Ali T
pfm Member
Ok, measure your speakers in your living room and show us the results.
Full range loudspeakers i.e. Single driver...any love?
- Thread starter Moppit
- Start date
Ok, measure your speakers in your living room and show us the results.
Fatmarley
"It appears my intelligence circuits have melted"
Ok. Will do it in a bit.
tuga
Legal Alien
If you still have the file you can change the graph limits on REW and produce another plot.
cantgetnonut
Active Member
I have Omegas; mine are the alinico high output monitors. They're not a purely single driver speaker, as it has a second driver that is cut off at 200 Hz, and has a single inductor, but it's essentially a single driver speaker from a builder who has specialized in them for years. They sound great: loads of detail, spooky in-room presence, dynamic as all get out. They're very smooth and "non-fatiguing" too. 97dB. I power them with a First Watt F4.
https://omegaloudspeakers.com/colle...lnico-high-output-monitor?variant=32172424908
https://omegaloudspeakers.com/colle...lnico-high-output-monitor?variant=32172424908
tuga
Legal Alien
The tweeter cap originally was a 1uf, this left a dip in the response, so this was changed to 2.5uf which gave a much better result. Don't think they measure too badly myself-
Ignore the bumpy stuff below about 100hz, its room nodes.
dubblebubble
pfm Member
I'm in my bedroom, listening to music via Roon, through the hobbled RCA outputs of an SMSL M400 DAC, passed to an out of production Witch Hat power amp, which is sending a signal to a pair of single driver Cesti MBs, that probably dont 'measure' correctly. If this is the worst I can do, I'm very happy. I have 45kg speakers with 10" drivers in my main system. The Cesti MBs are not lacking in this context. I hadn't heard single driver speakers before these and asked @orangeart a few questions before committing to a purchase. Stefan was confident that they would fulfill my needs and I've got say he was right. There's some 'hairshirt' designs and I bet they sound fantastic but, if you've got the space for a pair of handsome Cesti's I'm sure you won't be disappointed.
Last edited:
Yank
Bulbous Also Tapered
I hate to sound troll-ish, but whizzer cones are not suitable for high fidelity.
I get the "coherence thing" that full-range fanboys like, but most FR systems I've heard sounded like telephones.
Sue Pertwee-Tyr
Accuphase all the way down
Yup, if I ever need a ‘bedroom’ system for modest SPLs (say in an apartment with sensitive neighbours) these would be my ‘go to’ speakers. They compensate for a lack of room filling ability and deep bass in so many areas, so I could probably live without the full range capability quite happily.
Alex S
carbon based lifeform
narabdela
who?
You obviously haven't been listening to the right ones.
tuga
Legal Alien
You’d love mine:
Is that a tweeter? If so, then they're not single-driver speakers...
I have a pair of Bache Audio Tribeca speakers. Not exactly a single driver but it is based on a wide band driver that’s augmented by a super tweeter and woofers. The driver is modified by the removal of the whizzer cone. I had Lowthers and tried using a Rel sub but the sound was too thin. I think this is a better design. I also prefer these to my Quad ESLs.
Sussex Hornman
Member
The trouble with Lowthers isn't anything to do with the units but more usually the use of the wrong units inappropriately for the cabinets.
People assume pricier is better so they'll buy DX4 or EX4 and put them into front facing configurations and wonder why the sound is harsh. Those units are specifically horn drivers and otherwise for the configurations requiring upwards or backwards firing drivers. DX2s and PM6 whether A or C are intended for forward facing applications and sound excellent.
I've been using Lowthers privately and for events for 45 years and people are blown away by what they hear. Few other drivers come into their class.
Philips Alnico 8inch and ferrite equivalents - sound nasal - need the dustcap removed, no phase plug.
Audio Nirvana - excellent and more robust for PA use but harpsichord detail is lost on classical. Neodymium units are good but Lowther better.
David Louis Audio in China - white 8 inch neodymium units possibly flattest and most transparent of all, but no longer made.
Units with wooden cones - paper cones are faster.
AER - less efficient than lowther, one layer voice coil rather than double and the claim on their website that they extend to 80kHz says it all. An AER owner with Oris horns to whom I loaned a pair of DX4 prefers the DX4.
Lowthers in Audiovectors - you're sitting in the opera house or auditorium
Lowther DX2 in TP1 London - flat
Lowther PM5 in TP1A - the reason for Lowther's reputation is audible.
Lowther PM6C, PM6A or DX2 in Acousta - hard to beat.
It may be debatable as to whether or not the roll-back whizzer surround is an advancement. In my opinion the roll-back gives a reflection and confuses the sound, making it muddy, and ordinary. It's easily remedied by flipping it forward. With DX2 and PM6 units there is no "shriek" but of which the often misused and now discontinued PM2C had been capable.
Best wishes
David P
People assume pricier is better so they'll buy DX4 or EX4 and put them into front facing configurations and wonder why the sound is harsh. Those units are specifically horn drivers and otherwise for the configurations requiring upwards or backwards firing drivers. DX2s and PM6 whether A or C are intended for forward facing applications and sound excellent.
I've been using Lowthers privately and for events for 45 years and people are blown away by what they hear. Few other drivers come into their class.
Philips Alnico 8inch and ferrite equivalents - sound nasal - need the dustcap removed, no phase plug.
Audio Nirvana - excellent and more robust for PA use but harpsichord detail is lost on classical. Neodymium units are good but Lowther better.
David Louis Audio in China - white 8 inch neodymium units possibly flattest and most transparent of all, but no longer made.
Units with wooden cones - paper cones are faster.
AER - less efficient than lowther, one layer voice coil rather than double and the claim on their website that they extend to 80kHz says it all. An AER owner with Oris horns to whom I loaned a pair of DX4 prefers the DX4.
Lowthers in Audiovectors - you're sitting in the opera house or auditorium
Lowther DX2 in TP1 London - flat
Lowther PM5 in TP1A - the reason for Lowther's reputation is audible.
Lowther PM6C, PM6A or DX2 in Acousta - hard to beat.
It may be debatable as to whether or not the roll-back whizzer surround is an advancement. In my opinion the roll-back gives a reflection and confuses the sound, making it muddy, and ordinary. It's easily remedied by flipping it forward. With DX2 and PM6 units there is no "shriek" but of which the often misused and now discontinued PM2C had been capable.
Best wishes
David P
Hoopsontoast
pfm Member
My old Supravox 165-2000 based Aperiodic speakers, placed in corners. The large peak at ~33Hz is the room, shows up in all the speakers I used in my old room.
(Back in post 26 - https://pinkfishmedia.net/forum/thr...le-driver-any-love.243912/page-2#post-4066826)
I thought measured pretty well as thats just the naked driver, sounded brilliant if a little weak in the bass, likely due to the high Qts drivers (~1.1) and the aperiodic/leaky enclosure, but it was a decent compromise.
Maybe at some point in the future I'll go for the mk2 version, has a significantly lower Qts with a larger magnet.
Supravox 165-2000 In Room Response by Robert Seymour, on Flickr
(Back in post 26 - https://pinkfishmedia.net/forum/thr...le-driver-any-love.243912/page-2#post-4066826)
I thought measured pretty well as thats just the naked driver, sounded brilliant if a little weak in the bass, likely due to the high Qts drivers (~1.1) and the aperiodic/leaky enclosure, but it was a decent compromise.
Maybe at some point in the future I'll go for the mk2 version, has a significantly lower Qts with a larger magnet.
Supravox 165-2000 In Room Response by Robert Seymour, on Flickr
irb
pfm Member
TL;DR - wide-range good, full-range bad
My take on full-range is this: systems that go for wide-range coverage can be very, very good, but systems that try to be full-range with one driver are trying for too much of a good thing.
Pentachords, as mentioned by Beobloke above, were the speakers that really opened my eyes to how good wide range drivers can be. But the laws of physics dictate that if you push the envelope too wide, you create compromises. With dynamic drivers, the larger the driver, the more restricted the hf dispersion. The smaller the driver, though, the lower the maximum output available at low frequencies, and the more low frequency distortion you generate. You simply can't cover ten octaves with a single dynamic driver, IMO.
The question then becomes this: what's the main benefit that you get from a full-range driver loudspeaker, the source of the coherence and transparency that 'conventional' speakers struggle to match? It often seems to be assumed that it's the absence of any crossover whatsoever that gives the benefit. But there are lots of other ways of looking at it. Even if crossovers are evil (and that's a big assumption), it could be that it's the absence of a crossover in the critical 1 to 4 kHz band that really matters. Or maybe it's not crossovers that are the problem - maybe it's simply the transition from a larger driver to a smaller driver that does the damage, by causing a sudden shift in radiation pattern.
My own best guess is that avoiding sudden shifts in radiation pattern, especially in the critical midrange/lower treble, is the most important single factor. The little Bandor drivers in the Pentachords have wonderful coherence and transparency. But I reckon it's a mistake to try to use a 2" driver - or even a pair of them, down to anywhere near 100Hz. A pair of drivers with a 2 1/4 inches effective diameter and about 1.5mm of one-way linear excursion (e.g. the Bandors), can produce a peak output at 100 Hz of about 83dB at 1 m. Peak. That's really not much.
People try all sorts of solutions to increase low-end output - multiple drivers, horn loading etc. To my ears, there's a more obvious solution, with small wideband drivers: cross to a woofer, and don't make the crossover point too low. Cross a single Bandor unit at 600 Hz and you can get 108 dB peak, which is enough for anyone, I reckon. To my ears, crossing over at that frequency doesn't spoil the coherence and transparence at all. In fact I think the lower-mid is more dynamic, when a larger driver handles it. Compared to larger full-range drivers, the hf dispersion from a 2" driver is good. Problem solved.
Too many attempts at full range speakers fail at the frequency extremes, to my ears, and also often suffer from a bumpy frequency response, caused either by the strategies used to try to extend the response (e.g. bass loading, whizzer cones etc.) or by the absence of equalisation networks for baffle-step etc, resulting from a prior belief that 'crossovers' are evil.
So my recipe for speakers, going forward, is this: a single driver covering everything from say 600 Hz upwards; generous wooferage below that; a crossover, active or passive (whatever works); equalisation of baffle step, resonances etc. (active or passive) to keep the response as flat as practically possible.
My take on full-range is this: systems that go for wide-range coverage can be very, very good, but systems that try to be full-range with one driver are trying for too much of a good thing.
Pentachords, as mentioned by Beobloke above, were the speakers that really opened my eyes to how good wide range drivers can be. But the laws of physics dictate that if you push the envelope too wide, you create compromises. With dynamic drivers, the larger the driver, the more restricted the hf dispersion. The smaller the driver, though, the lower the maximum output available at low frequencies, and the more low frequency distortion you generate. You simply can't cover ten octaves with a single dynamic driver, IMO.
The question then becomes this: what's the main benefit that you get from a full-range driver loudspeaker, the source of the coherence and transparency that 'conventional' speakers struggle to match? It often seems to be assumed that it's the absence of any crossover whatsoever that gives the benefit. But there are lots of other ways of looking at it. Even if crossovers are evil (and that's a big assumption), it could be that it's the absence of a crossover in the critical 1 to 4 kHz band that really matters. Or maybe it's not crossovers that are the problem - maybe it's simply the transition from a larger driver to a smaller driver that does the damage, by causing a sudden shift in radiation pattern.
My own best guess is that avoiding sudden shifts in radiation pattern, especially in the critical midrange/lower treble, is the most important single factor. The little Bandor drivers in the Pentachords have wonderful coherence and transparency. But I reckon it's a mistake to try to use a 2" driver - or even a pair of them, down to anywhere near 100Hz. A pair of drivers with a 2 1/4 inches effective diameter and about 1.5mm of one-way linear excursion (e.g. the Bandors), can produce a peak output at 100 Hz of about 83dB at 1 m. Peak. That's really not much.
People try all sorts of solutions to increase low-end output - multiple drivers, horn loading etc. To my ears, there's a more obvious solution, with small wideband drivers: cross to a woofer, and don't make the crossover point too low. Cross a single Bandor unit at 600 Hz and you can get 108 dB peak, which is enough for anyone, I reckon. To my ears, crossing over at that frequency doesn't spoil the coherence and transparence at all. In fact I think the lower-mid is more dynamic, when a larger driver handles it. Compared to larger full-range drivers, the hf dispersion from a 2" driver is good. Problem solved.
Too many attempts at full range speakers fail at the frequency extremes, to my ears, and also often suffer from a bumpy frequency response, caused either by the strategies used to try to extend the response (e.g. bass loading, whizzer cones etc.) or by the absence of equalisation networks for baffle-step etc, resulting from a prior belief that 'crossovers' are evil.
So my recipe for speakers, going forward, is this: a single driver covering everything from say 600 Hz upwards; generous wooferage below that; a crossover, active or passive (whatever works); equalisation of baffle step, resonances etc. (active or passive) to keep the response as flat as practically possible.