[doug s.]

i would suggest renaming this circle the full-range driver circle, & letting anything that uses a full-range driver be discussed...

doug s.

[DaveC113]

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     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.

[doug s.]

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     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.

[jules]

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  . 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 

jules

[nathanm]

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!   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 ) because of their limitations, but their strengths are enjoyable too.

[DaveC113]

...call it Full-Range instead.... 

But they are not full range. 

[miklorsmith]

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).

[nathanm]

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

[ZLS]

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.

[miklorsmith]

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

 

Lets not exclude compression horns or potential, future wideband planars.  I think this definition is too constraining, Nate.

[Charivari]

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

[jrebman]

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

[planet10]

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

[JLM]

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?

[curry49]

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,   
Winston.

[curry49]

Very interesting thread, bye the way.