Home » Audio » Speaker » Why won't a single driver speaker do metal?
Re: Thank You, Ron [message #21161 is a reply to message #21159] Fri, 05 August 2005 13:58 Go to previous messageGo to next message
roncla is currently offline  roncla
Messages: 125
Registered: May 2009
Master
That won't happen regardless of my "reputation" for "stirring the pot"!

If ya aint making waves , then ya aint rowing.
ron

Re: a good question [message #21163 is a reply to message #21158] Fri, 05 August 2005 22:48 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Ed Schilling is currently offline  Ed Schilling
Messages: 47
Registered: May 2009
Baron
Short answer. I never heard a BR I could live with! Period. 4 inch Fostex will do much better than 80hz in a BLH. I think you might build them because they simply sound "better". But it's late.....more later.
Ed
"Efficiency, dynamics.....and to achieve a balanced response down to cut off with out sacrificing efficiency might be a couple reasons."

Re: a good question [message #21166 is a reply to message #21151] Sat, 06 August 2005 08:04 Go to previous messageGo to next message
JLM is currently offline  JLM
Messages: 69
Registered: May 2009
Viscount
Aside from amp/speaker synergy issues wouldn't the correct path take driver T/S parameters into account first? I would first associate high Qts drivers with open baffles, low Qts drivers with BLH, and the middle ground can go sealed, ported, TL, or pipes although there are a few exceptions.

I agree with your path 1 assessment. To acheive deep bass (say in room flat response down to 30 Hz) from BLHs, the cabinets must be huge and extremely stiff. The practical alternates are to ignore the lack of bass or somehow augment with a powered woofer. IMO many listeners have unwittingly learned to ignore a lack of deep bass or have never heard deep, musical, dynamic bass and so they underestimate these considerations.

Regarding your path 2 discussion: One significant advantage I find in BLH, OB, TL or pipe designs is that they direct the rear wave so as to avoid reflecting back to and through the semi acoustically transparent driver cone to be heard as a time smear form of distortion. Because of this time smearing, I'd love to find more commerically available TL sub options.

IMO the dynamics of one speaker cabinet design versus another is primarily dependent on the driver efficiency. Seems that the confusion and debate of cabinet types comes in due to high efficiency drivers which often have low Qts values and therefore correlate most often with BLHs. And so BLH cabinets are praised when its the drivers that dictate the choice of cabinet designs in the first place. Note that the highly praised and approachably priced extended range Visaton B200 driver offers an alternative to BLHs with it's high Qts and high efficiency.

I'd prefer to see a sub crossover lower than 200 Hz, but am eager to audition Retsel's Lowther/OB.

Re: a good question [message #21167 is a reply to message #21166] Sat, 06 August 2005 08:43 Go to previous messageGo to next message
roncla is currently offline  roncla
Messages: 125
Registered: May 2009
Master
Hay , i am in total agreement. The way i see it is a seperate woofer and the low Qts driver in a small sealed cab run FR. I simmed some of the cheap Pioneer drivers and even with a Qts of .25( 15" driver) i could see an Fc around 30 Hz with a BR cab. Just bi amp and roll off the sub/woofer at a good XO point and there ya have it. A very simple cab, but will require bi amping for good performance. Having run several tests i still find that the Qts of the woofer/sub should be close to the Qts of the FR ( OK , lets call it wide band) driver. The SPL of the 15" was the same as the 206e and paper cone , so it should( that word again) be a very good match and a simple build.
I believe the main reason i got into BLHs in the first place was the technical challenge and just to be different. The only reason i am not a fan of such designs as the Basszilla is the large footprint and the required XO electronics. IMHO a properly designed sealed cab for the wide band (designed for 150-200 hz roll in) is the way to go.( at this moment in space and time)
ron

Ok Boys, read this........ [message #21168 is a reply to message #21086] Sat, 06 August 2005 12:02 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Ed Schilling is currently offline  Ed Schilling
Messages: 47
Registered: May 2009
Baron
We do all agree that Enter Sandman by Metallica is "Metal", right..........

The amp is the X150......the speakers are a 4"BLH. The speakers are in corners..the room is 16 X18. The SPL was at the couch. The distance from the right and left speaker to the SPL meter was 15 feet. My buddys' name is Larry....he is a musician and plays around town a couple times a week. Believe this or not. I don't care. This is in his own words.............

I'm Larry, and I just sat here 15 feet away from the system listening to Metallica playing Enter Sandman @ 106 db peaks. The average volumn during the quiet portion of the song (the speaking part) was 100 db. I could detect absolutely no audible distortion at any point. In other words, the system kicked ass! Yes..I am a musician; and I know what loud music is supposed to sound like. The bass response was just fine, and there was certainly no need for a sub woofer at that volumn. I have previously listened to the system with a sub woofer, and it probably sounded a little better at low volumn; but I never really thought it needed one.

And that's the way it is....and all he would type! I simply asked Larry to type what he heard.

Now, other than a BLH....exactly what single driver design with a single 4" driver, can make those SPL's? A TL, a BR , a sealed......well not that I have been able to see actually demonstrated. Keep in mind we are talking a 4" single driver, not an 8, not a multi driver, but a single 4" driver. It seems that a BLH just might have an efficiency edge over other designs, unless of course one of them can achieve the same outputs using a COMPARABLE size driver. The BLH is a much more efficient type of design, I have found. I will give examples of real speakers in my next post....which may not be until tomorrow. In the mean time and I have said it over and over....in the world of single driver speakers....efficiency and small cones are your friends. Excursion and low efficiency is your enemy......My opinions OK.
Ed

BTW...I did not edit or spell check Larry's writings!

Re: Why won't a single driver speaker do metal? [message #21169 is a reply to message #21086] Sat, 06 August 2005 12:15 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Greg B is currently offline  Greg B
Messages: 2
Registered: May 2009
Esquire
Since no one else has pointed it out: 'metal' is not dynamic music. In fact, it's severely limited and almost the opposite of classical. Massive amounts of compression are used in recording and mastering, aside from the natural compression of marshall amplifiers in overdrive.

I've rarely found any metal to sound good on horns or other dynamic speakers. It is mastered to sound good on typical home stereos. Metal sounds best IMO on lower efficiency but fairly large multiways, but can be OK on low efficiency single drivers, like say the cheap delco fullranges in your camaro... I've listened to enough metal as a teenager for one lifetime already, but that's a different subject.


To sum it up, I think it's more a matter of efficiency and low distortion. Heavily produced rock and metal thrive on a bit more compression and squashing of the peaks even at the playback end; while classical, jass and other well recorded music sound best with higher fidelity. I doesn't surprise me that little fostex FR's in small backhorns sound pretty good with metallica, as they are not that efficient and no doubt squash dynamic peaks.

Greg B

Re: Why won't a single driver speaker do metal? [message #21170 is a reply to message #21169] Sat, 06 August 2005 12:27 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Ed Schilling is currently offline  Ed Schilling
Messages: 47
Registered: May 2009
Baron
I agree to a certain extent Gregg. About the way recordings are made, for one. But do keep in mind the subject was
" Why won't a single driver speaker do metal?" NOT , " Why won't a single driver speaker do Classical, jazz or other well recorded music"?

I hope you're not saying they don't! I'll get some SPL readings on some of what you call "dynamic music" as well. And post them....regardless of the results.
Ed

Re: Why won't a single driver speaker do metal? [message #21171 is a reply to message #21170] Sat, 06 August 2005 14:44 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Greg B is currently offline  Greg B
Messages: 2
Registered: May 2009
Esquire
Hey Ed,

No, I'm not saying that at all, in fact that's their forte. But not all single drivers are the same for sure. It was interesting for me to try the FX200 in both the factory BR and a TQWT of my own design (with help from Martin King's software). The BR was less dynamic for sure but seemed to take the edge off rock and other 'produced' recordings, and the ~4kHz peak inherent in the driver's response was much less noticeable in casual listening. The TQWT was designed to have enough gain in the upper bass to not need BSC. Overall, the measurements were quite similar, but of course the BR did not go as low. BTW, the factory BR design is a bit high tuned and warm sounding, which seems to be intentional - to negate the need for electrical BSC.

Anyway, the TQWT was certainly the clear winner in terms of high fidelity and was remarkably lifelike. OTOH, the BR was much more forgiving, but sounded like a stereo rather than the real thing. So, here we have a situation with the same driver, where one enclosure might be more suitable for classical and other dynamic recordings, and the other better for rock, etc.

BTW, since I'm moving in a couple weeks and will no longer be in a converted warehouse, no more huge format HE system for me. I think I'm going to try my FE108E sigmas in backhorns... They're really my fave fostex so far, and I've tried quite a few. Maybe I can make my big TL sub a couch??

Rgds,
Greg B

10-4 ! [message #21172 is a reply to message #21171] Sat, 06 August 2005 14:53 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Ed Schilling is currently offline  Ed Schilling
Messages: 47
Registered: May 2009
Baron
Gregg,
Not surprised with your results! Good job in actually comparing the two. I never heard BR I could live with.
Ed

Re: Why won't a single driver speaker do metal? [message #21175 is a reply to message #21169] Sun, 07 August 2005 03:01 Go to previous messageGo to previous message
Wayne Parham is currently offline  Wayne Parham
Messages: 18680
Registered: January 2001
Illuminati (33rd Degree)

I think the problem to overcome is three-fold, one being upper extension, another being intermoduation and the other being X-Max. The thing I've seen most single drivers do best is mid and highs, which leaves the designer to focus on a cabinet that improves bass response.

But no matter what you do - horn, reflex or transmission line - the bandwidth required is the same. A single driver is required to cover the entire audio band. That means the intermodulation issue is the same cross to bear for each of the three designs. And while excursion is limited at certain frequencies in each of the above mentioned designs, you still need to have displacement to generate bass, and that means excursion.


Previous Topic: interesting auction item
Next Topic: Driver Size Thoughts
Goto Forum:
  


Current Time: Sun Apr 28 01:54:05 CDT 2024

Sponsoring Organizations

DIY Audio Projects
DIY Audio Projects
OddWatt Audio
OddWatt Audio
Pi Speakers
Pi Speakers
Prosound Shootout
Prosound Shootout
Smith & Larson Audio
Smith & Larson Audio
Tubes For Amps
TubesForAmps.com

Lone Star Audiofest