|
Bronze Member Username: OccamPost Number: 13 Registered: Jul-05 | Should I look for speakers with a seperate midrrange speaker? What is the typical size for a midrange speaker? |
|
Silver Member Username: JimvmLouisiana U.S.A. Post Number: 117 Registered: Apr-05 | In shopping for speakers, how they sound to you is the most important criteria -- not whether they are two-way or three-way speakers. |
|
Silver Member Username: EdisonGlendale, CA US Post Number: 799 Registered: Dec-03 | Can you clearify that, neil? |
|
Bronze Member Username: OccamPost Number: 24 Registered: Jul-05 | Sure. I have seen online ads that boast a seperate mid range speaker that is supposed to produce clear vocals, but in some instances reviews tend to agree that the midrange on the same speaker is lacking. Only the very high end three ways seem to get consistently good reviews on all three ranges combined. |
|
Anonymous | "Should I look for speakers with a seperate midrrange speaker?" Doesn't really matter. There are plenty of good 2 and 3 way speakers, all of which with their pros and cons. "What is the typical size for a midrange speaker?" 3"-6.5" |
|
Silver Member Username: MixneffectOrangevale, Ca. USA Post Number: 299 Registered: Apr-05 | The best way to reproduce as closely as the original is to keep things simple. A two-way design is almost fool-proof. It has almost the least amount of moving parts. It limits phazing problems. A three-way complicates the cross-over and therefore you get separation between the three drivers. You can actually hear them. There are very few speakers out there that have transperancy between the drivers. You can almost count them using the fingers from just one hand. Three-ways offer extended range at the expense of transperancy. |
|
Gold Member Username: Paul_ohstbucksPost Number: 1628 Registered: Jan-05 | Would you rather have a midrange that's forced into double duty by having to create both the midrange and low frequency effects like all modern 2-way speakers???? Or would you rather have a speaker with dedicated low frequency drivers, along with drivers designed specifically designed for reproducing only the midrange to compliment them??? Which do you think would be better? 2way speakers???...... LOL.... I think not!! |
|
Silver Member Username: CorneliusPost Number: 144 Registered: Jun-04 | I've said this before, so I'm probably getting boring to everyone, but the Ohm Walsh design, with a x/over way above the mid-range, solves all of these problems: Simplicity of a two-way, with the mid-range of a system with a dedicated mid-range. |
|
Silver Member Username: T_bomb25Dayton, Ohio United States Post Number: 355 Registered: Jun-05 | Well I dont think it matters as long as it works.They all can be bad and they all can be good,and they all are supposed to have their special traits,but all of them if designed correct can have all of their abilities and the Walsh driver is now a 3 way because of the supertweater and that is not the original Walsh driver from the 70s. |
|
Bronze Member Username: Devils_advocatePost Number: 34 Registered: Jul-05 | Paul: There have been pretty solid full range two way speakers in the past, the Large Advent for example. Of course I do have to agree that pretty much every two way design I've seen these days requires the use of a subwoofer. |
|
Gold Member Username: Paul_ohstbucksPost Number: 1638 Registered: Jan-05 | I lean towards 3 way speakers. Suuure, there is always the exception, but in general..... I'd rather have seperate drivers for mids and low frequencies because you'll get better performance by doing so. To take things a step further, why not go with a 1-way 'pseudo' hifi speaker instead??? |
|
Silver Member Username: Timn8terSeattle, WA USA Post Number: 353 Registered: Dec-03 | Two way with stereo subs. |
|
Silver Member Username: Timn8terSeattle, WA USA Post Number: 354 Registered: Dec-03 | 1-way speakers. I've heard some that sound very nice. Most of them require a large enclosure because the driver has a rising response curve. In order to get any reasonable bass response it requires rear-loading the driver with a horn type or transmission line type cabinet. Even then many designers will add circuitry to compensate or use baffles/resonators inside the cabinet. Often the original goal was to have a high sensitivity driver that will provide a coherent point source for all the music. By the time you've added compensation circuitry/baffles you've defeated the purpose of having a high sensitivity driver. Another problem is that the cone material ends up being so light that most of the "full range" drivers suffer from some sort of peakiness in the upper mid-range. I can't think of a 6.5" full range driver that doesn't have a noticeable peak between 2-3kHz. Interestingly, there are people that like this "brightness" or "forwardness". It would make more sense, in these cases, to sacrifice some sensitivity for a flatter response curve IF you can keep motor strength and impedance relatively flat over most of the frequency range so you can use a stronger cone material. This will provide better bass response and prevent the usual mid-range cone breakup. Also, most of the 1-way speakers I've heard still require help, either on the top or the bottom so they end up being 1.5 way speakers at least. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 4590 Registered: May-04 | Paul - I'd really like you to explain this statement: "I'd rather have seperate drivers for mids and low frequencies because you'll get better performance by doing so." Here lately I have been bothered by statements which claim this or that way to do something will give "better performance" and then the writer offers no proof to back up that belief. I'm not trying to pick on you, Paul; I'm just in a picky mood. How about telling us what you mean by "better performance" and why a separate driver for mids and low frequencies achieves that goal. How about some examples of how this design results in "better performance". |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 4591 Registered: May-04 | While I'm in this picky mood, T8, tell me more about this idea: "In order to get any reasonable bass response it requires rear-loading the driver with a horn type or transmission line type cabinet." Isn't that the case with any speaker not just single, full range drivers? Once the length of the waveform (lower in frequency) exceeds the dimensions of the driver, bass response begins to roll off. No? Put a 15" woofer on the floor with no enclosure around it and you won't get much bass. And why just a horn or transmission line loading? Why not just an infinite baffle where the lowest frequency is no longer than the shortest dimension of the baffle? Building a speaker into a well sealed wall cavity such as a ceiling or floor achieves this goal; doesn't it? I've been in older homes where the owner was interested in hifi in the middle half of the 20th century. In these instances the low frequency drivers were mounted in walls, ceilings, floors, fireplaces and closets. Using 15" drivers and Alnico magnets all accounts of this sort of installation gave very good results until the fashion of enclosed furntiure grade cabinets was introduced by companies such as Altec and J.B. Lansing in the late 1940's and 1950's. And then came ... Acoustic Research! |
|
Silver Member Username: Timn8terSeattle, WA USA Post Number: 355 Registered: Dec-03 | All right, what are you doing Jan? I'll play along for a little bit I guess. ;-) I need to go wash my windows. Don't forget about the Qt of the driver in question. Suspension compliance and electrical compliance play a large part in what type of support the driver requires to play satisfactorily. Most full range drivers have very low Qt in order to be able to have extended response curves. Because of this they require some type of rear loading from an enclosure if you want to maintain cone control for low frequency reproduction. Yes, you could put it in an IB or even an OB, but don't count on LF response and you may even have to use a high pass filter on it. Many of the drivers used in the past (50-ish) have very stiff suspensions for use in consoles, etc. and these work well for OB or IB applications. Horn loaded and/or TL/restricted terminus designs use the rear wave from the driver to create an "air spring" for the low Qt driver to push on and to load a horn or port to create, in essence, another pistonic transducer. The horn or port is "tuned" to cause loss of the higher frequencies and pass the lower frequencies to reinforce the front wave of the driver. I gotta get to those windows now. Be back later. |
|
Gold Member Username: Paul_ohstbucksPost Number: 1642 Registered: Jan-05 | Jan, If you enjoy your overpriced 2way bookshelf speakers, that's all that matters. Having a little <6" midrange(like many people now have)serving the purpose of both "low" & "mid" frequency ranges is a joke, and you know it. I guess if small and bad sound is what you desire, then a pair of tiny 2-way bookshelf speakers with miniscule 4" drivers is exactly what the doctor ordered. |
|
Gold Member Username: ArtkAlbany, Oregon USA Post Number: 1293 Registered: Feb-05 | You're right Paul....and everyone else is wrong. I lived through the big driver 3+ way speaker days. Pioneer HPM's, Rectilinear, Ultralinear, Jensen, not last but probably least Cerwin Vega. I am sure that all of those sound better than a 2 way pair of ProAc's. Doesn't everyone else here agree? |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 4595 Registered: May-04 | Paul - So you can't tell what "better performance" is? |
|
Silver Member Username: CorneliusPost Number: 145 Registered: Jun-04 | That's right, the new generation of Ohms is Walsh-inspired, not true full-range. But the super tweeter only makes it a two-way. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 4596 Registered: May-04 | T8- "Most full range drivers have very low Qt in order to be able to have extended response curves." Extended response on the top end or bottom end? I'm assuming this is required to give decent top end extension where cone travel is very small and energy into the voice coil is also very small. I understand the Qt of the driver system helps the designer when deciding what driver to use in a particular enclosure type. And I've got the idea of loading the backwave of the woofer. (I consider a TL system to be the best solution if you're going to use an enclosure unless cost or size is the driving factor, and even there, I understand PCM is doing very good TL designs with small LS3/5a size boxes.)) I also understand that a 15" low frequency driver is not the same as a small full range design. But ... If the full range design will have extended response with a lower Qt, why not use a sealed box? If efficiency is not an issue (which currently seems to be what is driving the full range speaker designs, i.e. the ability to operate with 2.5 watt SET's), why not use the floppier suspension of a driver designed for using the air spring of the enclosed box? There's certainly deeper bass response available from a smaller enclosure when using an acoustic suspension design. Efficiency is the only substantial tradeoff in AS designs; is it not? I'm not asking for the reason of making you explain all your statements. I'm asking because the current crop of full range speakers are something I don't fully understand. The last time I was around full range drivers they were in huge enclosures (Lowther and Tannoy from 30-40 years ago). Other than that, the point source/coherent designs I've heard that use a single focal plane as the concept have been the Thiel and KEF coincident drivers. (I'm not admitting I once had a car system that used whizzer cones.) And I have sold Ohm's with the Walsh driver; but its original concept was 360° dispersion not full range response. Full range response is still the bugaboo with the Walsh driver. Placing a tweeter on top of a Walsh driver still makes it a two way design just as much as The Large Advent was a two way design. That's why I'm assuming the help in extending response is needed on the top end. Therefore, with the amount of power available today vs. 50-60 years ago, why not use a full range driver designed for a sealed system? And I really don't understand open baffle designs with conventional drivers. OK, yeah, for anything above 500Hz, I can see the advantages. But large OB designs seem to be looking for something that can be achieved with much more grace and efficiency (not electrical efficiency) by other methods. Why not just dipole woofers? Celestion did it well and I can't imagine their solution was any less intrusive on the sound than the compensation network required to make an OB design work well. I would even assume less so since Celestion's solution was an active compensation. This might be more than this thread should take as I don't want to keep the original question away from being answered. And I don't think the original question has been answered. Maybe this should be answered somewhere else. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 4597 Registered: May-04 | Art - You'll have to pry my HPM100's from my cold, dead hand. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 4598 Registered: May-04 | And don't you even look at my BIC 6's! |
|
Gold Member Username: Paul_ohstbucksPost Number: 1646 Registered: Jan-05 | Cold dead hand?? what??? I always figured you for being the socialist anti-gun liberal, and not the person who'd be quoting NRA slogans. |
|
Silver Member Username: Timn8terSeattle, WA USA Post Number: 357 Registered: Dec-03 | > I'm assuming this is required to give decent top end extension where cone travel is very small and energy into the voice coil is also very small. Yes. Much of what you're describing are coincident drivers not single full-range with which you're either going to give up top end or bottom end. A low Qt driver with a sloping response curve (which is what you see with the more popular "full range" drivers) is going to give you zero LF response in a small sealed enclosure. Even in a small BR they're going to give out near 100Hz. BUT, if you're willing to give up sensitivity (with one exception) as I think we've both suggested, you can do better. I can think of only two "full range" drivers that have the ability to provide reasonable bass response and still hit 20kHz while mounted in a bookshelf size enclosure and one of them still has two motors. Like you say, this is way off the topic of this thread. |
|
Gold Member Username: ArtkAlbany, Oregon USA Post Number: 1299 Registered: Feb-05 | Jan, I used to have HPM40's and BIC Venturi Formula 2's. I paired them with my Marantz 2220B receiver, ahhh those were the days. |
|
unregistered Unregistered guest | Jan Vigne is a scatter brain |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 4601 Registered: May-04 | Unregistered - You're kidding; aren't you?! A "scatterbrain"? After what I've been called on this forum, I'm supposed to be insulted by "scatterbrain"? Sorry, unregistered, come back when you're ready to play in the big leagues. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 4603 Registered: May-04 | "Cold dead hand?? what??? I always figured you for being the socialist anti-gun liberal, and not the person who'd be quoting NRA slogans." Paul - You've got me figured all wrong, Paul. I've actually got an autographed picture of Charleton Heston that I treasure dearly. The really cool part of that is its autographed by Gregory Peck and it says, "Dear Chas - You never could act and you're still a huge jerk. Sincerely, Gregory" |
|
Gold Member Username: Paul_ohstbucksPost Number: 1649 Registered: Jan-05 | That's hilarious. |
|
Gold Member Username: KeggerWarren, MICHIGAN Post Number: 2530 Registered: Dec-03 | Jan I didn't figure you for an HPM100 guy as I have a pair of those to and a pair of the BIC venturi formula II's, also art I have a recently rebuilt 2220B upstairs. Small world! Paul your statement of dedicated drivers doing there respective frequencies has some credability to it and I generally prefer a 3-way design but it does introduce problems and unless they are addressed adaquitly the speaker will not sound "correct" but for some correct does not mean much. A 2-way design has a lot less issues with it as far as the xover is concerned but I also agree trying to get a 6.5" driver to do both bass and midrange is a daunting task to say the least. For good old rock music I want a 3-way design with a large woofer all day long. But for a more refined and clearer sound a good 2-way bookshelve on stands is tough to beat. So neil my oppinion of what you should go after would depend on your listening tastes/ power or loudness you like and the room that these speakers would be used in. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 4606 Registered: May-04 | "Jan I didn't figure you for an HPM100 guy as I have a pair of those to and a pair of the BIC venturi formula II's" Kegger - I keep the HPM's locked up in the same safe little space with the photo of Chas holding the flintlock. They both give the same emotional rush. BIC Venturi Formula 2's? Pip Squeaks! You can actually count all the drivers in that box without taking off your shoes. |
|
Bronze Member Username: AudioholicPost Number: 95 Registered: Apr-05 | I'll chime in here. The major drawback to a 3-way speaker (and it's a HUGE drawback) is the crossover design. With a 3way design, it becomes increasingly difficult to design the speaker system with any semblence of phase coherency. Most 2 ways get this wrong too, so there is some credence to full range single drivers. The problem with full range drivers are infamous: little bass response and won't play loud. But what they do, they do so well. Glorious midrange quite stat like, but easier to drive. To design a 3way like Paul speaks of that maintains the integrity of the musical signal is not only very difficult, but would be extremely expensive ($10K +) Back from Hawaii! The weather was awesome! I could live there....if not for the cost of living. Gas was $2.89/gallon! Milk was $7/gal. Too busy with the wedding party to listen to any audio........*sigh* Tori Hunter is hurt...so the Twins season is history.....Minnesota fans now officially looking forward to football season. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 4737 Registered: May-04 | To elaborate somewhat on P.B.'s post. Quite a few of the problems that creep into a well designed three way X-over come from matching the sound of three drivers. Making a 12" paper cone woofer, a 5" poly mid and a 1" titanium dome all sound coherent is no small task. One way to get around the problems of driver matching/blending is to design and build the drivers from the ground up. In no small way should the ability of a company such as B&W, who can utilize drivers designed and purpose built in house, be discounted. Most speaker manufacturers are speaker assemblers who use parts from another source. That's the reason for seeing the names SEAS, Focal, Sacnspeak, etc., in the reviews of speakers from X,Y and Z speaker company. When the designer can use parts that take into account the failings of the generic parts alternatives, the X-over complexity will often be reduced as the designer no longer has to add compensation networks to adjust for the ringing at 12kHz. While not a hard and fast rule, speaker manufacturers who do everything in house will probably have the superior product for the money spent. The next best would be a manufacturer who works with the company building the drivers and has custom built drivers made for specific applications. I never quite understood a company like Theil which places so much emphasis on their cabinets that they build all their enclosures in house using some very sophisticated and expensive machinery and then orders most of their drivers from outside sources. The final product is shown in the complexity of the typical Theil X-over. |
|
Silver Member Username: Frank_abelaBerkshire UK Post Number: 708 Registered: Sep-04 | The beauty of a single driver system is that it does not suffer any phase coherency problems. The problem with single driver systems are several, including limited power handling (and ultimate volume levels), restricted bandwidth (90hz - 16khz is typical), physical size (in order to get around the bandwidth issues they're often horn loaded). The beauty of the 2-way speaker is it allows a designer to use the simplest 1st order crossover which give the lowest phase problems other than single driver systems. Many 2-ways do not have this simple crossover however. The beauty of the 3-way is it allows the designer to design a crossover which doesn't cross in the frequency range at the point where most humans are most sensitive. A typical 2-way crossover crosses at around the 2khz - 2.4khz mark which is where we are most sensitive. A properly designed 3-way can use a dedicated drive unit to extend above 3khz before crossing over to the treble unit. Unfortunately, the 3-way crossover suffers large inaccuracies in phase coherence which has a significant effect on the speaker's timing very often. Each solution is a compromise, and the best compromise is the result of the best designer allied with the best components and best manufacturing processes to produce a solution at a target price. This means there is no one best solution per se. After all, if a designer needs to design a speaker of x cost, then he may choose to use higher quality components and go for the simplicity of the single or 2-way, but he may go for the lower quality of a 3 way, believing he can engineer better sound quality out of the speaker through design. The only way to find your best solution is to hear what's on offer. However, it's important not to get hung up on the configuration as this is merely one of the many criteria used in designing the product. Regards, Frank. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 4742 Registered: May-04 | While it is held by some to be the great panacea for all ills that affect X-over design, a simple 1st order X-over hardly solves as many problems as it can introduce. If the designer X's the two way design at approximately 2.5kHz( which is about typical for a two way design) a 1st order X-over, with its gentle -6dB per octave roll off, will have the tweeter down only 6 dB at 1250 Hz. That is well outside of the bandwidth for a typical 1" tweeter whose frequency response usually begins to show severe problems beneath 2k. Distortion and frequency lumps and dips become severe when the tweeter and woofer are allowed to operate well beyond their physical limits to name just a few problems a simple 1st order X-over can add. This makes matching the two drivers an even more difficult job. Kinda makes you want to buy headphones; doesn't it? |
|
Silver Member Username: Timn8terSeattle, WA USA Post Number: 407 Registered: Dec-03 | Statements I hear quite a bit are "crossing low is better" or "crossing high is better" and the argument over which crossover slope is best. The best crossover design is the one that works best for the drivers being used, period. I do agree with much of what Jan said. If the drivers match well initially, crossovers become simpler and the coherence of the sound improves dramatically. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 4747 Registered: May-04 | T8 - What? You don't agree with the headphones suggestion? |
|
Silver Member Username: Timn8terSeattle, WA USA Post Number: 408 Registered: Dec-03 | It's not that I disagree, I just ignored it. ;-) Headphones sure eliminate a lot of the issues that designers have to contend with. They also increase the likelihood of hearing loss. |
|
Gold Member Username: Paul_ohstbucksPost Number: 1750 Registered: Jan-05 | You certainly wont have to worry about hearing loss if you primarily listen to small bookshelf speakers...well, that is unless your primary listening room is squeezed inside of a bread box. |
|
Gold Member Username: PetergalbraithRimouski, Quebec Canada Post Number: 1089 Registered: Feb-04 | Paul, Low frequencies don't really lead to hearing loss, and I'll bet bookshelf speakers can get pretty loud in the mid-range. They often have similar drivers than floorstanders, only a smaller cabinet. So they often have very similar sensitivities but less low frequency extension. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 4751 Registered: May-04 | Paul - Give it a rest; OK? See my message here: https://www.ecoustics.com/electronics/forum/home-audio/146884.html You've been a pain in the keester since you got back from vacation. The political comments and the continous comments about small speakers are getting very old. No one on this forum is interested in starting a battle over speakers or politics. We all have our own opinions and we're not interested in anyone blathering on about how we don't know what's right according to Paul. Let it rest, guy. Say something intelligent and useful, Paul. Everyone knows you can do it; we're just waiting for it to happen. |
|
Bronze Member Username: AudioholicPost Number: 97 Registered: Apr-05 | Silence from Paul's camp.....the drama is killing me! C'mon Paul, share with us mere mortals how the 15" woofer on your C.V's can start and stop fast enough for audiophile playback with no ringing or overshoot. Better yet, provide us some data from test reports. Love to see a waterfall plot for your C.V.'s or a square wave/step response graph. Inquiring minds wanna know. |
|
Gold Member Username: Paul_ohstbucksPost Number: 1818 Registered: Jan-05 | Peter, I never said that low frequencies create hearing loss. I was implying that weak little bookshelf speakers dont go loud enough to cause any damage in any room larger than a walkin closet. |
|
Gold Member Username: PetergalbraithRimouski, Quebec Canada Post Number: 1095 Registered: Feb-04 | I never said that low frequencies create hearing loss Never said you did. Read the rest of my post... |