AudioCircle
Audio/Video Gear and Systems => Single Driver, Wide-Bandwidth Speakers => Topic started by: jrebman on 10 Sep 2007, 04:14 pm
-
The definition of a single driver speaker, as with most things audio, has several interpretations, so let's try to figure it out between us. Right now there seems to be a consensus building around the idea of a wideband driver handling the bulk of the musical spectrum, which is, or is not augmented with subs and/or supertweeters.
So let's see where this goes...
-- Jim
-
My speakers have 7 drivers per side and I demand to be included. :lol:
-
My speakers have 7 drivers per side and I demand to be included. :lol:
I think, based on that comment, you and I are closer to the array forum than this SD forum. :wink:
Bob
-
Hey!
My definition of Single Driver speaker?
Well, if you are watching you TV right now than you are likely listening to a SD speaker system... of course this is a bad example of SD speaker. :lol:
Basically in an ideal world there will be just one driver in each channel that could handle 20Hz to 20KHz and beyond without any xover... hi efficiency is a plus :wink: Of course that doesn't exist.
As for type of drivers. Well, we all know about Lowther and Fostex. But there are other that I would consider them SD speaker. First one and this is probably what many already have... the headphone. Yes, the headphone of which most of them have just one driver and without any xover. Than there is the fullrange electrostatic speaker some like the the Martin Logan CLS.
So, for me it would be at minimum a SD speaker should be able to handle 80hz to 12hzk+ by itself. And one that I feel that would be something that most SD could live with is driver in cab that could handle 40hz to 18hzk+ My current home made seem to cover a little more than that in my room... even without supertweeters :D
Anyway, there are two SD speaker system that I think came close to an ideal. The Fostex F200A in Brines FTA-2000 cab and Teresonic "Ingenium" with Lowther... from what Scott's review. I've heard the F200A in FTA-200 cabs and I was impressed with the low end of this driver. The down side of the F200A is that they are not efficiency enough for me.
Well, that's how I see it. :D
Take care,
Buddy :thumb:
-
So, any further thoughts on the subject?
So far, I think we have the idea that a single driver speaker should be one in which a single, wideband driver is handling the bulk of the musical information, though there is no real consensus on what that means. Some say the standard 80-8000 Hz is the minum, but there are plenty of fine speakers out there that don't even hit that mark, and which would still be considered a true single driver system. The Auditorium 23 Solo Vox comes to mind with it's 100 Hz bottom end.
Should efficiency enter the discussion?
Then there is the question of multiple drivers (of the same type and carrying the same portion of the spectrum) -- i.e. - di/bipoles, OBs with two vertically arrange drivers, etc. While these may not preserve the idea of point source coherence, my feeling is that if they are indeed of the same type and handling the same part of the spectrum, then they should count. I can't think of any reason why the Omega dipoles, for example, wouldn't be considered part of this group.
Then there's the question of crossovers. I am not sure what to say here but my feeling that if there is any crossover at all, it should be of the simplest type, and only for rolling off the top or bottom end to transition well with a sub or supertweeter. BSC and other compensation networks, while they do compromise efficiency seem like a completely reasonable thing to me and not any sort of divergence from the SD genre.
Any other thoughts?
Are we getting closer to a definition, and really, do we even need one, as most folks who are into it are already aware of what they have, and I'm guessing that most of the others don't really care. In other words, if you see a circle called "single driver speakers" and you check it out and post in it, chances are it is something that you know about and what interests you.
-- Jim
-
Hi Jim,
The Auditorium 23 Solo Vox comes to mind with it's 100 Hz bottom end.
I was wondering where you got this info from? It doesn't jive with my experience as an owner or the published specs for the stock PHY driver.
http://www.phy-hp.com/English/Products/H21lb15_SAG_E.html (http://www.phy-hp.com/English/Products/H21lb15_SAG_E.html)
And here's a quote from Jules Coleman's review of the SoloVox:
"Output falls off precipitously above 12KHz and there is little output below 40-50Hz."
I'm not trying to start any wars or even suggest I can back up the fact that I hear stuff well into the 40s with scientific evidence, but I'd bet my tweeters the SoloVox go below 100Hz.
Cheers & good luck with the Single Driver Speaker forum. Excellent idea!
-
Michael,
Thanks for the note and for posting here. Mea culpa -- I was basing my comments on that same review by Jules Coleman, and I thought he said that things fell off precipitously at 100 Hz or so. I'll have to go back and re-read it as it's been at least a year or more since I read it.
Hey, if you're looking for another Sony PS-1, drop me a PM.
Thanks,
Jim
-
Jim,
No worries. The single-driver speaker approach seems to suffer from a bunch of misconceptions. Inadequate bass being one of the biggies.
You can find Jules' review here http://www.toneimports.com/reviews.html (http://www.toneimports.com/reviews.html) - the original site where it was published has gone mysteriously missing for about a year.
Oh No! Not the dreaded PS1 topic. I've never had knowledge of this PS1 nor do I know anyone who's commingled with one.
-
Jim,
Bumping up the low frequency response a bit to 100 or even 150 Hz to cover the definition I think would be fine. Guessing, a fairly large segment of the single driver community probably uses subs to augment the lowest three octaves. Much beyond the 150Hz range then starts to get you into many other designs like front loaded horns like the Oris or even big Altec's.
When it comes to notch filters, the same holds true. Many of the guys use these to tame frequency peaks from the drivers or baffles. When it comes to actual crossovers, my personal preference is for 1st order but that doesn't mean higher order XO's can't sound good either. I don't think these should play into the definition of a single driver speaker.
I'm not sure efficiency should play a factor here. There are a number of lower efficiency drivers that could be considered full range like the Jordan's and Manger drivers.
I'm with you, keep the definition loose and see where we end up. That average guy that sees a Single Driver circle either understands the intent of the circle and likely won't post about his two way speakers that crossover at 1250Hz. Besides, somebody may come across a killer driver that sounds great from 40-6kHz and only costs $30/pr. That could make for an easy and cheap project with loads of discussion.
-
And the Lord spake, saying, 'First shalt thou mount the Holy Driver. Then, shalt thou count to one. No more. No less. One shalt be the number thou shalt count, and the number of the counting shall be one. Two shalt thou not count, neither count thou naught, excepting that thou then proceed to one.'
Single driver speaker: ONE vibrating diaphragm per cabinet, no crossover.
YES:Ed's Horn, Norh 3.0, computer speakers, lowthers, fostex headphones etc.
NO: Zu Druid, Tannoy Coaxials, the above combined with a tweeter etc.
The above combined with add-on tweeters or bass cabinets might be a single driver speaker based system but not a single driver speaker. If there is more than one driver per side it should not be called single. Full-range, extended, wideband, or something else, but just not single. Assuming stereo you could have a pair of single driver speakers and actually have two drivers total but if you've got four drivers in two cabinets don't call one side a single. The true, purist single driver speaker would actually be a mono system but I am not sure how many folks actually have one speaker sitting in the middle of their room.
-
How about crossoverless speakers as more apt description for the circle? Doesn't exactly roll off the tongue so perhaps the circle should retain the same name but include only and all speakers without crossovers in the discussion.
-
Single driver speakers can (and some must) have crossover components - mind you this is somewhat of a misnoner as the components are not crossing-over anything....more cleaning up the sound to acheive the desired response. Notch filters, baffle-step-compensation networks, etc...
IMO if the speaker has more than a single driver it cannot be a single driver speaker!
:scratch:
-
Single driver speakers can (and some must) have crossover components - mind you this is somewhat of a misnoner as the components are not crossing-over anything....more cleaning up the sound to acheive the desired response. Notch filters, baffle-step-compensation networks, etc...
IMO if the speaker has more than a single driver it cannot be a single driver speaker!
:scratch:
Yes, you are right crossover components but not true crossovers so therefore SD speakers are crossover-less. Should coaxial speakers be allowed in the definition?
-
I'd vote for any speaker with a one driver that goes 60 - 8,000 Hz without a crossover. (I don't consider baffle step or zobel compensation to be a crossover.)
Line arrays, dipoles, bipoles, and Bose 901s go home.
-
And the Lord spake, saying, 'First shalt thou mount the Holy Driver. Then, shalt thou count to one. No more. No less. One shalt be the number thou shalt count, and the number of the counting shall be one. Two shalt thou not count, neither count thou naught, excepting that thou then proceed to one.'
Single driver speaker: ONE vibrating diaphragm per cabinet, no crossover.
YES:Ed's Horn, Norh 3.0, computer speakers, lowthers, fostex headphones etc.
NO: Zu Druid, Tannoy Coaxials, the above combined with a tweeter etc.
The above combined with add-on tweeters or bass cabinets might be a single driver speaker based system but not a single driver speaker. If there is more than one driver per side it should not be called single. Full-range, extended, wideband, or something else, but just not single. Assuming stereo you could have a pair of single driver speakers and actually have two drivers total but if you've got four drivers in two cabinets don't call one side a single. The true, purist single driver speaker would actually be a mono system but I am not sure how many folks actually have one speaker sitting in the middle of their room.
Nathan,
I bow down in deference to your authoritative take on thith. I thinketh that it ith abtholutely impothible to mithconthtrue your (or God'th) meaning in thith and, furthermore, that coaxials are an abomination and demonthtrably not thingle yea, even though they be good, on occathion.
Ruthell
-
So coaxial speakers like the Hawthorne Silver Iris would not be discussed in the SD circle? Maybe the single driver definition might be a little too finely and literately drawn. :scratch: We couldn't discuss supertweeters either? :|
-
It doesn't seem logical to allow supertweeters to be discussed because then there would be two drivers per side. The true purist must not fiddle with supertweeters to stay true to the single drive ideal. :nono: :P
-
Thank you Russell. Indeed, I spent many hours in thought upon what could possibly define a single driver speaker. At first it seemed obvious; a single driver speaker is one with three or more drivers! Duh! But eventually this theory gave way to the Quad Theory, wherein at least four drivers were necessary. I then honed this down to the dual driver theory which was working quite well. But then it struck me; what else could a single driver speaker be except one with a single driver!? Eureka! Granted, I could still be wrong; for all I know a single driver speaker could involve potentially hundreds of drivers but right now I am sticking with one.
-
To the purists,
I think that you guys are making your definitions so tight and restrictive that eventually only 4 or 5 people will qualify to post. As it is right now, I don't qualify but I still consider myself a single driver speaker user and believer. I own 7 pairs of Lowther drivers, 2 pairs of Fostex drivers, 10 pairs of the old Radio Shack 40-1197 drivers and 8 pairs of the old Radio Shack 1286C bought on clearance for a song, and a big old pair of University 15" triaxials. But I also have and use woofers and super tweeters, an electronic crossover, and multiple amps with my full range drivers. So I don't qualify.
I think you have to decide if you want a policy of exclusion or inclusion. I see a policy of exclusion developing. A policy of inclusion might redefine the forum as one where full range drivers are used in speaker systems, sometimes alone and sometimes in combination. Your rigid definition would even exclude bipoles using the same driver, does that make sense? Even if used in combination with other drivers full range drivers are not anywhere near to being a typical two way with a midbass and tweeter or a three way speaker with a woofer, mid, and tweeter. The goal is still the same, no crossover in the critical frequency range.
So if you want to be strict in your interpretation/definition and preach only the purist rhetoric that is fine but your discussions will become limited to a few contributors, narrow, and repetitive. If you want to open your eyes and ears to other applications of these interesting drivers you might see and discuss some things that are beyond you current field of vision. I am not sure what you are afraid of reading or considering by allowing the use of woofers or supertweeters. Work it out and I will post and contribute if I can in line with the rules, or abide by your restrictions and go elsewhere. It is your forum and the majority rules.
Just a thought,
Martin
-
Single driver speaker = one man army.
:thumb:
-
i would suggest renaming this circle the full-range driver circle, & letting anything that uses a full-range driver be discussed...
doug s.
-
I don't think we need a restrictive definition... one driver per speaker is just too restrictive, and not too many drivers can really cover enough bandwidth to approach "full range". Manufacturers of single driver speakers offer subwoofers, for example Omega just came out with a sub, and finding good solutions for achieving full range with a single driver that has no crossover is a worthy topic of discussion, IMO. I actually like deep bass 8) And what's wrong with single driver arrays?
I think if a design goes past a single driver in a cabinet with no augmentation that the goal of keeping the characteristics of the "single driver sound" should be the main priority.
-
to me, any driver that can do ~100hz to ~6khz should be fair game for discussion in this circle...
doug s.
I don't think we need a restrictive definition... one driver per speaker is just too restrictive, and not too many drivers can really cover enough bandwidth to approach "full range". Manufacturers of single driver speakers offer subwoofers, for example Omega just came out with a sub, and finding good solutions for achieving full range with a single driver that has no crossover is a worthy topic of discussion, IMO. I actually like deep bass 8) And what's wrong with single driver arrays?
I think if a design goes past a single driver in a cabinet with no augmentation that the goal of keeping the characteristics of the "single driver sound" should be the main priority.
-
I reckon there's something in the idea of keeping it simple ... single driver=single driver.
This way, the challenge becomes how to make the best of one driver without resorting to a little help over maybe 4 or 5 octaves :wink:. Sure there's going to be compromise but there always is.
I find the idea refreshing. A little while back I was considering the "logical" next step up for my system to tri-amping with active crossovers but more recently I've suddenly thought no, forget the truck load of amps, forget the debates about 1st, 2nd, 3rd or 4th. order xovers, remove the issue of "sterile" actives and just build a one driver unit. I'm looking forward to it ... simple, quick, relatively cheap even using a good driver and maybe, if the best part of the drivers range just happens to correspond with what my ears are best at hearing, the results will be superior in the critical zone.
Of course it could be too simple, in which case there's no need for a circle :scratch:
jules
-
To the purists, I think that you guys are making your definitions so tight and restrictive that eventually only 4 or 5 people will qualify to post.
The original question of the thread I thought was a purely semantical one concerning the definition of a single driver speaker, which seems self-defining! :lol: Doug S.'s suggestion makes the most sense, call it Full-Range instead. But then, I just like arguing about language so take that with a grain of salt. :)
It is a bit challenging to fully enjoy a true single driver speaker (the kind with one driver :P) because of their limitations, but their strengths are enjoyable too.
-
...call it Full-Range instead....
But they are not full range.
-
I think Dmason coined the term "wideband" driver to fit this niche. I keep coming back to two ideas - "I know it when I see it", and that "single driver" is a state of mind. Those that know, appreciate, and pursue the ideal will gravitate toward this Circle.
Too esoteric? Maybe. Too nebulous? Probably. My general sense is not to overly constrain things until they show need. If it gets to be a free-for-all, getting particular might be needed. For now, I vote we see what happens and react accordingly (said he with 14 drivers in his SD system).
-
The Dynamic Cone Driver Which May Or May Not Be Used By Itself Or In Conjunction With Other Drivers And Which Covers A Frequency Bandwidth Relatively Larger Than Drivers Used In Conventional 2-way or 3-way Speaker Designs Circle
-
I view Audio Circle as a place where I can learn and appreciate new ideas. Therefore, I would rather see this circle as inclusive rather than exclusive. Said he with a dipole/bipole speaker system. However, when I look at my speakers I only see one Driver.
-
The Dynamic Cone Driver Which May Or May Not Be Used By Itself Or In Conjunction With Other Drivers And Which Covers A Frequency Bandwidth Relatively Larger Than Drivers Used In Conventional 2-way or 3-way Speaker Designs Circle
:lol:
Lets not exclude compression horns or potential, future wideband planars. I think this definition is too constraining, Nate.
-
Lets not exclude ... potential, future wideband planars.
Yet, those, covering in excess of six or more octaves, have already been around for years. Full-range electrostats have been standard fare for some companies for nearly three decades now. The BG RD75 would count with its being capable of implementation from 120Hz to 18kHz. Even the old Strathern quasi-ribbons as well. Would the nearly 6' long true ribbons in my current speakers qualify for this forum? They're currently run from 350Hz to 44kHz (+/-3dB), but with a steeper high pass on the bottom, I can safely bring them down to ~120Hz.
It would seem that this thread has become more confusing than clarifying. The more the efforts to nail down a definition, the more exceptions that arise.
- JP
-
Thanks everybody for your thoughts and input, it is all valued and appreciated.
I'd just like to say that my original intention with this circle was to be more inclusive than exclusive, and that there should be room here for different approaches and opinions as to what constitutes a single driver/wideband driver speaker system.
I thought long and hard about how to name the circle so that the title was accurate, but not too limiting, and on the other hand, not too excessively wide open. My hope is that the people who have an interest in the topic would be able to extrapolate from the title whether it was something that was interesting to them personally, or not, and even though opinions seem to be pretty varied, it seems as if that self-selection process is working as expected and most here seem to understand what we're talking about.
As to the subject of a name change... again, I thought about it a lot before the circle went live, and in light of the exchange that has been happening here, I've revisited it and sought advice from the more experienced folks around here as to whether it is a good idea or not, and what a new name might look like. So, the bottom line is that I feel that there is really no concise way to express the idea of what I intended this circle to be about, and that because things seem to be more or less on track, I am going to leave the title as it stands. However, the tag line may undergo a little editing for clarification, in at least as much as is possible.
If you have any suggestions for that, please let me know.
Thanks again for the great discussion, and I do hope everybody with an interest in this subject can find a place here.
-- Jim
-
I have always looked at the Full Range Forum as the prototype for any Full Range Forum.
Dan's term wideband is probably most appropriate since a really good FR is capable of about 7 octaves so if you want truly FR performance the single driver needs some help.
My personal definition for a full range is that i can sit down and enjoy the music with just that driver.
This includes the small 3" drivers that stretch to reach 100-125 Hz but go up pretty much all the way. So i'd include FAST systems where a small FR is used as mid/tweeter with a helper woofer. This is a wonderful way to have a small FR on an OB.
Bigger drivers will deliver bass, but are naturally limited on the top, so need a tweeter/supertweeter. There are many many vintage drivers that fit here as well as things like the Fostex FE208eSigma & Pioneer B20. (Coaxes can fit in here -- on the FRF they are OK, but most people don't talk about them much)
My preferred FRs stradle the middle. Something like a Fonken with the FE127e will do 70-15k, the Frugel-Horn (with corner support goes a bit lower), the EdHorn also 70(80) to 15k. I find these perfectly satisfying. An active woofer is most often used, but where that mostly impacts is to get more level, the extra bottom is just a bonis.
dave
-
To just use the terms "extended range" or "wideband" opens the door to three-way designs, such as the VMPS 626 which uses a ribbon to go six octaves. I like the 626 (why not, duh) but I wouldn't see it belonging here. Same with Zu or Reference 3A products that rely on tweeters.
JMO, but the challenge and fun of purist single driver designs would be lost if line arrays, coaxials, or tweeter reliant drivers are included. Subwoofers with separate cabinets and amps are, well, separate and so OK as the "essential" aspects of the single driver concept (coherence, point source imaging, and active drive) are still maintained if crossed over low (properly) enough.
I don't want to be snobbish, but there are already lots of places for 2 or 3 way speakers to be discussed. Can't we single driver loons have our own place?
-
Hi,
I know this thread is old, but I felt drawn to it for some reason.
As to defining a pure 'single-driver' system, I believe the criterion would be simple - i.e. a system with one single driver per side. I also believe that, if we were to be strictly faithful to the original concept, then the 'single-driver' system would exclude the likes of planars and etc to focus on what most would recognize as the driver type which epitomizes the concept - i.e. the dynamic cone driver driven by a coil at its center.
But then, the typical 'single-driver' does have certain limitations, usually at either end of the spectrum and especially in the trebles, perhaps. So some admirers of the concept add either subwoofers or tweeters/super-tweeters, or both.
But then, can such a system still be regarded as a 'single-driver' system?
Perhaps not in the prurest sense of the term, but it could be argued that it's a very good compromise incorporating some of the best aspects of the single-driver and multi-driver (full-spectrum) systems. The best of both worlds?
If the most important aspects of a pure single-driver system include; "coherence, point source imaging, and active drive," then the so-called 'ideal' compromise of the tweeted and subwoofed 'single-driver' system described above would certainly dilute at least two of these traits to significant degrees, though perhaps retaining much more of these traits than most conventional systems. But, still, for virtually all of the spectrum covered by the 'single-driver' segment of this augmented system, the virtues of a crossoverless 'active-drive' driver will be most beneficial, IMO (while the more diluted traits - coherence & point source imaging - may also still be somewhat apparent).
Views may vary as to which is more desirable (i.e. the pure single-driver system or the augmented one) but I'd argue that both are relevant to the concept. As to how we should define them, perhaps the terms; 'single-driver' and 'augmented single-driver' could be applicable.
For me, the absolute greatest benefit of the concept is 'purity.' (Edited and foreshortened here). And, it is for this reason that my own system has evolved to a crossoverless 18" Goodmans midwoofer complimented by an Altec 802/811 horn per side, with only a capacitor on the latter.
No, it's not a single-driver system, but I consider that it exhibits some of the benefits of such a system. (Edit).
So, yes, I agree with those who opine that a single-driver system should be just as the term suggests. But perhaps variations on the theme are also relevant.
Just my two-pence on that.
Cheers, :wink:
Winston.
-
Very interesting thread, bye the way. :thumb: