Size of Midrange Drivers
Bombaywalla -- To reiterate from an earlier response of yours (to the OP): The Tannoy Kingdom Royal has NO MIDRANGE driver contrary to what you seemed to allude to. Well, the Tannoy Kingdom Royal has got a midrange driver (sorely needed to play midrange) - that is, not only one but two of them: the 12" unit for the lower mids, and the compression driver for the rest above 700Hz. In your reply to me: no dispute here Phusis. I was not stating otherwise. Merely stating that the bulk of the midrange freq is handled by their new tweeter. Yes, freq below 700Hz is handled by the 12" mid driver which seems to be more suited to the lower freq. Tannoy smart as they are did not try to do any more midrange with the 12" driver - that was my point. Given the choice of two well-implemented speaker systems I'd not necessarily choose the one where a compression handles midrange duties from 700Hz up (which, in effect, would likely be a 3-way setup, or more) compared to a 12" unit handling the mids up to 1.3kHz (which, crossed over to a compression driver, could be a 2-way ditto). You seem fairly adamant in claiming that a 12" can't do midrange much above 700Hz; I say it can - and certainly the beaming limit for a unit this size (with an effective cone diameter of ~10") is not yet reached, even at 1kHz. In the case of the Tannoy's mentioned I do believe they made the right choice crossing over the 12" unit no higher than 700Hz, also being that the compression driver here is augmented by a "supertweeter." You continue: good advice Phusis. I keep an open mind while keeping Physics in my mind at the same time. Hopefully you do the same.... I find the writings of Mr. Timlub enlightening, indeed there's something to learn here, but while I appreciate your addressing "physics" I believe you adhere to them in a rather non-flexible fashion that cares more about numbers than, it would seem, actual listening impressions - or at least you're without the positive experience of a 12" playing midrange above 1kHz, in which case I respect. I just don't share the same experience. Something went over my head? I don't think so, but while I'm glad to learn I have no problem going contrary to stated physics if my ears tell me otherwise, and in my case and with my speakers there's no seeming dissonance between what I hear and what physics should imply. |
but while I appreciate your addressing "physics" I believe you adhere to them in a rather non-flexible fashion that cares more about numbers than, it would seem, actual listening impressions - or at least you're without the positive experience of a 12" playing midrange above 1kHz, in which case I respect. I just don't share the same experience.I have a fair bit of world-wide listening experience & have listened to a lot of speakers (& a lot of electronics) yet to but yet to have a positive experience of a 12" midrange playing midrange. If you look at my systems I do own a Tannoy DMT10Mk2 which has a 10" playing midrange all the way up to 1.4KHz. It sounds good for the most part & is just fine for the use that I've put it to but when I had a time-coherent speaker with a 4.5-5" Eton midrange, the Tannoy was nowhere near that quality. Johnnyb53, thanks much for the clarifications. |
08-25-14: Dwellerit appears to me that you have, very broadly speaking, 2 choices: a speaker with large diameter midranges (like 10" or 12") that are crossed over in the low midrange region & a speaker with a more conventional 4-5" midrange driver crossed over at the upper mid-bass The large diameter driver speakers seem to be made of proprietary drivers - from Altec Lansing, JBL, Tannoy, RCA, Westinghouse & your former Audio Artistry Dvorak. If there are any other names other members can please chime in. And, these drivers, being proprietary are not available to the general public for other speaker manuf to make speakers. So, if you are convinced that a large midrange is what you want you'll have to go with these limited speaker brands. OTOH, you can have a perfectly fantastic realistic/life-like listening experience with a 4-5" midrange if you get yourself a time-coherent speaker. This is a really -l-o-n-g- discussion & I will NOT go into it here. Please read the "Sloped Baffle" thread (which has some 220 posts) here in the Speaker forum. http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?cspkr&1403209611&&&/Sloped-baffle Concentrate on Roy Johnson's posts as to why time-coherence is important in music playback & how it maintains the correct information in the music signal & why it delivers a realistic/life-like music experience. There are a few speaker manuf making these time-coherent speakers so unfortunately once again a limited choice. That's the way it is - most speaker manuf do not understand the physics to make a time-coherent speaker - they think that time-coherence is one of many parameters that can be traded-off with some other speaker design parameter. It is not! Either a speaker is time-coherent from the get-go or it is not. The speaker manuf needs to select time-coherence as the design paradigm & then solve all the speaker manuf issues within the time-coherence paradigm. It is my belief (becoming firmer & firmer as I listen more to various systems & talk to others & their disappointing listening experiences) that large amounts of phase distortion from the speaker is what's destroying people's listening pleasure & causing people to make remarks like I'm looking for a way to get a more life-like listening experience.If you had a time-coherent speaker you wouldn't be saying this. Of course, not everyone participating in this thread has a time-coherent speaker & not everyone in this thread is complaining of a lack of realistic experience. I.E. many people with NON time-coherent speakers are very happy. I'm finding out that today a lot more people are dissatisfied compared to the year 2002/2003 when I was 1st exposed to time-coherence. So, it's good to see that more people are realizing that the life-like experience is diminishing. This awakening is good - hopefully it'll make the speaker manuf change their design philosophies.... |
Nobody said you can't have midrange coming from a large radiating surface. Some of us were pointing out that as the wavelength approaches and exceeds the diameter of the driver, the driver starts beaming and continues from there on up. When you have a range of beaming frequencies, it may sound OK on-axis, but those beaming frequencies go missing in the overall in-room balance. This is expressed as in-room power response. A couple of the exceptions cited in this thread have reasons to work. We established that the 6.5" midrange of the Hyperion hps-938 has an active dustcap that funcions as a small-diameter midrange to offset the beaming of the 6.5" section between 2K and the crossover at 3K. Furthermore, I read up on your Dvoraks with their MTM arrangement with 8" midranges, and it turns out that this is a dipole design. That makes a world of difference, because even though the 8" midranges would be beaming at 1700 Hz, since they're also firing backward and hitting the wall behind, this compensates for the beaming by adding to the power balance in that frequency range. It's also how panel speakers, which tend to have narrow dispersion, have good overall in-room power response, because the backwave hitting the back wall compensates for the narrow dispersion to the front. As for getting a large radiating surface for the midrange, there are several approaches. First is panel speakers. I have Magneplanar 1.7s. They have approx. 456 sq. in. of bass/midrange radiating surface--radiating both front and back. They are transparent and (with good setup), well-focused. Second, you can get a speaker with dual or multiple midranges such as your Dvoraks had. If you have 8" midranges it helps if they're mounted in an open baffle as your Dvoraks were. Third, you can get a large diameter full range driver which has compensations for the beaming aspect. I recently visited an audio buddy whose main speakers are Audio Nirvana 15" full-range drivers. These raw drivers are $500-$1000/pair depending on magnet type. His are mounted in large ported enclosures--2'x2'x4'tall, with three big ports to the front. Despite the large diameter, these speakers had excellent power response. I detected no beaming when listening off-axis, and walking around the room the overall tonal balance was excellent with no noticeable suckout. How'd they do this? The speaker has both a whizzer cone and a copper phase plug. This is exactly what whizzer cones are for--they provide a small diameter cone to keep higher frequencies from beaming. The phase plug also gives a focused surface for these frequencies to bounce off of, futher improving dispersion of the highest frequencies. He is considering remounting the speakers in an open baffle (like your Dvoraks), however, to open up the sound a bit and eliminate cabinet resonances. Yet another way to increase radiating surface is with multiple dynamic drivers, with two or more 4-5" midranges. Axiom makes some examples of this including their M100, which has three 6.5" woofers, dual 5.25" midranges plus dual 1" tweeters. They also make an omnidirectional speaker with the same front array plus two more 1" tweeters and two 5.25" midranges firing to the rear. These speakers are engineered by Andrew Welker, who designed those great omnidirectional speakers for Mirage before Klipsch shut them down. Bryston's new line of speakers show a decided dependence on Axiom for their design philosophy, including dual mids and tweeters for lower distortion and greater dynamic range. Yet another alternative is a tall column speaker with a dozen or so midranges and even more tweeters in a line array. Finally, the name of the game isn't just radiating area; it's air displacement. A 4.5" driver has a radiating surface of 15 sq. inches. My Mag 1.7s have a radiating surface of 456 sq. inches. Yet, a premium 4.5" midrange might have a maximum excursion of .2", which amounts to around 3 cu. in. of displacement. My big panel, if its excursion is .01" (I'm guessing here, but it's probably in the ballpark), displaces about 5 cu. in. of air even though it's spread over a wider area. So two of those 4.5" midranges would displace about the same amount of air at full excursion. |
