Full range drivers - any experiences?

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <d652al$8n7$1@ss405.t-com.hr>,
Predrag Trpkov <predrag.trpkovNeSpamu@ri.htnet.hr> wrote:
>Lowther, PAudio, Fostex, as advertised in the previous post. I've listened
>to some vintage german full range drivers (in huge enclosures, like 2m high)
>and while they sounded sweet, they were noticeably limited at both ends of
>the spectrum. Has the technology improved in the meantime?

No, not really. Some of the top end issues have been improved a little bit
by funny-shaped cones, but for the most part they still all sound like that.
--scott

100% FULL WHIZZER CONE GOODNESS!
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Predrag Trpkov wrote:

> Lowther, PAudio, Fostex, as advertised in the previous post. I've listened
> to some vintage german full range drivers (in huge enclosures, like 2m high)
> and while they sounded sweet, they were noticeably limited at both ends of
> the spectrum. Has the technology improved in the meantime?

You might as well ask if physics has improved in the meantime !

Cone speakers are inherently limited in bandwidth by 'science'. There are trade
offs you can do to improve this - such as making them less sensitive but it's a
no-win situation really.

Graham

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Predrag Trpkov wrote:

> "Pooh Bear" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:4286D4B6.496360E5@hotmail.com...
> >
> >
> > Predrag Trpkov wrote:
> >
> > > Lowther, PAudio, Fostex, as advertised in the previous post. I've
> listened
> > > to some vintage german full range drivers (in huge enclosures, like 2m
> high)
> > > and while they sounded sweet, they were noticeably limited at both ends
> of
> > > the spectrum. Has the technology improved in the meantime?
> >
> > You might as well ask if physics has improved in the meantime !
> >
> > Cone speakers are inherently limited in bandwidth by 'science'. There are
> trade
> > offs you can do to improve this - such as making them less sensitive but
> it's a
> > no-win situation really.
> >
> > Graham
>
> For a failed concept like this, a rather buoyant scene seems to be
> flourishing behind the curtains.
>
> http://melhuish.org/audio/links.html#fullrange
>
> http://fullrangedriver.com/tiki-pa [...] rangeIntro

I'm familair with the Melhuish site. It has some better stuff too.

If you want to hear full range speakers buy some old Boses ( complete with the
'controller ' i.e. equaliser that applies about 16-17dB of boost at both ends
of the spectrum ). That answers your question about lack of bass and treble.

The supposed advantage is the lack of a crossover with attendant phase issues.

Graham

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Pooh Bear" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:428721A2.C930856E@hotmail.com...
> Predrag Trpkov wrote:
>
> > "Pooh Bear" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:4286D4B6.496360E5@hotmail.com...
> > >
> > >
> > > Predrag Trpkov wrote:
> > >
> > > > Lowther, PAudio, Fostex, as advertised in the previous post. I've
> > listened
> > > > to some vintage german full range drivers (in huge enclosures, like
2m
> > high)
> > > > and while they sounded sweet, they were noticeably limited at both
ends
> > of
> > > > the spectrum. Has the technology improved in the meantime?
> > >
> > > You might as well ask if physics has improved in the meantime !
> > >
> > > Cone speakers are inherently limited in bandwidth by 'science'. There
are
> > trade
> > > offs you can do to improve this - such as making them less sensitive
but
> > it's a
> > > no-win situation really.
> > >
> > > Graham
> >
> > For a failed concept like this, a rather buoyant scene seems to be
> > flourishing behind the curtains.
> >
> > http://melhuish.org/audio/links.html#fullrange
> >
> > http://fullrangedriver.com/tiki-pa [...] rangeIntro
>
> I'm familair with the Melhuish site. It has some better stuff too.
>
> If you want to hear full range speakers buy some old Boses ( complete with
the
> 'controller ' i.e. equaliser that applies about 16-17dB of boost at both
ends
> of the spectrum ). That answers your question about lack of bass and
treble.
>
> The supposed advantage is the lack of a crossover with attendant phase
issues.
>
> Graham


They used to have (maybe still do) a pair od Dittons on the local radio
station that I liked. I also once listened to some unidentified full-range
drivers in the control room of the local puppet theatre. It's all old stuff,
though. It's surprising to find out that the concept isn't dead yet. The
sheer number of manufacturers still producing full-range drivers and/or the
whole systems and the variety of different models is quite amazing.

But it just occured to me that I have some real hands-on experience with
such a thing. When I started twenty years ago, I spent some two years
working on a pair of cheap Monacor 4-5" full range drivers, for which my
then-partner had built miniature closed cabinets. When he finally bought
NS10s, it was a huge step up.

And here I find myself considering full-range drivers again, having just
sold my own NS10s after 13 years. The full circle.

Predrag

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Pooh Bear <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Predrag Trpkov wrote:
>
>> Lowther, PAudio, Fostex, as advertised in the previous post. I've listened
>> to some vintage german full range drivers (in huge enclosures, like 2m high)
>> and while they sounded sweet, they were noticeably limited at both ends of
>> the spectrum. Has the technology improved in the meantime?
>
>You might as well ask if physics has improved in the meantime !
>
>Cone speakers are inherently limited in bandwidth by 'science'. There are trade
>offs you can do to improve this - such as making them less sensitive but it's a
>no-win situation really.

Materials have improved, though. And if you could give me a material that
had zero mass and was infinitely rigid, I could give you a really nice full
range driver.
--scott

It would still be beamy, though.
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Scott Dorsey wrote:

> R GS <audio###forsale@yahoo.com###> wrote:
>
>>It still has its limitations (but then what doesn't), but it is a wonderful
>>driver nonethless; especially for those of us who like plannars.
>>
>>"William Sommerwerck" <williams@nwlink.com> wrote in message
>>news:118e9mkst6jg0bf@corp.supernews.com...
>>
>>>The ultimate full-range driver is an electrostatic panel.
>
>
> Strange, most of the electrostats I have really liked are actually multi-way
> systems....

Yeah, I would think so. Can pure electrostatics actually produce bass in
acceptable quantities?

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Joe Sensor" <crabcakes@emagic.net> wrote in message
news:3epsvmF4cv93U2@individual.net...
> Scott Dorsey wrote:
>
> > R GS <audio###forsale@yahoo.com###> wrote:
> >
> >>It still has its limitations (but then what doesn't), but it is a
wonderful
> >>driver nonethless; especially for those of us who like plannars.
> >>
> >>"William Sommerwerck" <williams@nwlink.com> wrote in message
> >>news:118e9mkst6jg0bf@corp.supernews.com...
> >>
> >>>The ultimate full-range driver is an electrostatic panel.
> >
> >
> > Strange, most of the electrostats I have really liked are actually
multi-way
> > systems....
>
> Yeah, I would think so. Can pure electrostatics actually produce bass in
> acceptable quantities?

Are the Soundlab A-1 and Ultimate 1 not single membrane based designs? They
certainly can reproduce decent bass (just not subwoofer level bass).

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Sun, 15 May 2005 13:11:04 +0200, Predrag Trpkov
<predrag.trpkovNeSpamu@ri.htnet.hr> wrote:


> They used to have (maybe still do) a pair od Dittons on the local radio
> station that I liked.

Are you talking about Celestion Dittons? I don't think any of the Ditton
range were single driver speakers.

Cheers.

James.

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Mr. Dorsey, brilliant as usual.

I just learned the paradox... mass=bad, rigidity=good. these are
somewhat mutually exclusive when taken to their extremes.

light bulb=now lit, only 72434 more to go!

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On 16 May 2005 18:27:43 -0700, genericaudioperson@hotmail.com wrote:

>Mr. Dorsey, brilliant as usual.

Scott's so broadly amazing as to be boring. Ho hum, another
surprisingly cool SD post. So, what's new? Besides, he wasn't
born on Earth, and has .... well, I've promised not to talk
about the ..... nevermind.


>I just learned the paradox... mass=bad, rigidity=good. these are
>somewhat mutually exclusive when taken to their extremes.

Electrostatics are interesting in this respect because significant
moving mass is contributed by the coupled air itself. This is the
ideal of Scott's low-mass dicta, that the driver's mass, and that
mass's attendent problems, dominate the total.

An alternative approach, acoustical impedance scaling in acoustical
horns, gives similar results at the diaphragm surface, but has
serious bandwidth limitations fundamental to the horn.

Chris Hornbeck
"They're in *everybody's* eggs."

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On 16 May 2005 18:27:43 -0700, genericaudioperson@hotmail.com wrote:

>Mr. Dorsey, brilliant as usual.
>
>I just learned the paradox... mass=bad, rigidity=good. these are
>somewhat mutually exclusive when taken to their extremes.

I recently held a carbon fiber rod, about 1/8 inch diameter and six
inches long. It felt almost as stiff as a steel rod of the same
dimensions, which would weigh maybe ten times as much. It seems this
would be ideal stuff for a speaker cone, and maybe a voice coil form
too.

I recall an Audio Amateur (pre-Speaker Builder?) article and
interview with the maker of some apparently highly-regarded aluminum
cone full-range speaker, I forget the name.

>light bulb=now lit, only 72434 more to go!

-----
http://mindspring.com/~benbradley

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Ben Bradley" <ben_nospam_bradley@frontiernet.net> wrote in message
news:46oi81d7394nmscjfte3k2cp2u1jes2gvd@4ax.com...

> >I just learned the paradox... mass=bad, rigidity=good. these are
> >somewhat mutually exclusive when taken to their extremes.

It's been done; some good products, some godawful.

> I recently held a carbon fiber rod, about 1/8 inch diameter and six
> inches long. It felt almost as stiff as a steel rod of the same
> dimensions, which would weigh maybe ten times as much. It seems this
> would be ideal stuff for a speaker cone, and maybe a voice coil form
> too.
>
> I recall an Audio Amateur (pre-Speaker Builder?) article and
> interview with the maker of some apparently highly-regarded aluminum
> cone full-range speaker, I forget the name.

Probably E.J. Jordan.

Peace,
Paul

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Paul Stamler wrote:

> "Pooh Bear" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:428981CA.54BDE3E7@hotmail.com...
> > > Materials have improved, though. And if you could give me a material
> that
> > > had zero mass and was infinitely rigid, I could give you a really nice
> full
> > > range driver.
> >
> > Since you mention it, when I can get my hands on the tech staff at a
> certain
> > supplier of ours I want to explore carbon fibre and kevlar for cones.
>
> Again, Kevlar's been done, most notably by Focal.

Well..... I'm not proud ! lol ! If it's good enough for Focal, I reckon it's
good enough for me. :-)

I've seen some sample carbon fibre re-inforced cones too.


> > > --scott
> > >
> > > It would still be beamy, though.
> >
> > Sadly inevitable. At least a more rigid material will help the cone
> breakup issues
> > though. It's amazing that the basic wood pulp cone hasn't really changed
> much in so
> > long.
>
> Yes it has; different profiles have been developed, and people have loaded
> the cone with everything from carbon fiber to powdered glass (Focal again).

I accept that this is true for high end. Isn't it amazing though that *most*
speaker cones are still made of wood pulp ?


> And along with pulp cones, manufacturers have tried Bextrene, polypropylene,
> polystyrene, Aerogel, and all sorts of other exotic materials.

Ah well, outside the wood pulp area there are many alternatives. These aren't to
my knowledge any suitable for high SPL speakers though.

My own little monitors ( designed by a friend who's a loudspeaker freak - with
my help ) have SEAS 6.5" drivers with ( I think ) Bextrene cones and some German
gold foil leaf tweeters.

> > Anyone remember the Leak 'sandwich' cone btw ?
>
> Yup.

Any idea why it didn't receive wider acceptance ?

Graham

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Arny Krueger wrote:

> Pooh Bear wrote:
>
> > I accept that this is true for high end. Isn't it amazing
> though that
> > *most* speaker cones are still made of wood pulp ?
>
> Not only that, but many designers prefer it, on purely
> acoustical grounds.

It does have certain benign properties. I have rarely heard a speaker
using 'synthetic' cones that wasn't superior though.

Graham

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Arny Krueger wrote:

> "Pooh Bear" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote
> in message news:4289D7B2.E41270C0@hotmail.com...
> > Arny Krueger wrote:
> >
> > > Pooh Bear wrote:
> > >
> > > > I accept that this is true for high end. Isn't it
> amazing
> > > though that
> > > > *most* speaker cones are still made of wood pulp ?
> > >
> > > Not only that, but many designers prefer it, on purely
> > > acoustical grounds.
> >
> > It does have certain benign properties. I have rarely
> heard a speaker
> > using 'synthetic' cones that wasn't superior though.
>
> I know a number of speaker designers - they say that in
> particular the plastic woofer cones are as much for
> marketing purposes as anything else.

Well..... this is really just from memory... Wood pulp cones are prone
to resonance. The various plastics used tend to suppress resonances
since they have inherent damping..

Now it's your play. ;-)

Graham

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Pooh Bear" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote
in message news:4289DA9F.A8957F65@hotmail.com...
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>
> > "Pooh Bear" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com>
wrote
> > in message news:4289D7B2.E41270C0@hotmail.com...
> > > Arny Krueger wrote:
> > >
> > > > Pooh Bear wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I accept that this is true for high end. Isn't it
> > amazing
> > > > though that
> > > > > *most* speaker cones are still made of wood pulp ?
> > > >
> > > > Not only that, but many designers prefer it, on
purely
> > > > acoustical grounds.
> > >
> > > It does have certain benign properties. I have rarely
> > heard a speaker
> > > using 'synthetic' cones that wasn't superior though.
> >
> > I know a number of speaker designers - they say that in
> > particular the plastic woofer cones are as much for
> > marketing purposes as anything else.
>
> Well..... this is really just from memory... Wood pulp
cones are prone
> to resonance. The various plastics used tend to suppress
resonances
> since they have inherent damping..
>
> Now it's your play. ;-)

I'm informed that in practice, its easier to get controlled
break-up with wood pulp cones than most plastics. The random
nature of wood fibers can pay off.

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Arny Krueger wrote:

> I'm informed that in practice, its easier to get controlled
> break-up with wood pulp cones than most plastics. The random
> nature of wood fibers can pay off.

Wood is an amazing material. Has anyone used it in it's
native form for this? I'm not sure there is a synthetic
with a better stiffness/mass ratio.


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

> Wood is an amazing material. Has anyone used it in its
> native form for this? I'm not sure there is a synthetic with
> with a better stiffness/mass ratio.

I believe there's a JVC (???) speaker with a wood cone.

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

>> I'm informed that in practice, its easier to get controlled
>> break-up with wood pulp cones than most plastics.
>> The random nature of wood fibers can pay off.

> Wood is an amazing material. Has anyone used it in its
> native form for this? I'm not sure there is a synthetic
> with a better stiffness/mass ratio.

When a driver is driven over its entire surface, stiffness becomes a
less-significant factor in speaker performance.

Many years ago, Audio ran an article that showed how large electrostatic
speakers "broke up". One of the points was to show that such speakers _did_ have
breakup modes (when conventional wisdom was that they did not), but it also
showed that the breakup was "simple" rather than complex.