...
My reference for low frequency reproduction is an old 801F (12" in a sealed box) that falls short of 20Hz. The ensuing model was ported, played louder and extended lower but the quality/accuracy was lost.
Purité Audio
Trade: Purite Audio
Do you think you could post an in room frequency plot of your speakers, I haven’t seen anything that operates in the infrasonic spectrum.
Thanks
Keith
tuga
Legal Alien
Room response does not show non-linear distortions. That's been my point from the beginning.
It often doesn't show driver resonances either.
Frequency response is important for tonal accuracy but there are other parameters which matter as much. If that weren't the case then you could get your hands on any ol' speaker, say a 2-way, DSP it flat and Bob's your uncle...
cooky1257
pfm Member
Oh do us a favour.
You've been banging on about 800hz being a poor xover point, how a 2 way is a compromised topology, how JBL are hiding data, have developed the M2 for loudness and cheapness not performance. You barely skipped around IMD and THD and ignored the Klippel data on the 2216-nd, failed to understand the published IMD and THD figures for the Neumann monitors and how they relate to level, even stating 115dB measurements are worthless as no one listens that loud lol..
Ignored the obvious ie as if JBL only concentrate on FR and loudness(staggeringly dum assumption given the huge amount invested in driver R&D ), ignored the principle that it isnt the number of drivers but the quality of the drivers and the amount of work they have to do that counts ie the little bookshelf Neumann drivers has to work much harder to get at the similar loudness level to the larger stablemate and hence by the nature of the beast it will have a higher IMD, missing the point that a large sensitive bass driver will be barely moving and way inside its linear operation..I could go on but Mark Gander is on the other line.
Elephantears
Trunkated Aesthete
Puzzling thread.
1) why does everyone rise to tuga's bait, so that the thread veers off and has barely any relevance to the discussion to Floyd Toole's ideas?
2) why is tuga such a 3 way fundamentalist when, IIRC, he uses LS3/6s? These may technically be a 3 way, but they don't have a dedicated mid-range driver, so they are really more like a conventional 2 way with a super tweeter.
Just saying this as a spectator who was keen to learn more about Toole.
1) why does everyone rise to tuga's bait, so that the thread veers off and has barely any relevance to the discussion to Floyd Toole's ideas?
2) why is tuga such a 3 way fundamentalist when, IIRC, he uses LS3/6s? These may technically be a 3 way, but they don't have a dedicated mid-range driver, so they are really more like a conventional 2 way with a super tweeter.
Just saying this as a spectator who was keen to learn more about Toole.
tuga
Legal Alien
I can reply to this.
Before moving to the UK I sold my SP9/1s which were too big and costly to carry around.
This is my second home in four years, I'll be moving again soon, and affordable British houses have small lounges.
When I arrived I got myself a pair of PSB T2s (Toole school) but later replaced them by my current speakers which I think perform and sound better in most aspects except low frequency extension. Their performance would improve by adding a pair of subs but I don't enough floor space at my current place.
And I'm not a 3-way fundamentalist but I defend that for full-range you need 4-ways.
cooky1257
pfm Member
1)The root of every point I've made directly relates to JBL's application of some of Olive/Toole's ideas in respect of their system designs(M2 in particular).
2) You need to buy the book tbh as there is far far more to Olive and Toole than this particular aspect.
Tony L
Administrator
The fewer drivers and crossover points the better IMO. I have certainly come to the conclusion I am a fan of point-sources or very close to them. The less distance between the fewest number of drivers the better anyway.
If I was designing a speaker myself I’d want to use the highest quality widest ranging full-range driver I could find and cross it as low and as high as possible to a sub and supertweeter as I could. The closest I have to this are the ancient La Scalas which have many flaws, but do allow the range from 400 Hz to 6kHz to be handled by a single very high efficiency and low distortion horn unit. This makes for a remarkably clean and articulate vocal range, it is so easy to follow dialogue through these speakers (I use them in the TV rig). I’d love to hear a really modern 3-way with the crossover points even wider apart giving an even more uninterrupted mid-band as I’m convinced this is the best way fr a multi-driver speaker to function. I’d like to hear it properly time-aligned too (La Scalas are just shocking in this respect, there is about a foot and a half between the three drivers front to back!).
With modern drivers it may well be able to cover all that matters with a large bass unit and a single horn driver, i.e. a modern take on an Altec VOTT, Model 19 or whatever. I’d like to hear that.
PS I don’t really care about extension below about 35Hz as long as the driver is big and can move air like real instruments. Efficiency, transient ability and scale is way more important than extension.
If I was designing a speaker myself I’d want to use the highest quality widest ranging full-range driver I could find and cross it as low and as high as possible to a sub and supertweeter as I could. The closest I have to this are the ancient La Scalas which have many flaws, but do allow the range from 400 Hz to 6kHz to be handled by a single very high efficiency and low distortion horn unit. This makes for a remarkably clean and articulate vocal range, it is so easy to follow dialogue through these speakers (I use them in the TV rig). I’d love to hear a really modern 3-way with the crossover points even wider apart giving an even more uninterrupted mid-band as I’m convinced this is the best way fr a multi-driver speaker to function. I’d like to hear it properly time-aligned too (La Scalas are just shocking in this respect, there is about a foot and a half between the three drivers front to back!).
With modern drivers it may well be able to cover all that matters with a large bass unit and a single horn driver, i.e. a modern take on an Altec VOTT, Model 19 or whatever. I’d like to hear that.
PS I don’t really care about extension below about 35Hz as long as the driver is big and can move air like real instruments. Efficiency, transient ability and scale is way more important than extension.