|
Silver Member Username: SimplymcintoshPost Number: 327 Registered: Jan-05 | I'm interested in exploring the single driver listening experience and have the LingSingle under consideration. However, after reading more about the Ling Bookshelf, it appears it is conceptually a single driver speaker - at least in regards to the handling of the mid-range. Is the Bookshelf version close enough to the Single to approximate a single driver listening experience? Or does having a separate tweeter totally change the character? Is it better to stick with a true single driver speaker if that is the audio experience I'd like to discover? BTW, I would be pairing this with a McIntosh MA6200 integrated amp. My current speakers are Magnepan MMG and I also have had B&W CDM NT1, Monitor Audio GR10 and Spendor S5e in my system in the past. |
|
Silver Member Username: Timn8terSeattle, WA USA Post Number: 740 Registered: Dec-03 | If you're looking to experience what single driver sound is about then the Single would be the way to go. Since the reviews from Positive Feedback and Jan here on eCoustics I've done some tweaking to the Ling 2-way. The original model allowed the listener to hear some "disconnect" between the mid and the tweet. I've corrected that now, to the point that the similarity in sound between the Ling and Ling Single is very close. The difference is the horizontal dispersion characteristic and dynamics since anytime you add a second driver to a system you'll improve both. |
|
ererererer Unregistered guest | What is the main difference of a single drive experience vs a.2 or 3 way speaker? Thanks Eduardo |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 7428 Registered: May-04 | It's covered briefly in this thread: https://www.ecoustics.com/electronics/products/reviews/156699.html Tim might wish to make more elaborate comments regarding the advantages of the various design types. |
|
Silver Member Username: Timn8terSeattle, WA USA Post Number: 742 Registered: Dec-03 | Prior to the very disappointing Super Bull I was unable to access the Message Board. Here is my saved reply. The difference can be one of belief or science. Single Full Range Driver (SFRD) fans believe the advantages of a single point source, crossoverless design outweigh the benefits of multi-driver designs with crossovers. The advantages of SFRD systems are: 1. A single point source eliminates the potential of intermodular distortion caused by the same frequency originating at the same time from 2 different sources creating a third unwanted frequency (IM distortion) and/or comb filtering (frequency cancellation). 2. All crossovers create phase changes. The highs will be out of phase with the lows. 1st order XO = 90 degree phase shift, 2nd order = 180, 3rd order = 270, 4th order = 360 (which is a full cycle). SFRD systems generally exhibit excellent imaging and outstanding mids as a result. 3. Filters (XOs, etc.) create energy loss in the form of heat thereby making SFRD systems generally more energy efficient. Many drivers designed for SFRD use have higher sensitivity levels making them desirable for lovers of low power SET amplifiers. The advantages of multi-driver systems are: 1. Increased dynamics because the drivers are sharing the work load. 2. Higher power handling levels. 3. Wider horizontal dispersion of upper frequencies resulting in a larger soundstage. Multi-driver systems have larger sweet spots because higher frequencies originate from the area of the cone closest to the voice coil which results in narrow dispersion if they're not passed off to another driver. 4. True full range reproduction. 5. During periods of high excursion (low bass) the excessive cone movement can distort other frequencies the driver is trying to produce. The bottom line is "What sounds best to you?" Much of that may depend on the type of music you listen to or if the intended use is home theater or some other high output application. |
|
Silver Member Username: SimplymcintoshPost Number: 331 Registered: Jan-05 | Thanks, Tim! I hope to be able to order the Ling Single in the near future. |
|
Silver Member Username: ChitownPost Number: 735 Registered: Apr-05 | Sorry Tim. I'd say the hawks wuz robbed |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 7434 Registered: May-04 | To expand upon Tim's comments regarding single driver, full range designs, I would add one point that was made when the original Quad electrostatic speaker (a SDFR design though not quite like the Ling) was being sold. All music originates as a point source. Whether you are discussing a stringed instrument, percussion or horn, all sound from each instrument comes from a very tiny (at least in relation to the space it fills) point in space and expands from there. A violin string, while vibrating along it's entire length, has its sound created at the point the string touches the bow and the body resonates to create the sound we hear. There is no separation of "drivers" when we hear a live instrument. A drum creates its sound at the point where the stick touches the drumhead and the signal expands from that single location. Additionally, the instrument used to record the signal is a point source microphone. Often no more than 1/8" in diameter, the recording capsule usually picks up the entire frequency spectrum without requiring a low frequency microphone and a high frequency device. If an omnidirectional micropohone is employed, all signals from all directions are in phase with what our ears would likely hear in a performance hall. (Different recording techniques are employed in an attempt to replicate what our ears would actually hear and there is some debate as to which technique will give the most life like quality.) All signals are in phase with one another by virtue of the phase coherence of the original source and the coherence of the pick up device. That modern recording techniques have destroyed much of what is relevant and correct about this idea leaves us with the multitude of poor recordings made toady by having sixteen microphones on a drum set. The "soundstage" is created artificially during the post production stages of the recording and not by the natural sound of the instruments occurring in a reverberant space. Those of you who have listened to the simple two or three microphone recording techniques of early stereo can immediately hear the difference when the soundstage is captured by a minimalist technique. If the original sound we wish to replicate is produced and recorded by single point source devices, it would, by many listener's estimation, be a good idea to duplicate that same coherence in our playback system. This is where the advantage of a single driver begins to make listening to music an interesting experience. All sound coming from a single driver design is, by default, coming from a point source location. While multiple drivers can be arranged to create a "quasi-point source", the problems of the crossover from one driver to the next interfere with the coherence of the reproduction. By eliminating the crossover and using only one driver we come as close as possible to replicating the signal that was created in the original performance. Arguments can be made as to how valid the point source approach is in home systems, but there is little doubt of the coherence of the signal coming from such a speaker system. If truth be told, the point source should be able to create a signal in all directions simultaneously just as an instrument can. That takes the SDFR to the next level of bipolar or dipolar dispersion. While still not omnidirectional as the instrument will be, the bi/dipolar dispersion of the open baffle speaker will more closely replicate the original signal than a monople design. Unfortunately, due to the dimensions of the typical listening room, this arrangement also limits the bass extension of true bipolar designs. And, should we truly like to recreate the signal as it existed during the performance, we would want a speaker that was omnidirectional, single driver and, preferrably, full range. Tim, where's that design? |
|
Anonymous | you guys are going to shoot me for this, but the original Bose 901 I chose to pose anon. because I do not want to be singled out and harassed for this. The bose 901 uses multiple full range point source drivers in a multipolar cabinet. Its too bad that they get the frequency responce so messed up |
|
the_real_maui Unregistered guest | Tim, I dissagree with your assertion that all crossovers add phase shifts, specifically that a first order unit adds 90 degree's phase shift. In a first-order crossover, both drivers are at zero phase in their PASSbands, and at 90 degrees in their STOPbands. (Close, anyway. The only places either of them truly reach 0 or 90 is at DC and at infinity, both of which are well outside the audioband.) However, when either driver is at 90, the output amplitude is ZERO, by definition, so it contributes nothing to the sound. Its major contribution comes within its PASSband, where its phase is close to zero. Now, in beween DC and infinity, both drivers make a contribution depending on the frequency relative to the crossover frequency. In a first-order, they are ALWAYS 90 degrees out of phase, regardless of the frequency, and they ALWAYS sum to unity and zero phase. At the crossover point, for example, one driver is at .707, +45, and the other is at .707, -45. Due to the fact that this is vector addition, they sum to unity at zero phase. And they do this not only at the crossover frequency, but at every single point from DC to infinity. The first-order is the only crossover that does this. |
|
the_real_maui Unregistered guest | Jan, agree 100% on your microphone analogy. Would like to point out one additional thing: Microphones cannot hear left, right, up or down. Only distance. Which is time. Which is why time coherency is so important in a speaker, like the original Quads. Full range, single drivers have coherency, for the most part, but the truth is, from 2kHz on up, you are functioning entirely in breakup mode. What you are listening to is resonance, not pistonic movement, and that is a very big difference. Too bad there isn't a truly full range driver on the market. Someday huh? |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 7443 Registered: May-04 | Full range or not, what you are listening to most often, no matter the number or cost of the system, is a driver operating at some level of break up mode. It has been pointed out many times that if anyone knew their 0.001% THD amplifier was being paired with a 10%+ THD/IM woofer/tweeter, they would be surprised, shocked, dismayed(?). It is merely a question of how much any one listener can tolerate and what type of distortion (including hiQ and lowQ aspects of distortion product) will disturb you the most with the music you prefer. The distortion is there, we have merely come to accept it as a part of what we hear in an audio system. Anon - To consider the 901 a full range driver is a stretch that even Mr. Fantastic would consider extreme. Play any pair of 901's without the Bose EQ and see just how full range they are. Then read the above comments regarding driver break up and distortion. Apply 20-30dB of EQ at the frequency extremes and think what the effects will be. Of course the "multipolar" response of the 901 is not the same as a true omnidirectional speaker. Amar began with the assumption (from his own measurements) that 90% of what you hear in a concert hall is reflected sound. By placing 8 drivers on the rear of the cabinet and 1 on the front, all the while hoping to achieve "ambience", he totally ignored the ambience already on the recording and the contribution the listening room makes to adding reflected sound at the listener's ears. Sorry, Anon, the 901 is just not a speaker to use as a model for much of anything other than marketing success. |
|
New member Username: LanappsPost Number: 3 Registered: Feb-06 | This is getting interesting.In creating a small HT set using the Lings as fronts Rosa center and 3 Lingsingles as surrounds.How would you feel if they're mated with an Outlaw 1070 receiver or 970/7125 0r 7075 amp. 75% music 25% Ht ? What speakers would be comparable or How do you think they'd sound? |
|
Silver Member Username: Timn8terSeattle, WA USA Post Number: 771 Registered: Dec-03 | IW, got your PM and sent a response. The system you propose should work very well. |