Full range design´s. Does this make sense to you?

BoredSysAdmin

BoredSysAdmin

Audioholic Slumlord
  1. A geyser (US /ˈɡaɪzər/; UK /ˈɡiːzə/ or /ˈɡaɪzə/) is a spring characterized by intermittent discharge of water ejected turbulently and accompanied by steam.
  2. Geezer - a odd, or eccentric person —used especially of elderly men
 
TLS Guy

TLS Guy

Audioholic Jedi
  1. A geyser (US /ˈɡaɪzər/; UK /ˈɡiːzə/ or /ˈɡaɪzə/) is a spring characterized by intermittent discharge of water ejected turbulently and accompanied by steam.
  2. Geezer - a odd, or eccentric person —used especially of elderly men
No significant difference!
 
M

MJK

Audioholic Intern
One of the things you need to consider and have an answer for right from the start is how you will handle the baffle step with a single full range driver system. Either the enclosure design, the room placement, or some form of passive or active filter correction should be built into the design to avoid the no bass shrill fatiguing sound experienced by many DIY full range driver users when they try and stick to the purist approach of nothing between the amp and the driver. A full range driver speaker system can sound really good if implemented correctly and really bad if the designer has not addressed a few key issues that balance the bass output level with the remainder of the frequency range.
 
TLS Guy

TLS Guy

Audioholic Jedi
One of the things you need to consider and have an answer for right from the start is how you will handle the baffle step with a single full range driver system. Either the enclosure design, the room placement, or some form of passive or active filter correction should be built into the design to avoid the no bass shrill fatiguing sound experienced by many DIY full range driver users when they try and stick to the purist approach of nothing between the amp and the driver. A full range driver speaker system can sound really good if implemented correctly and really bad if the designer has not addressed a few key issues that balance the bass output level with the remainder of the frequency range.
What you say is true of most drivers. However the JW and the Mark drivers which is modeled on the JW, has BSC built into the design of the cone.

I have a long association with the JW, and it sounds fine without a compensation network, and measures fine as well.

I don't have experience with the Mark, but extensively with the JW.

I would be certain the Bandor is the same as the drivers are produced by Ted's ex wife, who had the right to use Ted's patents as part of the divorce settlement. They were both research engineers at Goodmans. The cone shape of the Bandors looks to be pretty much identical with the JW module.
 
D

Dennis Murphy

Audioholic General
I think all of us would love to find a full-range single driver that could do it all. I've tried and tried to find a good one, and so far no banana. I won't mention any names, but I was approached by a German manufacturer of an advanced (and very expensive) single full-range 8" driver that used flexing modes to produce higher and higher frequencies in a smaller and smaller area of the flat radiator. They wanted me to design a speaker with one or more of the drivers that would be linear from around 50 hz on up. Although I admired the technology and gave it my best, the resulting sound was easily bested by just about any cheap conventional 2-way I threw at it. I guess the single driver was more phase coherent, but whatever advantage that imparted (and I think it was close to zero) was eclipsed by very narrow dispersion in the highs. I've also worked with the classic Jordan driver, and it was quite nice for near-field listening once a baffle-step compensation circuit was introduced. But If you listened further back in the usual listening position, the highs started to close in (except for a zippy peak at the very top).
 
TLS Guy

TLS Guy

Audioholic Jedi
I think all of us would love to find a full-range single driver that could do it all. I've tried and tried to find a good one, and so far no banana. I won't mention any names, but I was approached by a German manufacturer of an advanced (and very expensive) single full-range 8" driver that used flexing modes to produce higher and higher frequencies in a smaller and smaller area of the flat radiator. They wanted me to design a speaker with one or more of the drivers that would be linear from around 50 hz on up. Although I admired the technology and gave it my best, the resulting sound was easily bested by just about any cheap conventional 2-way I threw at it. I guess the single driver was more phase coherent, but whatever advantage that imparted (and I think it was close to zero) was eclipsed by very narrow dispersion in the highs. I've also worked with the classic Jordan driver, and it was quite nice for near-field listening once a baffle-step compensation circuit was introduced. But If you listened further back in the usual listening position, the highs started to close in (except for a zippy peak at the very top).
I have a set of the Jordan divers, but I don't think they are nearly as good as his first one the JW.

The JW is much more laid back.

We don't really need a totally full range driver, but one with excellent response from 200 Hz to around 10 KHz with good power handling.

The biggest limitation of the Jordan Watts driver, is that it is power limited and frail. The cone is basically foil and easily deformed.

However a pair used sensibly in a TL sounds excellent with a very natural perspective. It does not have a rise in HF response at the top of the range, but gently rolls off on the top end.

I use one at my Eagan residence for the center channel crossed at 90 Hz. Since it is a condo I can't blast it and it keeps up well. Speech is natural, highly intelligible and without shout. It blends well with the mains.



This is the JW Mk II



The suspension which is also the VC connection are three Beryllium cantilevers. The VC is under slung and the suspension decoupled from the VC by a foam collar.



This is a MK III cone, which I was responsible for. I don't have a functional MK 111, but I think I have enough parts to build a pair. I have the factory alignment tools.



Of all the full rangers I have had through my hands or listened to, this I think is the best of them.

One other remarkable thing about them is that you can get good response to the low forties.

I am absolutely convinced that this cone could be copied with 3D printing, and with modern VC winding, modern magnets and a change in the suspension, this could easily be developed to the best high powered wide band width midrange available. The real strength of this driver is its very accurate midrange performance.

This is a driver that should not be overlooked and forgotten.
 
Swerd

Swerd

Audioholic Warlord
I hope the original poster, MALIK_BRODER, is reading all this. His question prompted responses from 3 individuals (TLS Guy, MJK, and Dennis Murphy) who know their speaker design business.
 
ski2xblack

ski2xblack

Audioholic Samurai
Indeed. If MJK is who I think it is, those cabs I linked to are a strict interpretation of his tl modeling. And he's right, these full rangers demand bsc (at least w/ the cheapie fostex and TB drivers I've played with).

I've also had a pair of the Mark Audio Alpair 7 (I think that's what it was), and it's a nice driver. TLS is correct, it doesn't really require bsc. But they're tiny. I found the TB W8 to be more full bodied (much larger driver, after all) and ok on the top end. The w8 were about $200/pair. With a little bsc and proper cabs, they're actually a decent enough representation of the full range approach, at least for my tastes/budget/curiosity. Some of the more esoteric full rangers are astronomically priced.

My takeaway from all this is similar to what others mentioned...these devices make good midrange drivers...the whole FAST approach (full range augmented w/ subs) is a stronger argument for fully active rigs than it is support for "full range" drivers...real music is more dynamic than these things can hope to convey (unless a near-field rig)...ok for office/bedroom rigs, and a fun and educational facet of the hobby (the DIY/build it yourself aspect).
 
Swerd

Swerd

Audioholic Warlord
If MJK is who I think it is, those cabs I linked to are a strict interpretation of his tl modeling. And he's right, these full rangers demand bsc (at least w/ the cheapie fostex and TB drivers I've played with).
Yes, MJK is Martin J King.
 
lsiberian

lsiberian

Audioholic Overlord
You probably will get better sound with a properly designed 2-way, but that doesn't mean you will get bad sound with a full ranger. You will still have great sound if you have a solid enclosure and good placement.
Remember driver cost and quality always don't correlate.
 
M

MJK

Audioholic Intern
The recommendation for Jordan drivers is a good one in my opinion. I have pairs of the JX92S and JX92 drivers in my collection and have enjoyed listening to them on and off over the past 5 years. The popular JX92S full range driver is now being produced by EAD as the E100 and E100HD. A line of ML TL enclosures was formulated and drawn up by Jordan USA a few years ago before they went out of the driver business. I think one of their designs would be an excellent starting point for a first full range driver speaker system.

http://www.eadsweden.com/design-suggestions/

Everything has already been done for the builder including the cabinet design and the BSC circuit. The predicted SPL response is very impressive with bass down to around 30 Hz.
 
newsletter

  • RBHsound.com
  • BlueJeansCable.com
  • SVS Sound Subwoofers
  • Experience the Martin Logan Montis
Top