Whizzer - any drawback from an audio point of view?

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic. Read 1740 times.

Ultralight

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 370
Regarding Whizzers on full ranger drivers, curious if there's any draw back from an audio point of view? Do they create a presentation that some don't like? And if so - what is its audio characteristics that some may find objectionable?

Thanks!
UL

G Georgopoulos

  • Restricted
  • Posts: 1255
Re: Whizzer - any drawback from an audio point of view?
« Reply #1 on: 4 Jul 2015, 05:00 am »
full range drivers aren't actually full range
they lack bass and treble,less efficient at those points
regarding to your question,if you used a tweeter it would
put out more treble tone than a whizzer plus extended high freq.




Scottmoose

  • Jr. Member
  • Posts: 98
Re: Whizzer - any drawback from an audio point of view?
« Reply #2 on: 4 Jul 2015, 09:01 am »
Sigh. If you're going to pontificate blanket statements against wideband drivers devoid of any kind of qualification whatsoever, and in the process not even attempt to answer the OPs question, this doesn't seem the place to do it. We've heard it all before, many, many times. Speaking for myself, I design and use multiway and single driver systems, and like both.

Fact 1: wideband drivers do not necessarily 'lack bass'. Some (many) have perfectly acceptable LF output for a large number of people: what is acceptable varies according to the design requirements. There are plenty that can do open E double bass (c.42Hz) with distortion levels acceptable for many, which means you're covering the gamut of acoustic music other than full sized grand piano or organ music -plenty of midbass drivers out there that can do that, and plenty that can't. Many wideband drivers can go lower.

Fact 2: wideband drivers not necessarily 'lack... treble'. Many have perfectly acceptable HF output for a large number of people: what is acceptable varies according to the design requirements. Some wideband units can get up past 30KHz. A decent number can do around 20KHz. Do the FR graphs always look as pretty as a quality dome tweeter? No. Does everybody care two hoots? No. Is dispersion as good as a dome? Not always. Does everybody care about that either? No.


So, with that out of the way, perhaps we can get back on topic. Short answer is that behaviour varies depending on the design, so there's no single answer to the first question. They have some advantages inasmuch as the are effectively a secondary radiator with a mechanical crossover, extending the HF response beyond what the resonant behaviour of the main cone substrate is capable of. But they can have various drawbacks. The mechanical XO has to be carefully designed otherwise you can get obvious discontinuities in the overall response. Dispersion at higher frequencies can start to narrow significantly -depends on the size & profile of the whizzer. They can also blank off part of the main cone, so there are potential response irregularities as you move off-axis from phase etc. issues. From that, you'll gather re the 2nd question that: yes -as a result of this, some people do not like the behaviour of some drivers with whizzer cones. Exactly which of the reasons will vary from design to design, depending on its particular compromises (since all drivers are compromised to varying extents).

JLM

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 8040
  • The elephant normally IS the room
Re: Whizzer - any drawback from an audio point of view?
« Reply #3 on: 4 Jul 2015, 10:52 am »
Thanks for jumping in Scott. 

I own Fostex F200A drivers, rated 30 - 20,000 Hz, 90 dB/w/m, 8 ohms, with no whizzer.  Unfortunately not cheap and no longer made.  For music I consider them, in my transmission line floor-standing cabinets to be full range.

Many single driver fans have conditioned themselves to accept a lack of foundational bass to the point of losing creditability outside their own circles.  (Curious that stand-mount speaker fans don't seem to suffer the same disdain.)  Dispersion of a large driver is always going to suffer at high frequencies, but similar to MTM or horizontal horn design, the resulting "beaming" allows for controlled dispersion.

What I don't like about whizzers is:  the additive effect of having the whizzer "riding" the main driver, so the frequency response that the whizzer produces is "on top" of the motion of the main driver; as riding the main driver the whizzer is also acting as a secondary mid-woofer; and obviously the whizzer is interfering/blocking waveforms from the main driver.  Better IMO is a coaxial tweeter mounted as a center dust cap of the main driver which eliminates these issues and can be a more honest/optimized solution with an electrical versus mechanical crossover (although I often prefer mechanical solutions over electrical).
« Last Edit: 4 Jul 2015, 09:10 pm by JLM »

Ultralight

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 370
Re: Whizzer - any drawback from an audio point of view?
« Reply #4 on: 4 Jul 2015, 05:28 pm »
Thanks for all the replies.

But if I may ask, aside from the technical function of the whizzer, what does it sound like.  Blindfolded, are there people who simply do not enjoy cones with whizzers?  In other words, generally speaking, is there a particular characteristic to cones with whizzers?

Thanks!
UL

Scottmoose

  • Jr. Member
  • Posts: 98
Re: Whizzer - any drawback from an audio point of view?
« Reply #5 on: 4 Jul 2015, 07:33 pm »
See my post above. You're basically asking a question to which there is no answer, or no single answer. Selectively quoting myself:

Quote
...behaviour varies depending on the design, so there's no single answer... They can have various drawbacks. The mechanical XO has to be carefully designed otherwise you can get obvious discontinuities in the overall response. Dispersion at higher frequencies can start to narrow significantly -depends on the size & profile of the whizzer. They can also blank off part of the main cone, so there are potential response irregularities as you move off-axis from phase etc. issues. From that, you'll gather re the 2nd question that: yes -as a result of this, some people do not like the behaviour of some drivers with whizzer cones. Exactly which of the reasons will vary from design to design, depending on its particular compromises (since all drivers are compromised to varying extents).

All drivers differ in their behaviour, ergo they sound different. Whizzer cones are employed in a large variety of different sizes, profiles, are coupled differently, so there is no blanket 'sound' associated with them. There are degrees of functional conformity and issues related to them, such as those noted above; how significant they are depends on the specifics of their implementation.

Ultralight

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 370
Re: Whizzer - any drawback from an audio point of view?
« Reply #6 on: 6 Jul 2015, 05:31 pm »
Thank you Scott.  You are very helpful.  Appreciated.

UL

DaveC113

  • Industry Contributor
  • Posts: 3790
  • ZenWaveAudio.com
Re: Whizzer - any drawback from an audio point of view?
« Reply #7 on: 6 Jul 2015, 05:40 pm »
I agree with Scott, there are good and not-so-good implementations of pretty much anything. I've heard quite a few drivers with whizzers I really liked and could not tell anything sounded off at all. The newer Omega drivers, AES 6.5" as used in the Lamhorns and Voxativ drivers all sound great to me.