|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Detailed maybe, but... [message #17664 is a reply to message #17663] |
Wed, 16 March 2005 20:57   |
Bob Brines
Messages: 186
Registered: May 2009
Location: Hot Springs Village, AR
|
Master |
|
|
|
Mine may be a minority opinion, but I cannot tolerate a tonally unbalanced speaker. IMO, almost any single driver full range speakers, even my FT-1600 with the Fostex FE167E requires a contour filter. An unfiltered full-ranger is shouty and forward with thin bass. I just can't do the politically correct no passive components think. IMO --YMMV Bob
|
|
|
|
| Re: Detailed maybe, but... [message #17665 is a reply to message #17664] |
Wed, 16 March 2005 21:34 |
 |
Wayne Parham
Messages: 18678
Registered: January 2001
|
Illuminati (33rd Degree) |
|
|
I agree completely. If I were going to implement a single driver solution, I'd probably do it the same way and for the same reasons. My solutions are not so different philosophically. I tend to like having a single driver carry the majority of information, and to cover the entire vocal range. In my smaller systems, the main driver covers bass and vocals, and the tweeter only covers the frequencies well above the vocal overtones. It's like a single driver with a supertweeter. In my larger systems, the midrange is run without an electrical crossover. It's like the main driver in my smaller systems but there is a sub added below them. The woofer is sent only information below that which the midrange is capable of reproducing. Likewise, the tweeter is crossed over where the midrange is out of gas, and both response and directivity are matched. So this is like a single driver with a built-in sub and a supertweeter and where the directivity of all subsystems is matched.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Rules
Members
Search
Help
Register
Login
Get a T-Shirt!
