[Shakeydeal]

There is full range, and then there is "full range". What you propose is no different than using conventional drivers in a 3 way design. You aren't using the "full range" driver as a "full range" driver........

Shakey

[AJinFLA]

You aren't using the "full range" driver as a "full range" driver........

Because there is no such thing (outside of headphones). Even less so open baffle.
So yes, I wouldn't want to create bassless distorted mids (dipolar or not) and prefer to reproduce the dynamics of recordings without severe compression and spectral coloration.
YMMV.

[Davey]

I just checked.  Yes! it's still there.  The "Single Driver, Wide-Bandwidth Speaker" Circle.

http://www.audiocircle.com/index.php?board=128.0

Dave.

[Shakeydeal]

Because there is no such thing (outside of headphones). Even less so open baffle.
So yes, I wouldn't want to create bassless distorted mids (dipolar or not) and prefer to reproduce the dynamics of recordings without severe compression and spectral coloration.
YMMV.

I think either you aren't, or don't want to, understand me.

Yes I realize that full range drivers aren't really full range. I get that. But they are used in lieu of multi way speakers with xovers, hence the moniker. You are arguing semantics and avoiding my question.

Why use full range drivers with xovers and supporting drivers? That is a rhetorical question, but one that certainly begs an answer.

Since you won't answer it, I guess I'll postulate here. The answer is, there is NO advantage to using them in this fashion. If you don't run them "full range" (or sans xover for those of you who must be politically correct) what you have is a conventional speaker.

Shakey

[AJinFLA]

I think either you aren't, or don't want to, understand me.
 there is NO advantage to using them in this fashion

You simply don't like the factual answers given repeatedly. Your problem

[WC]

To get a full range speaker a combination of drivers needs to be used. A single full or wide range driver can be added to an enclosure. A 3" or 4" driver will work well for the high end, but bass will be lacking no matter the enclosure. A larger full range driver will have more issues with the high end, but should work OK for low end bass depending on the enclosure. One of the benefits of a wide range driver is that it can provide a wider range of crossovers with woofers or tweeters. The crossover point could be shifted out of the midrange zone where it is less noticeable to certain people.

[Shakeydeal]

You simply don't like the factual answers given repeatedly. Your problem

You haven't really given any answers, but that's ok. I did it for you, so no worries.

I will let you and your "expert" opinion have the last word.......

[AJinFLA]

You haven't really given any answers

The fact of the matter is that so called "fullrange" drivers are glorified midranges, more accurately called "wide range", which is fine if you listen only to midrange. Barely a semblance of bass even in huge BLHs and other reflex enclosures and often poor treble and highly colored without any filtering..as measurements concur exactly with ears regardless of understanding or not. Hence the proliferation of so called "helper" woofers/subs and "helper" supertweeters, aka a 3 way.
But this thread is about OB, which means said fullranges will have near zero bass...exactly as measurements show...and rising response due to the dipolar radiation/baffle combined acoustic response. So no "evil" filter (electrical only, since unbeknownst to many, the driver forms a mechanical/acoustic bandpass filter itself) results in highly colored bassless sound. Fine for some I suppose, but once again, why woofer/subwoofers are used by everyone else wanting some fidelity, like Linkwitz et al.
High passing these midrange/fullranges keeps bass frequencies away from them, significantly improving their midrange performance tonally and dynamically by reducing measurable/audible IMD. That's physical reality, not anecdote.

The audible/measurable performance of wideband drivers are significantly improved by band limiting, i.e. keeping bass away from them...and leaving bass to dedicated bass drivers

Less midrange distortion, more dynamics, real bass with added woofers.
Aka, real "full range" sound. Especially with open baffles.

Because there is no such thing (outside of headphones). Even less so open baffle.
So yes, I wouldn't want to create bassless distorted mids (dipolar or not) and prefer to reproduce the dynamics of recordings without severe compression and spectral coloration.

Well, there is always this 

[JohnR]

[Facilitator Hat]
Folks, please focus on the discussion points and not the person... thank you......
[/Facilitator Hat]


To the question (I think), full range drivers are (IMO) often a good choice for a midrange driver, actually. As WC mentioned, wide bandwidth, which makes messing with different crossover points easier. They often have low inductance which apart from anything else makes passive crossovers easier. Sometimes they are more sensitive. And often they are just good drivers. Especially for a DIYer/experimentor, all of this makes the driver more "reusable" in different projects/experiments.

[DaveC113]

There are often many differences between a "full-range" driver and a midrange driver of the same size. The one that counts is the absence of  breakup modes out of band for the full ranger (ideally but not always true) this allows a simple first order crossover, often just a single capacitor, to be used on the full ranger. In contrast a midrange often must use higher order crossovers to avoid audible break up.

The down side of full rangers are many and they can be significant, their design often more of a "black art" and the result is there are very few excellent full range drivers and lots of mediocre/poor examples. Although, over the years I think they have gotten better as a group. What I've heard as good includes a certain kind of extremely accurate, resolving and cohesive sound that other types of speakers can't hope equal. Brands that can achieve this (to varying degrees and sometimes depending on the material) include AER, Feastrex, Lowther and Omega.

As far as adding woofers and tweeters to full rangers, there are many advantages as well as possible pitfalls. But imo it can be done nearly perfectly as the full ranger allows for great flexibility in crossover points and a system can be developed that plays to the full ranger's strengths and avoids it's weaknesses. The overall result can be a speaker that sounds like an extremely good full ranger, even better than when it's run full-range... with full frequency extension, and much smoother frequency response combined with bass impact and much higher SPL capabilities. This can also result in a speaker that images/soundstages amazingly well, with a 3-D immersive soundstage conventional speakers are lucky to even approach.

While I am in full support in speakers that measure well there are other factors that have totally missed by conventional wisdom and imo they are as important or even more important that most measured parameters. Also, I find a problem with all speakers that use dome/ribbon tweeters crosseded over at convention frequencies, they are always identifiably different sounding vs the speaker's midrange and have undesirable artifacts. Horn supertweeters often have their own issues but if you find a really good super and cross it >10 kHz I think the results are FAR better vs a conventional dome/ribbon tweeter. And, specifically dealing with Harman's testing, while I sincerealy appreciate the effort and the good information provided a huge issue confounding issue that is not dealt with properly is simply acclimation. You all know the guy with the mediocre system and little experience who goes to an audio show and thinks his system is better than anything there. It's simply his acclimation and lack of experience. The same is a problem for preference testing, we are mostly used to conventional cone 'n dome speakers with typical radiation patterns and sound characteristics. We get acclimated to this type of sound and when presented with the sound of a different type of speaker, i.e.  horn/wg with narrowed directivity, we don't like it AT FIRST because it sounds odd, it's not what we're used to. This fades with time though, and eventually you get acclimated to the sound, then conventional speakers sound odd. Acclimation needs to be considered in preference testing, as well as other things, so imo the results of some testing has questionable validity.

I could keep going but I gotta get back to work! 

[AJinFLA]

When it comes to open baffles, you need dedicated woofers...or no bass.
As noted, wideband drivers can cover a large portion of the spectrum, but in an OB, not bass as well. Simple physics.

[DaveC113]

When it comes to open baffles, you need dedicated woofers...or no bass.
As noted, wideband drivers can cover a large portion of the spectrum, but in an OB, not bass as well. Simple physics.

For sure, my comments were more about full rangers in general. Even in boxes using full rangers for bass has a lot of issues but still is often a good compromise, especially in smaller rooms for listeners who don't require much SPL. Simplicity has it's advantages!

[Shakeydeal]

Exactly. If your listening habits are simple and don't dictate the need for true bass extension, a full range (single driver) speaker can sound very pure and realistic for solo guitar, string quartets, vocals, etc. I tried one of Bob Brines designs many years ago, and while it sounded very good, it would not give me the realistic levels I desire. Although my current speakers are flat to 20 hz, I can live with a lot less bass extension. However, I do listen at  high volumes from time to time and don't want to be limited in that regard. Hence, this type of speaker will never work for my needs.

Shakey

[AJinFLA]

a full range (single driver) speaker can sound very pure and realistic for solo guitar, string quartets, vocals, etc.

And zero bass open baffle

[AJinFLA]

Even in boxes using full rangers for bass has a lot of issues but still is often a good compromise, especially in smaller rooms for listeners who don't require much SPL. Simplicity has it's advantages!

Right, but again this is the open baffle forum. Yes, I agree that boxed "fullrange" drivers can do ok at low volume with simple music in small rooms. Now increase the volume with wide dynamics orchestral, etc. and they unravel, loads of IMD and possibly even doppler.
Easily fixed with a high pass filter and a bass driver - woofer or sub.
Fact is OB "fullrange" = zero bass, unless you're talking a baffle the size of the front wall with a high Qts driver

[DaveC113]

Subs often leave a gap in the mid bass when paired with full rangers and miss that impact...  many times you need a higher xo point but that dpends on the driver, larger ones are obviously better at matching with subs.

But OT with OB... Lotus Grenada are some of the best OB speakers I've ever heard, they use Feastrex full rangers:

http://www.stereophile.com/content/lotus-group-granada

http://www.positive-feedback.com/Issue50/ca_show3.htm

http://www.dagogo.com/2009-rmaf-coverage-8

[AJinFLA]

But OT with OB... Lotus Grenada are some of the best OB speakers I've ever heard, they use Feastrex full rangers:

Well, for $125k...
They also seem to use a tweeter (rear). Whats know as a 3 way.
And this tool of the Devil: State of the Art Digital Crossover http://lotusgroupusa.com/Granada.htm 

[DaveC113]

Well, for $125k...
They also seem to use a tweeter (rear). Whats know as a 3 way.
And this tool of the Devil: State of the Art Digital Crossover http://lotusgroupusa.com/Granada.htm 

Yeah... my speaker uses DSP (for the woofer) + a tweeter w/ a full ranger. I'm into results more than philosophical purity. 

But imo, the Grenada is an OB full range speaker done right and it retains the vast majority of what folks like about single drivers while eliminating many of their compromises. I know a lot of very experienced and even measurement driven designers who really like the Grenada, that Feastrex full range driver is very special and sounds amazing.

[AJinFLA]

I have nothing against high performance full range drivers and have at least one in the stable myself.
I simply understand their audible limitations and way to get maximum measured-audible performance, involves at minimum dedicated LF drivers, box or no box. The latter being my own preference.

[JohnR]

Cool. Another speaker that costs more than several cars and the Tool of the Devil

This thread is branching out 

(More seriously, for those who haven't seen, I'm maintaining a list of OB speakers here, so that's another for the list. Let me know if you know of more  )