D
Digidude824
New member
What are peoples thoughts on this type of monitor vs. the conventional tweater/woofer duo? Ie: Tannoy's Ellipse?
DeadPoet
carpe diem
When I was shopping for my mon's I tried the eclipse.... after exactly 3 seconds I turned them of... never heard such an expensive heap of midrange!! No lows, thin highs and an in-your-face midrange.... yuckie yuck!!
Herwig
Herwig
B
BasPer
New member
Weeell, the ellipse isn't entirely concentric, is it? Anyway I used a pair of Tannoy Gold (the 12") in the eighties. (Well, listened to anyway. I was sort of an assistant in a far from world-class studio back then.) I liked them very much back then anyway, but I had little to compare to and there has been ten years of not listening to studio monitors in between those and my current bm15a. I'm not being very helpful, am I? 
D
ds21
New member
Used to like the urie's(?) when they were popular, Tannoy's..OK, little too much honk, never heard the Eclipse (fullrange driver, not concentric) but I do use single driver fullrange.
Just read a review in one of the mags, on the Eclipse 508? and said they do sould different due to the lack of resonance from the enclosure, infact they said the midrange was the best part!
Just read a review in one of the mags, on the Eclipse 508? and said they do sould different due to the lack of resonance from the enclosure, infact they said the midrange was the best part!
Last edited:
GT
New member
Dual Concentric, is what your talking about. This is a speaker where a seperate tweeter is mounted at the center of the woofer.
This design is on the right track, as it represents the close to ideal single point source
A standard woofer tweeter array, represents a line source radiator, the tweeter above woofer below, and you listen to the line between the two.
Both have severe weaknesses.
1. The dual concentric speaker, horn loads the tweeter, as the woofer becomes the horn, this adds coloration. Also dual concentric uses a crossover, and it's inherant weaknesses. Phase problems, and the like
It's strength would be the fact that its much closer to the ideal single point source, less phase problems, vertical or horizontal doesn't matter.
2. The woofer, tweeter array's weaknesses are overwhelming, two totaly different sounds trying to blend at near midrange.
Line source means more phasing problems, than the single point source, and add the crossover and still more problems arrise.
In my oppinion, woofers tweeters, and subwoofers are not necessary, and shouldn't even exist. Unless, it's for production, not reproduction.
3. Smaller single way speakers don't suffer from nearly as many of the ills as the above mentioned speakers.
They are closer to the ideal single point source, they don't have crossovers, they are more efficiant, and the shorter throw means they have better transient response. Also, being smaller, they won't be as effected by the horn loading problem of the dual concentric.
You will have to open your minds a little, and listen to full range speakers everywhere you go, and remember, they are inherently better. When you hear the difference you will know.
More money, does NOT equate better sound, when it comes to speakers. If speaker manufactures really cared about sound, they would only make one speaker, one absolute, but they don't, and that should speak volumes!!
GT
This design is on the right track, as it represents the close to ideal single point source
A standard woofer tweeter array, represents a line source radiator, the tweeter above woofer below, and you listen to the line between the two.
Both have severe weaknesses.
1. The dual concentric speaker, horn loads the tweeter, as the woofer becomes the horn, this adds coloration. Also dual concentric uses a crossover, and it's inherant weaknesses. Phase problems, and the like
It's strength would be the fact that its much closer to the ideal single point source, less phase problems, vertical or horizontal doesn't matter.
2. The woofer, tweeter array's weaknesses are overwhelming, two totaly different sounds trying to blend at near midrange.
Line source means more phasing problems, than the single point source, and add the crossover and still more problems arrise.
In my oppinion, woofers tweeters, and subwoofers are not necessary, and shouldn't even exist. Unless, it's for production, not reproduction.
3. Smaller single way speakers don't suffer from nearly as many of the ills as the above mentioned speakers.
They are closer to the ideal single point source, they don't have crossovers, they are more efficiant, and the shorter throw means they have better transient response. Also, being smaller, they won't be as effected by the horn loading problem of the dual concentric.
You will have to open your minds a little, and listen to full range speakers everywhere you go, and remember, they are inherently better. When you hear the difference you will know.
More money, does NOT equate better sound, when it comes to speakers. If speaker manufactures really cared about sound, they would only make one speaker, one absolute, but they don't, and that should speak volumes!!
GT
A
alfalfa
New member
The problem I have with Tannoy's dual concentric designs (and KEFs) is that they have all the problems associated with mounting a tweeter in a woofer but do not realise the phase coherency / point source benefits because they do not use a first order crossover to achieve time and phase accuracy. Why bother? At least Thiel and Vandersteen use phase coherent crossovers in their coaxial designs.
GT you dont mention that full range single driver designs suffer from intermodulation distortion. Most dont appear to have flat frequency responses either (perhaps you could provide some links to measurements). There are multiple driver designs that are time and phase accurate and accurate in the frequency domain too eg Thiel, vandersteen, dunlavy, duntech, VAF, meadowlark, earthworks
GT you dont mention that full range single driver designs suffer from intermodulation distortion. Most dont appear to have flat frequency responses either (perhaps you could provide some links to measurements). There are multiple driver designs that are time and phase accurate and accurate in the frequency domain too eg Thiel, vandersteen, dunlavy, duntech, VAF, meadowlark, earthworks
Last edited:
D
ds21
New member
alfalfa and GT,
I have to agree with both of you, and say there is always tradeoffs when it comes to speaker designs, first-orders are good with some drivers, but with most you can't cross over low enough, plus you now have two very different driver types reproducing the same freq. And with fullrange drivers...well they can't do everything(bass and good power response). And all speakers put out a lot of distortion(compared to amps), and lets face it we don't listen in an anechoic chamber so the FR response will get screwed anyway(besides, plus or minus 3, well that's 6 and that's a pretty big swing in my book). There are a lot of different ways to produce sound and you can find a good example of almost all of them. But we still need better technology.
I have to agree with both of you, and say there is always tradeoffs when it comes to speaker designs, first-orders are good with some drivers, but with most you can't cross over low enough, plus you now have two very different driver types reproducing the same freq. And with fullrange drivers...well they can't do everything(bass and good power response). And all speakers put out a lot of distortion(compared to amps), and lets face it we don't listen in an anechoic chamber so the FR response will get screwed anyway(besides, plus or minus 3, well that's 6 and that's a pretty big swing in my book). There are a lot of different ways to produce sound and you can find a good example of almost all of them. But we still need better technology.
GT
New member
I have been through a lot of speakers in my life.
I had Tannoy dual concentric, back when they were the shits.
KLH, Advent, Hartley, others I can't even remember. Then it finally hit me, the design is just wrong.
The best speakers I ever had are now in my studio, smallish fullrange.
I wouldn't go back to using a woofer, tweeter array, if you payed me! It's a design that should never have been accepted. Kind of like cassettes.
If someone said, what's the best way to screw up music.
I would tell them get a woofer and tweeter, that should do it!!
Your right, speakers are far from perfect, so you might as well get the one that's inherently better from the start.
That would be full range.
GT
I had Tannoy dual concentric, back when they were the shits.
KLH, Advent, Hartley, others I can't even remember. Then it finally hit me, the design is just wrong.
The best speakers I ever had are now in my studio, smallish fullrange.
I wouldn't go back to using a woofer, tweeter array, if you payed me! It's a design that should never have been accepted. Kind of like cassettes.
If someone said, what's the best way to screw up music.
I would tell them get a woofer and tweeter, that should do it!!
Your right, speakers are far from perfect, so you might as well get the one that's inherently better from the start.
That would be full range.
GT
D
Digidude824
New member
This is my thought
I also see the points made from using full range vs. woofer/tweeter array, but! I would say there is a larger percentage of listeners that will be using the traditional woofer/tweeter design speakers to listen to in their cars and homes. So.......if the point of using a speaker that is going to translate the best to the majority of playback systems of the consumer, wouldn't it be better to use the woofer/tweeter type speaker?
I also see the points made from using full range vs. woofer/tweeter array, but! I would say there is a larger percentage of listeners that will be using the traditional woofer/tweeter design speakers to listen to in their cars and homes. So.......if the point of using a speaker that is going to translate the best to the majority of playback systems of the consumer, wouldn't it be better to use the woofer/tweeter type speaker?
D
ds21
New member
Digidude824,
So you saying that we should be using inferior equipment (boomboxs, consumer speakers) as our primary mix monitors? No I know your not, but just use whatever works for you! GT's just saying he likes to hear things without the veil of the crossover getting in the way, as do I. Sometimes simple is better!
So you saying that we should be using inferior equipment (boomboxs, consumer speakers) as our primary mix monitors? No I know your not, but just use whatever works for you! GT's just saying he likes to hear things without the veil of the crossover getting in the way, as do I. Sometimes simple is better!
D
Digidude824
New member
well.........unless you have changed every system you own to a full range driver, you are listening to inferior speakers everywhere you go, when u drive to work, when u listen to TV, your home stereo system, and even at the movies.
so what do we do now?
so what do we do now?
dr.colossus
New member
gt, what full range speakers are you using?
D
ds21
New member
Well, as I said there are good examples of all type of speakers, I would love to have some electrostatic and planer speakers makes things sound... nice, but thats not what I want when I EQ and mix, sure we have to do the evil of compromise so it will sound OK on alot of different systems, unless you specialize like some lables do and only mix and master for the "elite" listeners with the best systems.
And my car does use fullrange as does my home theater, so do my sisters and friends home theaters!
And my car does use fullrange as does my home theater, so do my sisters and friends home theaters!
GT
New member
I'll put some speakers where my mouth is.
I heard these at Sam Ash hooked to a Roland keyboard. They seemed to sound quite good.
They even have digital input.
Check them out.
http://www.zzounds.com/a--2676837/item--EDIMA5D
They are made by Roland.
GT
I heard these at Sam Ash hooked to a Roland keyboard. They seemed to sound quite good.
They even have digital input.
Check them out.
http://www.zzounds.com/a--2676837/item--EDIMA5D
They are made by Roland.
GT
GT
New member
dr.colossus said:
I'm using some speakers I bought with a cheap GE stereo, I bought at Target.
I believe they are about 5 1/2 in full range. They are short throw in a vented box.
I know it sounds crazy, but these are the best speakers I have ever had. I never even have the erge to eq them, that would be a sin.
I'm glad I can possibly recomend those EDIROL full range, they sound like they may be very promising. Not sure yet, will have to go for more listens.
Like I say keep your ears open, forget brand names, and check out full range speakers wherever you can. A good set of full range speakers may change your mind about woofer tweeter bullshit.
Oh, and added bonus, they are rediculously cheap!!
GT
DeadPoet
carpe diem
GT said:
You've GOT to be kidding ...
At first I was intrigued by your statement about full-range being better than woof/tweet-combination, but now I know you don't know what you're talking about.
Herwig
GT
New member
DeadPoet said:
You've GOT to be kidding ...
At first I was intrigued by your statement about full-range being better than woof/tweet-combination, but now I know you don't know what you're talking about.
Herwig
Maybe I don't know what I'm talking about, or maybe I do.
From my experience with lots of speakers, over lots of time, this is what I've come to believe.
Hey, I know I'm going out on a limb, but sometimes you have to.
If I recomended a speaker with a woofer, and a tweeter, then I would be kidding!!
Now obviously, this speaker will not go loud, but I would bet the quality of the sound would be something you could live with. Unless it's a poorly designed speaker.
I would bet that if you had this speaker, and a woofer tweeter speaker in the same room, over time this speaker would end up your speaker of choice.
Like I said before, a speaker like this, starts out inherently better, than a woofer tweeter.
Can you say phase coherant, seamless midrange, equal horizontal and vertical dispertion.
These are what makes a full range driver inherently better from the start.
Hey I know I'm going against the ways, but if your not happy with your woofer tweeter setup, I know I never was, fullrange may be your holly grail, it was for me.
"Forget your preconcived notion of what speakers are, and look into what speakers should be."
-Ben Franklin-
GT
A
alfalfa
New member
I agree that these are some of the pros of a full range driver design. However you only mention one of the cons - inability to go loud in this particular speaker example (actually inability to go loud is not a typical problem with many single driver designs - lowther horn designs are very efficient and go very loud) . Other cons include the inaccurate frequency response of most single driver designs and the significant intermodulation distortion caused by the same surface having to produce both low and high frequencies? And in this particular speaker example the lack of any bass. These are shortcomings that are very difficult, if not impossible, to overcome in a full range single driver design.GT said:
You are right that multiple driver designs have inherent shortcomings. But I feel they can be overcome with good design more easily than the inherent problems of a single driver design. For instance there are multiple driver speakers that are phase coherent. Some american examples would be thiel, vandersteen, meadowlark, dunlavy and earthworks. They use first order crossovers that require drivers that can work over a wide range (but not quite full range). Perhaps they are a good compromise between the full range drivers you like and the typical multiple driver speaker designs that use steep crossovers with no concern for phase coherency (which I agree dont sound quite 'right'). Why dont you check them out, they may be the best of both worlds.
Last edited:
GT
New member
alfalfa,
I have to disagree, the aforementioned speakers I use in my studio, sound to have much more accurate frequency response, and less distortion than any woofer tweeter setup, that I have used. These are the very reasons, they're in my studio.
I'm glad you mentioned distortion, I believe a good fullrange to actually have much less distortion than a woofer, tweeter.
The only drawback, as far as I can hear, would be not being able to go super loud. Allthough they do go loud enough to be heard literally halfway down the block.
I also disagree, that the inherant problems of a woofer tweeter can be overcome, it's like trying to put a bandaid on a gushing wound.
GT
I have to disagree, the aforementioned speakers I use in my studio, sound to have much more accurate frequency response, and less distortion than any woofer tweeter setup, that I have used. These are the very reasons, they're in my studio.
I'm glad you mentioned distortion, I believe a good fullrange to actually have much less distortion than a woofer, tweeter.
The only drawback, as far as I can hear, would be not being able to go super loud. Allthough they do go loud enough to be heard literally halfway down the block.
I also disagree, that the inherant problems of a woofer tweeter can be overcome, it's like trying to put a bandaid on a gushing wound.
GT
A
alfalfa
New member
GT, I was discussing full range single driver designs more generally with designs that attempt to reproduce the full range of frequencies eg lowther horn designs. Intermodulation distortion is significant issue with any driver that reproduce a wide frequency range (including panel speakers).
In the specific example of the edirol, I have not seen any frequency response measurements. I can only recall the brief time I heard it at a friends house. My main issue with this specific speaker is more to do with the very limited range of frequencies it produces (though it may be accurate within this range).
If you auditioned some time and phase accurate multiple driver speakers like the brands I have mentioned, you may find that perhaps they are a good compromise between the two types of designs. Keep an open mind, you may be suprised (or you may not but at least you were willing to try).
ps I do agree that for a cheap speaker like the edirol, no crossover is better than a crossover. Less chance to stuff up. No bass reflex port too would have been safer in that price range. Again less ways to go wrong.
In the specific example of the edirol, I have not seen any frequency response measurements. I can only recall the brief time I heard it at a friends house. My main issue with this specific speaker is more to do with the very limited range of frequencies it produces (though it may be accurate within this range).
If you auditioned some time and phase accurate multiple driver speakers like the brands I have mentioned, you may find that perhaps they are a good compromise between the two types of designs. Keep an open mind, you may be suprised (or you may not but at least you were willing to try).
ps I do agree that for a cheap speaker like the edirol, no crossover is better than a crossover. Less chance to stuff up. No bass reflex port too would have been safer in that price range. Again less ways to go wrong.