# Holy **** Seas Exotic!! 12#[email protected]#1



## Arc

http://www.madisound.com/catalog/product_info.php?manufacturers_id=177&products_id=8321

No thanks. I know it can be amazing...but still. No thanks.


----------



## Hillbilly SQ

so who's gonna pay that much just to try them?


----------



## Sex Cells

Hope the new scans aren't priced like that.


----------



## Arc

Sex Cells said:


> Hope the new scans aren't priced like that.


I am going to bet that they are about $400-500 each.


----------



## bobditts

looks like a focal wannabe


----------



## ///Audience

the frequency response graph is rather interesting, id expect more for the price range. That things an EQ nightmare if someone actually attempted to make that a full range nighmare....


----------



## Dangerranger

BassBaller5 said:


> the frequency response graph is rather interesting, id expect more for the price range. That things an EQ nightmare if someone actually attempted to make that a full range nighmare....


Response on the PDF is in a sealed box. Includes baffle step and such, compared to a typical anechoic measurement it looks more ragged. Realistically the driver does look better than any other 8" whizzer full range I've seen specifications on...I'd like to see the technology trickle down to other more conventional drivers though, like dedicated midranges and such, maybe even wideband drivers for car use . Especially that open weave, nearly transparent spider, maybe the surround, and that lovely motor design (.05mh on the 4 ohm version with 2mm one way excursion would be fantastic on a dedicated midrange, dunno the exact inductance on the 8 ohm but still). The cone doesn't look to have many problems either.

Don't know how well this one will do, two benefits of full range drivers are the simplicity and the other is the cost reduction due to said simplicity, but the pricing of these drivers negates that so...


----------



## customtronic

I don't see them selling too many at $930 each. That's crazy.


----------



## ///Audience

Dangerranger said:


> Response on the PDF is in a sealed box. Includes baffle step and such, compared to a typical anechoic measurement it looks more ragged. Realistically the driver does look better than any other 8" whizzer full range I've seen specifications on..


EXAACTLY my point


----------



## npdang

You're looking at it all wrong, if you buy 10 of them it's only $830


----------



## drake78

Anybody in for a group buy? You will save rougly $200 a pair?


----------



## critofur

With that FR graph, I wouldn't even pay $100, for a PAIR of them...


----------



## ///Audience

critofur said:


> With that FR graph, I wouldn't even pay $100, for a PAIR of them...


shooot... 50 bucks each for a driver that would be perfect in the 80-1kHz area? id pay it


----------



## thehatedguy

I told you guys they were going to be crazy expensive.

And the graphs for a full range driver aren't that bad.


----------



## drake78

I wonder what company will be the 1st to utilize this driver.


----------



## Arc

thehatedguy said:


> I told you guys they were going to be crazy expensive.
> 
> And the graphs for a full range driver aren't that bad.


I knew they would be pricey. But I didn't expect them to be twice the price of a pair of 208sigma's.


----------



## cvjoint

What would be the market for something like this? Maybe it's a show piece, like look what we can do!


----------



## thehatedguy

Like I said on the other thread, they are trying to get some of the single driver market...which is a pretty large market that is dominated by a couple of names- Fostex, Lowther, PHY, and the new kid on the block that made serious waves at RMAF- Feastrex from Japan.

What did I say on the other thread? 1600 for a pair? Looks like they were a bit more than that.

And the FR graphs aren't that bad- you are seeing the break on the topened of whizzer cone to produce treble. Most of those peaks and raising response could be taken care of in a simple passive circuit.


----------



## 3.5max6spd

Fuk they are expensive! But man, what a piece a cake to make some bookshelve enclosures for'm and call it a day, specially if they deliver on the sound.


----------



## jj_diamond

npdang said:


> You're looking at it all wrong, if you buy 10 of them it's only $830


hahahahahahahaha...touche!


----------



## cvjoint

I agree that the FR isn't that bad. In an IB configuration 30deg. off axis it can do +-5db 20hz-20khz with no eq.

I see that there are numerous manufacturers building full range speakers, but my question is why? We might have users that just want to drop a driver in and be done with it, but I doubt they would also be the kind to shell out $1.5k+ At that point they could simply buy a well made 2 or 3 way set that will kill this in each and every way.

Any noticeable full range benefits in home audio? I mean in a car the install is really close...but in a home?


----------



## 8675309

I got on madisound this morning and bam the Seas Exotic for a measly 
$800 ->. I just closed down the website!


----------



## thehatedguy

I doubt you'll get an 8 with bass in a bookshelf speaker.



3.5max6spd said:


> Fuk they are expensive! But man, what a piece a cake to make some bookshelve enclosures for'm and call it a day, specially if they deliver on the sound.


----------



## thehatedguy

There are some who believe that the crossover in a speaker's design is the largest drawback, that you can not ever achieve proper seamless integration using a crossover and separate drivers. Some people even believe that with subwoofers too.

In the house with a BLH, you could have a single driver playing down to 30-40 hertz all the way to 20k. Single point source, easy load to drive, and decent efficiency.

It's a niche market for sure, and most people don't fall somewhere in between, you generally love it or hate it. From the reports that I've read, the Feastrex driver in the BLH could do jazz like no other speaker could.

There are cheaper routes to go if you want to check out the fullrange sound. Some Fostex speakers in a ported box would get you a good start for the sound. And as with most things, the more you spend, the better sound you get...and you can start building more complex enclosures to help boost up the lowend.

I might give the single driver thing another shot one day when I have more time to play with things.



cvjoint said:


> I agree that the FR isn't that bad. In an IB configuration 30deg. off axis it can do +-5db 20hz-20khz with no eq.
> 
> I see that there are numerous manufacturers building full range speakers, but my question is why? We might have users that just want to drop a driver in and be done with it, but I doubt they would also be the kind to shell out $1.5k+ At that point they could simply buy a well made 2 or 3 way set that will kill this in each and every way.
> 
> Any noticeable full range benefits in home audio? I mean in a car the install is really close...but in a home?


----------



## Dangerranger

I can't remember which company buys it from SEAS, but they make a coincident driver with the magnesium cone instead of a poly cone. I'd like to see those in the exotic lineup


----------



## cvjoint

Very interesting. In a way it is the way of the future, with enough technological progress we will eventually have one driver flawlessly reproducing the whole audible range. I personally don't think it's the case here. Simply looking at the theoretical output it's not satisfactory imo.

Wouldn't active filters and a decent listening distance make a 3 way and a fullrange indistinguishable in a blindfold test? (that is assuming the fullrange driver has closely matched performance stats with the 3way ) Is this a heated debate in the audiophile world?


----------



## thehatedguy

Heated? No, more like arguing about religion...lol.


----------



## kappa546

fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuck that. i dont mind paying for something if it's worth it... this most definitely is not worth it. this is such a worthless design (whizzer), they need to put their efforts into updating the coincident driver they have with the latest motor/cone/adaptive surrounds.

I will gladly stick with my CSS fr125's in a horn/TL


----------



## Luke352

If you think the Seas are expensive, don't look at the pricing for Feastrex Drivers I think it well in the region of $3000 USD per driver for there top models. http://www.feastrex.com/ But there essentially works of art, as thehatedguy said they are creating a massive stir over there sound, and are absolutely beautiful drivers to look at, and they were built and tested with no form of measureing, no T/S, no distortion plots no nothing. Yet from some of the measurements they've since been been able to get they are looking to have amazingly low distortion, the people who did some measurements for them (klippel or someone like that) said they had never seen or heard of another driver measuring like the Feastrex. Just saw the price for the D5nf is $4000 US a pair, but I have a feeling the D9 field coil is close to twice this price. Here a 19pg thread on them from diyaudio http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=70709&perpage=25&highlight=&pagenumber=1 .


----------



## Mattman24

ok im just notice something, ive seen alot of high end mids and subs with the red maggnet is it a certain type or is it jst a cosmetic thing?


----------



## thehatedguy

Alinco most of the time.


----------



## WLDock

My take it is.....these drivers are priced this way for two reasons....

1.) The niche DIY fullrange crown will pay big dollars for good drivers.
2.) These are some DAMN GOOD sounding speakers.

Other than that....why in the world would they release a DIY driver in 2008 at that price.


----------



## backwoods

lots of benefits of a single driver in addition to what the hated guy mentioned.

Phase coherency is a big one. Makes quite a difference.

Yep, very expensive, but I don't see the fr as that scary and would love to try some. There's just something about full range drivers that is so nice and smooth..The coherent sound is wonderful. The simple eqing instead of all the measuring and setting xovers, phase correction...etc. Makes life so much simpler, and, as far as equipment costs, cheaper.

Lets say you go excel, you will have $400 per pair for a 7" and a tweeter. Then, worry about designing passives or spending the money and going active, with the extra channels of amplification and processing power.

All in all, not as much of a price difference as it appears.

Trust me, going fully active, especially in an Ht with 3 way designs all around, get's VERY pricey...

now, 5 of these, a preamp, a 6channel proc, and a 5 channel amp, and you are in business..


----------



## cvjoint

I thought if you use the eq. you run the risk of screwing with the phase. I was also under the belief that 24db slopes do a good job of matching phase.

A 2 ways Seas with a 7 inch Excel midrange and a $30 large format Seas tweeter will own this driver FR, distortion and output wise at half the cost. Going active may cost a bit more but IMO it just makes sense


----------



## thehatedguy

Yeah, but have you priced good passive crossover components? I assure you that a passive setup using "the good stuff" isn't cheap and could cost more than the drivers you are using. Not to mention all the time and money invested in getting the crossover right with the cheaper stuff.


----------



## Arc

thehatedguy said:


> Yeah, but have you priced good passive crossover components? I assure you that a passive setup using "the good stuff" isn't cheap and could cost more than the drivers you are using. Not to mention all the time and money invested in getting the crossover right with the cheaper stuff.


This is true. I was pricing out passives and one inductor was $59. It gets pricey.

I would love to try these. I love FR horns and designs. Just a bit too much for me to jump into at this stage of my life.


----------



## thehatedguy

And you start getting into steep slope XOs like a LR4, and you will be buying 4 of those inductors...more if you have to do some EQ or zobels.

Then capacitors can get dumb expensive. I think a good value for a good cap are the Sonicap film/foils. But when you start to talk about teflon caps and teflon bypasses...that's where the money starts adding up. Can you hear it? I dunno, but if you are going for a no holds barred passive seeing as you bought no holds barred raw drivers...why skimp in the passives?

Speaking of those prices for the coils, what size wire did they use? Northcreek used to make coils up to 8ga wire.


----------



## thylantyr

$2k for two drivers  

Here's *one* idea;
http://www.aespeakers.com/phpbb2/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=701




> We came up with a plan for a high end monitor that would allow for monitoring at up to 120dB all the way down to the 10hz range. The system consists of a B&C 8" coaxial driver with 1.4" compression driver, a pair of TD10X's for the midbass, and pair of custom 15" drivers for the woofer section per side.


Recently on the AVS Forum, a few people were showing
interest in a higher sensitivity design, so John is coming
up with a simple design using a ribbon tweeter. That design 
above is nice too.

Here's a taste;



> Well, the design process for the dual TD10M and NeoPro5i monitors is now underway. The ribbons will be arriving tomorrow. I will draw up a couple proposed layouts tomorrow and hopefully get the baffles cut to test fit drivers and begin taking some measurements shortly. In all reality these won't be all too huge, as they are intended to be supplemented with a separate subwoofer.
> 
> We're looking at 32" tall, 13-14" wide, and from 12-14" deep. Overall efficiency will be right around 102dB at 2.83V. Internal volume is looking at right around 2 cubic feet. Tuning is planned for 55Hz, giving an F3 point around 53Hz. This could be pushed lower at the sacrifice of a little sensitivity on the low end and a little maximum overall output. From 53Hz up, the woofers are capable of 125dB+ continuous, while staying within a very linear operating range. Peaks of well above 130dB are easily achieved. A pair of 6" x 3" slot vents will keep vent velocity within a quite reasonable level up to nearly 1000W input power. The tweeters are also capable of peaks in the 130dB and up range.
> 
> The goal is to keep the enclosure and xover fairly simple to build for any DIYer, but to achieve good results. The flat resistance of the tweeter and the low inductance of the woofers makes the xover much more simple than many systems. I'm also planning for some precut baffles done on our CNC to make things a little easier. One of the more difficult aspects is the recessing of the ribbon tweeter as it is a rectangular shape. The precut baffles would make the build of the cabinets much easier.
> 
> Since this thread has gotten quite long now, I think it's probably best to start a new thread on the design and build process. I'll do this tomorrow and start by putting up pictures and parameters for the drivers as well as some modeling info from the cabinets. this should be a very fun project and you can follow along throughout the build.
> 
> The midbass drivers will be 8ohm each in parallel. This will provide a 4ohm load and match the sensitivity of the ribbon tweeter quite well. The ribbon itself is a 7ohm resistive load. When matching different impedance drivers you are less concerned with the 1W rating as it is different for each. The 2.83V sensitivity for each is right under 102dB so there won't need to be much level matching in the xover either.
> 
> The design will be the MTM configuration I had talked about a few pages back. The benefit will be the well controlled vertical power response to match the vertical directivity of the tweeter, as well as the wide horizontal response also matching the tweeter.
> 
> 
> John
> __________________
> John E. Janowitz



+



> For one of these monitors you'll need a pair of TD10M's, the Fountek ribbon, crossover components, some MDF, screws, glue, etc. Here is a general list of cost for a single speaker at retail prices:
> 
> 2 TD10M's $239 each retail
> NeoPro5i $305 retail
> Xover components $25-30
> sheet of MDF $20
> screws, glue, etc $20
> 
> Total of $853 at full retail
> 
> I will be offering the TD10M's with the current Lambda special of $100 off on a pair, and can also knock some off the NeoPro5i as I will have the quantity pricing on them. Expect things to come in at around $700-725 total per speaker.


http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=982428

Keep in mind, there is more than one way to spend $2k
on a pair of nice speakers. You decide how your money
is spent.

Those Fountek NeoPro5i true ribbons are nice tweeters.

http://s272.photobucket.com/albums/jj168/thylantyr/fountek_neopro5i/

Those Lambda TD series of woofer is a great 'hand made'
woofer. It's a wideband woofer, super low inductance,
phase plug, treated paper cone, the sound quality would
be better than Focal Audiom woofers and in the same
league, IMO better, than TAD woofers. Go price those.
Audiom cost over $1k, TAD is about $800+ each.

Consider this. 

John is doing the design for you: Free!
John is giving a discount: Sweet!

If you are thrillseeker and don't need John's help and
want to explore something more esoteric, then;
http://www.createforum.com/petereuro/viewtopic.php?t=201&mforum=petereuro

Spend your money wisely.


----------



## thehatedguy

Wow...another post dump.

Sweet.


----------



## cvjoint

Why not active then? Sure you will need a 4 channels instead of 2 but you will make better use of the power, not to mention the tweeter hardly needs much at all. 

Now I really have to hear an FR design. I bet the driver used is going to make a night and day difference. Sure doesn't look like the whizzer would do justice but who knows.


----------



## thehatedguy

Well, if you went active, then you would still have to deal with buying another amp...and either doing a PLLXO, passive signal level XO, or find a really good active crossover.

The home guys are just now coming around to using active crossovers...so unless you use one from the prosound market, slim pickings for a native XO. Marchland has one and Nelson Pass has a discrete XO on his DIY site.

Some people would say the DEQX would get you the phase cohesiveness a single driver system would provide. But it isn't cheap either.

Give it a shot, see if you like it. 

Like I said, some people love those types of systems, others can't stand them.


----------



## thadman

All of these drivers have super low distortion, yet why don't we see more of them? Companies like Seas and Feastrex are capitalizing on consumers ignorance to their low distortion figures and understanding of acoustics...Loudspeakers are the sum of their constituents not the other way around. Non-linear distortion is not a significant factor in loudspeaker performance, once you've reached below 1% 2nd order (-40dB) we've reached a level of performance where its "good enough". Non-linear distortion performance will dictate desired output levels, not absolute sound quality IMO.

For reference, these are the accepted values for the audibility threshold of distortion types.

2	1.00%
3	0.44%
4	0.25%
5	0.16%
6	0.11%
7	0.08%
8	0.06%
9	0.05%

Even if we ignore factors such as doppler distortion, intermodulation distortion, and limited displacement...Fullrange drivers will never work because of one simple mathematical fact, *vector summation*. It's simply not possible to create a reverberant field that even somewhat resembles the axial response without constant directivity.


----------



## thehatedguy

You have a ton of people who would love to argue some of that with you.


----------



## thadman

thehatedguy said:


> You have a ton of people who would love to argue some of that with you.


Excellent post

Do you find any fallacy in my assertions, if so please demonstrate them.


----------



## thehatedguy

Settle down. If you've cared to read the whole thread, you would see that I generally agree with your statements.

But I would like to see you post this in the single driver section of DIYaudio and see what all responses you get.

You are good at making claims but run short on backing them up. I think Eric was still wanting some backing up to your claims on that other thread you were on.


----------



## Arc

Sorry it was $61.

http://www.partsexpress.com/pe/showdetl.cfm?&Partnumber=255-742


----------



## thehatedguy

Either way, it gets pricey.


----------



## thadman

thehatedguy said:


> You are good at making claims but run short on backing them up.


I'd recommend a few reads then

http://www.linkwitzlab.com/conclusions.htm
http://www.linkwitzlab.com/reproduction.htm

Excellent website, very easy to understand^. backs up my claim on non-linear distortion with a brief outline of distortion and its influence.

Olive, Sean E. and Floyd E. Toole, _The Detection of Reflections in Typical Rooms_, J. Audio Eng. Soc., 37 7/8 (July/Aug 1989) 539-553

Toole, Floyd E., Loudspeakers and Rooms for Stereophonic Sound Reproduction, Proc. Audio Eng. Soc. 8th International Conference, Washington, D.C., (1990) 71-91

Meyer, E. and G.R. Schodder, On The Influence of Reflected Sound on Directional Localization and Loudness of Speech, Nachr. Akad. Wiss., Gottingen; Math. Phys. Klasse IIa, 6, (1952) 31-42

Nickson, A.F.B., R.W. Muncey and P. Dubout, The Acceptability of Artificial Echoes with Reverberant Speech and Music, Acustica, 4 (1954) 515-518.

Lochner, J.P.A. and J.F. Burger, The Subjective Masking of Short Time Delayed Echoes by Their Primary Sounds and Their Contribution to the Intelligibility of Speech, Acustica, 8 (1958) 1-10.

These deal primarily with the influence of reflected sound^

http://www.gedlee.com/Audio_trans.htm

Audio Transducers by Geddes, VERY INFORMATIVE (I'd highly recommend you pick it up)^ (backs up my claim on constant directivity)

As far as Vector Summation, It's not really debatable. We're dealing with mathematics, simple as that. If you don't understand the concept, then sign up for a linear algebra or otherwise related class. Dismissing it as a non-factor is a serious mistake and demonstration of blatant ignorance.


----------



## thehatedguy

Like I said, go over to DIY Audio in the full range driver section and tell them why their religion is wrong.

And then once you do that, go back up your claims you were trying to make with Eric.


----------



## thadman

thehatedguy said:


> Like I said, go over to DIY Audio in the full range driver section and tell them why their religion is wrong.


Do you honestly believe I could convince them of the inadequacies of full-range drivers, or is there some other motivation for your recommendation? I find no enjoyment in pursuing the activities of a troll and what you've suggested seems akin to harassment. What's the point in stirring the hornets nest? Just like audio cables, they've had those discussions many times over...thus the reason for their separate sub-forum within diyaudio.com. 



thehatedguy said:


> And then once you do that, go back up your claims you were trying to make with Eric.


I, along with many others, had merely stated that the IDQ is a dated, fundamental design which lacks the features of modern drivers (ie shorting rings) and is overpriced in comparison to other drivers. Eric disagreed with our assertion and did nothing to suggest otherwise. I don't think anyone is debating those facts, in fact that thread has long past. I'm personally curious as to your intentions behind the aforementioned statement.

What is the purpose of your post? Are you trying to start another pissing match to prove how e-cool you are? Well +1 for your self esteem


----------



## thehatedguy

I'm curious as to what those guys would say.

That's it.

Way to start reading more into everything I say and start looking for fights where there are none.


----------



## thadman

thehatedguy said:


> I'm curious as to what those guys would say.
> 
> That's it.
> 
> Way to start reading more into everything I say and start looking for fights where there are none.


BS, as if these theories I'm presenting are somehow new to audio reproduction. The members over on diyaudio.com are a very well educated and _mature_ bunch. Painting them as ignorant would be crossing the line, I'm sure they're well aware of linkwitzlab and Linkwitz's findings.

As a whole, I can't recall an episode wherein a diyaudio member required e-validation for their listening preferences or equipment, can't say the same for here.

Let's keep this thread on topic. If you'd like to debate my assertions, than go ahead. Otherwise your posting in this thread has little practical purpose.


----------



## thylantyr

LOL @ http://www.diyaudio.com/

I have read enough of that place to see what is going on there. If you
are good with electronics and audio common sense, you can easily filter
out the bad posts from the good ones. Right now the king of baloney is
this place -> http://www.audioasylum.com

Who here is going to snag a pair of Seas drivers for $2k ? Raise your
hand. If there is no hands raised then the discussion here has already
gone into extra innnings  

If one person raises their hand, then make a build thread and share
your design goals and we will follow your progress. It's all good.


----------



## thehatedguy

I really think you reading way too much into what I've said, especially when I said that I had already agreed with what you had stated.

But we were on topic before you posted your first post on this thread, and it was you who took it off topic.



thadman said:


> BS, as if these theories I'm presenting are somehow new to audio reproduction. The members over on diyaudio.com are a very well educated and _mature_ bunch. Painting them as ignorant would be crossing the line, I'm sure they're well aware of linkwitzlab and Linkwitz's findings.
> 
> As a whole, I can't recall an episode wherein a diyaudio member required e-validation for their listening preferences or equipment, can't say the same for here.
> 
> Let's keep this thread on topic. If you'd like to debate my assertions, than go ahead. Otherwise your posting in this thread has little practical purpose.


----------



## thehatedguy

Sdaly I agree with you about AA...I used to love that place, but it's hard to go read through the stuff any longer...same old same old.

I would rather go read stuff on Romy's site than AA.



thylantyr said:


> LOL @ http://www.diyaudio.com/
> 
> I have read enough of that place to see what is going on there. If you
> are good with electronics and audio common sense, you can easily filter
> out the bad posts from the good ones. Right now the king of baloney is
> this place -> http://www.audioasylum.com
> 
> Who here is going to snag a pair of Seas drivers for $2k ? Raise your
> hand. If there is no hands raised then the discussion here has already
> gone into extra innnings
> 
> If one person raises their hand, then make a build thread and share
> your design goals and we will follow your progress. It's all good.


----------



## thadman

thehatedguy said:


> I really think you reading way too much into what I've said, especially when I said that I had already agreed with what you had stated.


Do these ring a bell?


thehatedguy said:


> *You are good at making claims but run short on backing them up*. I think Eric was still wanting some backing up to your claims on that other thread you were on.





thehatedguy said:


> And then once you do that, go back up your claims you were trying to make with Eric.


I'm sorry if I misinterpreted your intentions, but your credibility and agenda will (and was) be called into question anytime you make an unwarranted personal attack against a member (especially when its completely irrelevant to the topic of the thread). Discrediting a member's opinion as somehow less valid than yours is simply fallacious. 

Hell, I had to cite every one of my sources just to have a valid opinion in this thread. I've never demanded any sort of references from you...the only thing we've all been running on is all of "your experience" which you love to share with this lovely forum and its members. It's never been established as fact and I don't expect it to be. That's not how this forum should be run, otherwise it'll turn into a hugely inefficient bureaucracy and we won't have a chance to discuss anything.



thehatedguy said:


> But we were on topic before you posted your first post on this thread, and it was you who took it off topic.


I was adding something constructive to the thread, several statements were floating around that I felt needed refinement, namely:



cvjoint said:


> Very interesting. In a way it is the way of the future, with enough technological progress we will eventually have one driver flawlessly reproducing the whole audible range. I personally don't think it's the case here. Simply looking at the theoretical output it's not satisfactory imo.
> 
> Wouldn't active filters and a decent listening distance make a 3 way and a fullrange indistinguishable in a blindfold test? (that is assuming the fullrange driver has closely matched performance stats with the 3way ) Is this a heated debate in the audiophile world?


He does not address total radiated power. It's no problem for a driver to measure perfect axially (fullrange and 3-way measure identical axially), but when total radiated power and the reverberant field are observed...its radically different.


----------



## thehatedguy

Really, settle down.


----------



## 8675309

I just got 8 of them!!!!!!
I am excited about this!











































































































JK!


----------



## thehatedguy

Man, should have told me, I know some guys who have a Madisound account...could have saved you BIG bucks...lol.

$850 each...




That was just a joke, I haven't seen any dealer pricing for those drivers yet.


----------



## Neil

thehatedguy said:


> Really, settle down.


I agree with you on this one. You didn't say which was right or wrong...you simply pointed out that there are people who will argue to the death that nothing is better than a good fullrange design. I think the FR section of DIYAudio pales in comparsion to the Single Driver section of AudioCircles. People get pretty passionate about it over there.

I like fullrange but I don't think it's perfect in any respect. But when I'm listening to music, I don't always need perfection.


----------



## thehatedguy

I don't get on Audio Circle that much...just mainly to check out the classifieds some.

When I get more time and money, I would like to give a full range setup a go again. I think I could make a nice BLH. And with my little Jfet front end mini Aleph, I will have a little more power to drive them.


----------



## Mattman24

ok im just notice something, ive seen alot of high end mids and subs with the red maggnet is it a certain type or is it jst a cosmetic thing?


----------



## thadman

Mattman24 said:


> ok im just notice something, ive seen alot of high end mids and subs with the red maggnet is it a certain type or is it jst a cosmetic thing?


What high end drivers have red magnets?

The only ones that come to mind are those old focal subs


----------



## thehatedguy

I answered that question in reply #31.

Most drivers you see that have that particular red magnets are probably Alinco magnets.



Mattman24 said:


> ok im just notice something, ive seen alot of high end mids and subs with the red maggnet is it a certain type or is it jst a cosmetic thing?


----------



## MajorChipHazard

Do full range speakers like these work well?Are there any downfalls to it?


----------



## thadman

MajorChipHazard said:


> Do full range speakers like these work well?Are there any downfalls to it?


I posted a reply earlier in this thread



thadman said:


> All of these drivers have super low distortion, yet why don't we see more of them? Companies like Seas and Feastrex are capitalizing on consumers ignorance to their low distortion figures and understanding of acoustics...Loudspeakers are the sum of their constituents not the other way around. Non-linear distortion is not a significant factor in loudspeaker performance, once you've reached below 1% 2nd order (-40dB) we've reached a level of performance where its "good enough". Non-linear distortion performance will dictate desired output levels, not absolute sound quality IMO.
> 
> For reference, these are the accepted values for the audibility threshold of distortion types.
> 
> 2	1.00%
> 3	0.44%
> 4	0.25%
> 5	0.16%
> 6	0.11%
> 7	0.08%
> 8	0.06%
> 9	0.05%
> 
> Even if we ignore factors such as doppler distortion, intermodulation distortion, and limited displacement...Fullrange drivers will never work because of one simple mathematical fact, *vector summation*. It's simply not possible to create a reverberant field that even somewhat resembles the axial response without constant directivity.


----------



## MajorChipHazard

Ok I did not read the entire thread but thank you for the explanation


----------



## Arc

If these were priced closer to the for mentioned Fostex 208Sigma's I think they would be more reasonable. But then again I don't know of the specialties included or R&D that went into these to justify the price. Oh well, I wish I could get a pair one day  . Ever since some simple Cyborg horns for the 871 I love single driver full range.


----------



## thadman

Expensive drivers aren't that uncommon. There will always be people with huge wallets.

http://www.madisound.com/catalog/product_info.php?manufacturers_id=118&products_id=8284

$839 each...Ouch 

http://www.madisound.com/catalog/product_info.php?manufacturers_id=118&products_id=1039

$2900!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 

Although these drivers possibly deserve their price point. The 6.5" brother of the above 8" measures below 1% distortion (all types) at 105dB+ I believe.


----------



## thehatedguy

See, after you equalize the FR on the Seas, you are still in the 90 dB range...which is way short of the other drivers of this nature.

I think these drivers are intended to draw the "hi-fi" guys who have wondered about FR speakers out. You will still need the large amps these guys have, the systems will be similar- not like the typical higher efficiency FR speaker set up with SET amps and the like. They will probably get business from the guys who are afraid to try a brand that is "outside" the mainstream hi-fi brand list.


----------



## thehatedguy

Mmm...the Accuton driver systems that I've heard left a bad taste in my mouth. They are a techno tour de force, but they are also a taste you love or hate...sort of like the FR speaker systems.



thadman said:


> Expensive drivers aren't that uncommon. There will always be people with huge wallets.
> 
> http://www.madisound.com/catalog/product_info.php?manufacturers_id=118&products_id=8284
> 
> $839 each...Ouch
> 
> http://www.madisound.com/catalog/product_info.php?manufacturers_id=118&products_id=1039
> 
> $2900!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> Although these drivers possibly deserve their price point. The 6.5" brother of the above 8" measures below 1% distortion (all types) at 105dB+ I believe.


----------



## GlasSman

npdang said:


> You're looking at it all wrong, if you buy 10 of them it's only $830


----------



## Fixtion

i've not the time nor patients to read through 8 pages of replies...

i suggest to those who are skeptic to *audition* a properly setup *highend stereo *using *full range *drivers. recently i auditioned *supravox* speakers that follow the same design materials and principles of the sea exotic line on a *minimalist* setup. 

*setup* was as follows 5000euro *tube amp*, 1000euro *disc source*, 500euro of *wires/interconnectors*, and of course 1000euro ea. *supravox drivers*, and unknown amount in cabinets. the owner was *passionate* enough to let a friend and i audition multiple songs on the full range alinco drivers. *breath taking*.

i'm in barcelona and found that shop. the owner said the speakers are love it or hate it. that it's great for *jazz*, *pink floyd-ish* rock, and such. it has it's *strong points *, and *weak points*. 

from my experience, with the majority of *music selection here*, seas excel line with *multiple drivers *and *active/passive *crossovers are a *better choice*. excel line drivers can reach a period of listeners fatigue, where as the *supravox* can be listened to for hours upon hours. 

the driver _disappears_ from time to time, but is very *position biased*.

i *recommend* everyone go out and *audition* a pair of *full range drivers* on a properly setup and acoustically addressed room. a *true stereo* experience

i got carried away, sorry...it may be hard to read.

-fixtion


----------



## Arc

I have had decent full range horns, and I loved em. I am not doubting the sound of the Exotics. I am not bashing them. 

All I am saying is that from a company like Seas with From what I can remember not much FR experience or weight, $930 is a bit excessive. Are they worth it? I have no idea. I would love to get hold of a pair and make some horns. I am sure I would love them.


----------



## cdwitmer

thadman said:


> Companies like . . . Feastrex are capitalizing on consumers ignorance to their low distortion figures and understanding of acoustics. . . Fullrange drivers will never work because of one simple mathematical fact, *vector summation*. It's simply not possible to create a reverberant field that even somewhat resembles the axial response without constant directivity.


As a user of Feastrex speakers I am pleased to report that Feastrex is capitalizing on consumers' *liking what they hear*. Personally, I could care less that Feastrex has achieved unprecedented low magnetic flux distortion, etc. Furthermore, I don't need to know anything about acoustics to be able to appreciate what my ears tell me when music is played through Feastrex speakers. As for fullrange drivers "never working," I guess that depends on what you mean by "working" . . . Feastrex has greatly impressed some first-rate professional musicians.

I'm no technology wonk, but I think that "what we think we know" can sometimes actually give us a prejudicial blindness to certain things -- the old "what my net doesn't catch isn't fish" problem. That's why, as a consumer, rather than excellent specs or theory, my sole criteria are 1) how well something performs to my ears, 2) whether I can afford it, and 3) whether it's logistically manageable for my living situation. For me, Feastrex scores high enough points on criteria 1) and 3) that I feel I can live with the more marginal score on criterion 2) . . . I feel the cost can be justified by the long life of the drivers (they'll probably outlive me). At the same time, I fully appreciate that they're not everyone's cup of tea.

-- Chris


----------



## thehatedguy

Chris, nice to have you here on the thread.


----------



## Dangerranger

Arc said:


> All I am saying is that from a company like Seas with From what I can remember not much FR experience or weight, $930 is a bit excessive. Are they worth it? I have no idea. I would love to get hold of a pair and make some horns. I am sure I would love them.


They have FR experience, just from a long time ago and most likely not with the current engineers  . Back when Grandma and Grandpa were keen on their radio programs, they were listening to them off of most likely a tube powered radio and something like a single 8" "fullrange" driver with an alnico magnet. Realistically the push toward higher power handling, lower sensitivity drivers was forced more than anything due to the scarcity of cobalt, which is used highly in military weapons as well as other markets, and when the cold war and such conflicts started and the military's use of cobalt went up, the price skyrocketed. That basically forced the use of ceramic magnets, which aren't quite as efficient as far as magnetism per pound, but they don't demagnetize as easily either and you can put more power on them. So designers kind of shifted toward taking advantage of the potentially higher power handling and that's what developed, especially in the 70s and 80s. Now the market seems to be shifting back toward the high efficiency camp, however.

But IMO a good speaker designer is a good speaker designer, whatever company they work for. Fullrange drivers are built on pretty simple concepts comparatively, but the cost to implement and accomplish the criteria is higher, both from a research as well as a manufacturing standpoint. Not $800+ worth to me, but they will necessitate more money due to the higher cost of raw materials and the required attention to detail. SEAS hasn't really done anything new with this fullrange driver, but perhaps refined the concept a little bit further.


----------



## dkm201

cdwitmer said:


> As a user of Feastrex speakers I am pleased to report that Feastrex is capitalizing on consumers' *liking what they hear*. Personally, I could care less that Feastrex has achieved unprecedented low magnetic flux distortion, etc. Furthermore, I don't need to know anything about acoustics to be able to appreciate what my ears tell me when music is played through Feastrex speakers. As for fullrange drivers "never working," I guess that depends on what you mean by "working" . . . Feastrex has greatly impressed some first-rate professional musicians.
> 
> I'm no technology wonk, but I think that "what we think we know" can sometimes actually give us a prejudicial blindness to certain things -- the old "what my net doesn't catch isn't fish" problem. That's why, as a consumer, rather than excellent specs or theory, my sole criteria are 1) how well something performs to my ears, 2) whether I can afford it, and 3) whether it's logistically manageable for my living situation. For me, Feastrex scores high enough points on criteria 1) and 3) that I feel I can live with the more marginal score on criterion 2) . . . I feel the cost can be justified by the long life of the drivers (they'll probably outlive me). At the same time, I fully appreciate that they're not everyone's cup of tea.
> 
> -- Chris



Right now I'm imagining Ben Milne, but wearing a monocle and top hat.


----------



## Arc

Dangerranger said:


> They have FR experience, just from a long time ago and most likely not with the current engineers  . Back when Grandma and Grandpa were keen on their radio programs, they were listening to them off of most likely a tube powered radio and something like a single 8" "fullrange" driver with an alnico magnet. Realistically the push toward higher power handling, lower sensitivity drivers was forced more than anything due to the scarcity of cobalt, which is used highly in military weapons as well as other markets, and when the cold war and such conflicts started and the military's use of cobalt went up, the price skyrocketed. That basically forced the use of ceramic magnets, which aren't quite as efficient as far as magnetism per pound, but they don't demagnetize as easily either and you can put more power on them. So designers kind of shifted toward taking advantage of the potentially higher power handling and that's what developed, especially in the 70s and 80s. Now the market seems to be shifting back toward the high efficiency camp, however.
> 
> But IMO a good speaker designer is a good speaker designer, whatever company they work for. Fullrange drivers are built on pretty simple concepts comparatively, but the cost to implement and accomplish the criteria is higher, both from a research as well as a manufacturing standpoint. Not $800+ worth to me, but they will necessitate more money due to the higher cost of raw materials and the required attention to detail. SEAS hasn't really done anything new with this fullrange driver, but perhaps refined the concept a little bit further.



Ok thanks. I didn't realize they did FR back in the day. I am not bashing SEAS at all. Just thinking the price is a bit steep. But again, who am I to tell them where the price point should be?


----------



## thehatedguy

Actually Chris is close to the fellow who started/owns/is Feastrex in Japan. He has translated for them here in the US.

I would go over to DIYAudio and read more about Chris and Feastrex.



dkm201 said:


> Right now I'm imagining Ben Milne, but wearing a monocle and top hat.


----------



## Dangerranger

Arc said:


> Ok thanks. I didn't realize they did FR back in the day. I am not bashing SEAS at all. Just thinking the price is a bit steep. But again, who am I to tell them where the price point should be?


Back then pretty much everybody did fullrange drivers, it was kind of necessity  

I agree, I think the price is much too steep, too. Especially considering the great values that SEAS is offering in other aspects of the market


----------



## thadman

cdwitmer said:


> As a user of Feastrex speakers I am pleased to report that Feastrex is capitalizing on consumers' *liking what they hear*. Personally, I could care less that Feastrex has achieved unprecedented low magnetic flux distortion, etc. Furthermore, I don't need to know anything about acoustics to be able to appreciate what my ears tell me when music is played through Feastrex speakers. As for fullrange drivers "never working," I guess that depends on what you mean by "working" . . . Feastrex has greatly impressed some first-rate professional musicians.
> 
> I'm no technology wonk, but I think that "what we think we know" can sometimes actually give us a prejudicial blindness to certain things -- the old "what my net doesn't catch isn't fish" problem. That's why, as a consumer, rather than excellent specs or theory, my sole criteria are 1) how well something performs to my ears, 2) whether I can afford it, and 3) whether it's logistically manageable for my living situation. For me, Feastrex scores high enough points on criteria 1) and 3) that I feel I can live with the more marginal score on criterion 2) . . . I feel the cost can be justified by the long life of the drivers (they'll probably outlive me). At the same time, I fully appreciate that they're not everyone's cup of tea.
> 
> -- Chris


Audiophile jargon...If that's your cup of tea then fine. 

Fullrange drivers are far from accurate and recordings will begin to sound monotonic, which is of course fine if you're inclined to the "I'm listening to hi-fi _speakers_ sound". Achieving the "they are here" or "you are there" effect requires paying special attention to the axial field as well as the reverberant field, otherwise they'll just sound like nice speakers...not like the real event. Reproducing acoustically different spaces will not be capable with such drivers.

BTW, Vector Summation is not based on specifications. It is intrinsic to all physical drivers. It dictates that the SPL at any point in space is the vector sum of the points on the drivers surface. This is all fine and dandy if we're listening anechoic, where a full-range driver can achieve flat axial response...but when the room is factored in you have to include the vector summation of all points of reflection including walls, floor, ceiling, etc etc which of course varies dramatically with frequency with full-range direct radiating drivers since they lack constant directivity.


----------



## thehatedguy

Pretty much every review that I read of the Feastrex drivers from RMAF was exactly the opposite of what you are stating.


----------



## thadman

thehatedguy said:


> Pretty much every review that I read of the Feastrex drivers from RMAF was exactly the opposite of what you are stating.


I'm not saying the Feastrex aren't low distortion or good drivers, in fact they're probably excellent drivers. The fact of the matter is though, if the Feastrex is played full-range it is subject to the same gremlins of the alignment itself as all other fullrange drivers. Most of the gremlins of the fullrange alignment are independent of the driver used and thus cannot be overcome, even with excellent engineering and the best materials available.

Fullrange drivers don't have constant directivity, thus the reverberant field will _not_ match the axial field. They will become increasingly directive vs frequency.

Fullrange drivers don't have unlimited xmax, therefore they will be displacement limited, output limited, and dynamically compressed in the lower octaves since they only have so much surface area.

Fullrange drivers will have severe doppler distortion since they are required to cover such a broad range.

This is not against Feastrex drivers in particular, but rather caused by the alignment itself. They cannot overcome physics.


----------



## thehatedguy

I understand what you are saying, but could you break it down in plain english for the non-techheads out there? I think it would help clarify exactly what you are saying can and can not be accomplished.


----------



## thadman

thehatedguy said:


> I understand what you are saying, but could you break it down in plain english for the non-techheads out there? I think it would help clarify exactly what you are saying can and can not be accomplished.


I'll try my best to break it down simply



thadman said:


> Fullrange drivers don't have constant directivity, thus the reverberant field will _not_ match the axial field. They will become increasingly directive vs frequency.


The final sound that you hear from your speakers is not limited to the direct sound emanating from the loudspeaker. You will hear the direct sound as well as the off-axis sound reflected off of nearby surfaces. This reflected sound interacts with the direct sound by boosting or cutting certain frequencies. Your brain is fed these boosts and cuts of the frequency response and it translates this into the continuum of spaciousness. Fullrange drivers will exhibit different off-axis behavior at different frequencies because they are not constant directivity. An accepted value for the deviation from omnidirectional (deviation from constant directivity) behavior is once the driver circumference exceeds the reproduced wavelength. This is not an absolute change, but gradual. At the top of the drivers range it will be beam (very little off-axis) and contribute very little to its surroundings (and thus very little reflected sound). At the bottom of the drivers range it will be omnidirectional and contribute as much direct energy as off-axis energy and thus there will be an abundance of reflected energy.

This discontinuity is bad, because you'll experience different levels of "spaciousness" at different frequencies 



thadman said:


> Fullrange drivers don't have unlimited xmax, therefore they will be displacement limited, output limited, and dynamically compressed in the lower octaves since they only have so much surface area.


SPL=Vd (swept volume). A driver has to displace "X" amount of air at "Y" frequency to achieve "Z" spl.



thadman said:


> Fullrange drivers will have severe doppler distortion since they are required to cover such a broad range.


Acknowledge the distinct siren of Ambulances or Police Cars as they fly past you. As the vehicle accelerates towards you, it squishes the wavelengths and they become shorter (pitch is higher). As the vehicle overcomes and accelerates past you it drags the wavelengths out and they become longer (pitch is lower).

This concept can be applied to loudspeakers. While it is simultaneously reproducing a low frequency and a high frequency, the cone excursion from the low frequency content squishes the high frequency content (high frequency is distorted, it is now higher in pitch) on the out stroke and drags the high frequency content out on the in stroke (high frequency is distorted, it is now lower in pitch).


----------



## thadman

thehatedguy said:


> Pretty much every review that I read of the Feastrex drivers from RMAF was exactly the opposite of what you are stating.


http://www.goodsoundclub.com/Forums/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=1955

Not all reviews of the Feastrex were positive. It would be incorrect to suggest the OP of this thread was representative of the entire population, but it certainly seems he wasn't pleased with what they offered and would be also incorrect to suggest that all who listened to the drivers were satisfied.

BTW I'm aware that you aren't making such a generalization, but it may come off that way to some readers


----------



## cdwitmer

thadman said:


> Fullrange drivers are far from accurate and recordings will begin to sound monotonic, which is of course fine if you're inclined to the "I'm listening to hi-fi _speakers_ sound". Achieving the "they are here" or "you are there" effect requires paying special attention to the axial field as well as the reverberant field, otherwise they'll just sound like nice speakers...not like the real event. Reproducing acoustically different spaces will not be capable with such drivers.


I don't really know how to respond to the above. How accurate does something have to be to be accurate enough? A few posts ago you were downplaying the importance of distortion figures, so it sounds as if you're trying to have your cake and eat it too. (Please forgive me if I have misunderstood you.) As for recordings sounding "monotonic," unless the term has a specialized meaning I'm not familiar with, I can't imagine how it might apply here. Many fullrange drivers have problems with coloration, such as the infamous Lowther "shout," but even that is not something I would describe as montonic. (Again, it may be simply that I'm not familiar with a particular technical term.)

About "the real event" . . . I listen to as much live music as I do recorded music. I have seven children who are all serious musicians. (My eldest is in a local conservatory and my second is now in the process of applying, and we are blessed to have first-rate professionals for teachers of various instruments and voice -- it's one of the nice things about living in a city like Tokyo.) We frequently attend live concerts large and small. In the span of 10 days we have been able to attend concerts for material as diverse as the Saint-Saens "Organ" symphony, Bach's St. John's Passion, Mozart's Clarinet Concerto in A major K.622 (on period instruments), Verdi's Requiem, and an early baroque dance performance with live accompaniment on period instruments. The venues were diverse -- a church and halls small and large -- and all with excellent acoustics. I have professional live recordings that were made at some of these performances. In face I have a shelf full of live recordings made at performances in which I was in attendance, and I have the ability to make some pretty decent bootleg recordings, thanks to Korg's DSD recorders and inexpensive but high quality condenser microphones. I also have a lot of audiophile friends who don't listen to a lot of live music, and when I take them with me to live performances many of them are struck by the *huge difference* between the experience of a live performance and the experience of listening to recorded music through a pair of speakers. Many of them have commented that they would not want their home listening experience to be "exactly like live," and I'm inclined to agree. My friends who are professional musicians also think that re-creating the live performance experience is neither possible nor particularly desirable for recreational listening at home. I've been told as much by pros who listen with electrostats, by pros who listen with hard-core horn systems, and by pros who listen with fullrange single drivers. I don't deny that there are at-home listening experiences that are so "real" that you'd swear you were in the 69 position with Diana Krall, but they are not *really* re-creations of "the real event." Audiophile sound and live performances are apples and oranges. Each may be delicious in its own way, but they are not directly comparable. I have not heard any of Earl Geddes' speakers (although I'd love to someday) but I doubt having a constant-directivity speaker would make any essential difference in this regard.

"Reproducing acoustically different spaces will not be capable with such drivers." -- Without denying that fullrange drivers have their own limitations, I have not found this assertion to be true in my experience.



thadman said:


> Fullrange drivers don't have unlimited xmax, therefore they will be displacement limited, output limited, and dynamically compressed in the lower octaves since they only have so much surface area.
> 
> Fullrange drivers will have severe doppler distortion since they are required to cover such a broad range.


The first paragraph above is true, although whether it will actually be a problem in use depends on the particulars of the drivers, the music, and the listening environment. Dynamic compression of human hearing at high volumes may at times be a bigger problem than compression in loudspeakers (not that there's anything we can do about it).

With my admittedly limited hearing abilities -- and even more limited _critical_ abilities -- I have never been able to detect any of the "gargling" distortion (call it "doppler" or whatever) in the Feastrex drivers. I think it ought to be possible to create it under laboratory conditions, and if it can be created under controlled conditions, chances are it actually occurs in real life usage. But I have never heard it in a Feastrex driver. (Nor have I heard it in any other fullrange driver, for that matter, and I have never had anyone report to me that they encountered it with a fullrange driver. The only time I ever heard any such "gargling" sound was in a four-way horn system playing the Saint-Saens "Organ" Symphony, but that was probably due to standing waves in the room.) Now, it is conceivable that part of the reason I have not heard such distortion is that the "fullrange" driver is not really playing the full range of the music. In the case of a 9-inch Feastrex driver in a standard ported enclosure, the bass response, which is quite flat well into the 30Hz range, falls off sharply below 30Hz, and the treble is probably extending flat only to 15kHz, even though it does not sound "deficient" in treble by any means. Perhaps the lack of the very bottom of the bass is what's preventing this (alleged) distortion from being apparent. Still, it seems to me that if it was a problem worth worrying about, users of the drivers ought to be encountering it . . . but we are not.

Rod Elliot has written some useful articles about "Doppler distortion" and other types of distortion in speakers:

Doppler distortion in loudspeakers - Real or Imaginary?
http://sound.westhost.com/doppler.htm

Phase, Time and Distortion in Loudspeakers 
http://sound.westhost.com/ptd.htm

Loudspeaker Power Handling Vs. Efficiency 
http://sound.westhost.com/articles/pwr-vs-eff.htm

In the end, the proof is still in the pudding. I do not think fullrange drivers are perfect by any means. They involve trade-offs, just like any other loudspeaker typology. Some people prefer to use them as wideband drivers in a two-way or three-way system, and I think that for some applications that may be the most appropriate use. For me, a fullrange driver is able to suffice for more than 95% of the music I listen to. I feel their lack in the very bottom end with pipe organ music. On the other hand, I don't listen to modern electronically-enhanced music, but only to acoustic instruments and human voice. So for me, fullrange drivers augmented by subwoofers on occasion (i.e., for pipe organ) are all that I need. Just as one example, listening to the Sheffield Lab "Drum & Track Disc," I would take a Feastrex 9-inch field coil speaker in standard ported enclosure over any loudspeaker system made by Altec, any day of the week . . . "dynamic compression" is the last expresson that comes to mind with these drivers. ("Bank account compression" is a definite issue, however.) It has been quite a long time since I have listened to other fullrange drivers, and there are many fullranges that I have never heard (including the new SEAS exotic FRs, for example), so I'm not confident in making a lot of broad generalizations regarding fullrange drivers. I think many of them have their proper place -- and that's *not* in the garbage basket . . .  

-- Chris


----------



## cdwitmer

thadman said:


> Fullrange drivers are far from accurate and recordings will begin to sound monotonic, which is of course fine if you're inclined to the "I'm listening to hi-fi _speakers_ sound". Achieving the "they are here" or "you are there" effect requires paying special attention to the axial field as well as the reverberant field, otherwise they'll just sound like nice speakers...not like the real event. Reproducing acoustically different spaces will not be capable with such drivers.


I don't really know how to respond to the above. How accurate does something have to be to be accurate enough? A few posts ago you were downplaying the importance of distortion figures, so it sounds as if you're trying to have your cake and eat it too. (Please forgive me if I have misunderstood you.) As for recordings sounding "monotonic," unless the term has a specialized meaning I'm not familiar with, I can't imagine how it might apply here. Many fullrange drivers have problems with coloration, such as the infamous Lowther "shout," but even that is not something I would describe as montonic. (Again, it may be simply that I'm not familiar with a particular technical term.)

About "the real event" . . . I listen to as much live music as I do recorded music. I have seven children who are all serious musicians. (My eldest is in a local conservatory and my second is now in the process of applying, and we are blessed to have first-rate professionals for teachers of various instruments and voice -- it's one of the nice things about living in a city like Tokyo.) We frequently attend live concerts large and small. In the span of 10 days we have been able to attend concerts for material as diverse as the Saint-Saens "Organ" symphony, Bach's St. John's Passion, Mozart's Clarinet Concerto in A major K.622 (on period instruments), Verdi's Requiem, and an early baroque dance performance with live accompaniment on period instruments. The venues were diverse -- a church and halls small and large -- and all with excellent acoustics. I have professional live recordings that were made at some of these performances. In face I have a shelf full of live recordings made at performances in which I was in attendance, and I have the ability to make some pretty decent bootleg recordings, thanks to Korg's DSD recorders and inexpensive but high quality condenser microphones. I also have a lot of audiophile friends who don't listen to a lot of live music, and when I take them with me to live performances many of them are struck by the *huge difference* between the experience of a live performance and the experience of listening to recorded music through a pair of speakers. Many of them have commented that they would not want their home listening experience to be "exactly like live," and I'm inclined to agree. My friends who are professional musicians also think that re-creating the live performance experience is neither possible nor particularly desirable for recreational listening at home. I've been told as much by pros who listen with electrostats, by pros who listen with hard-core horn systems, and by pros who listen with fullrange single drivers. I don't deny that there are at-home listening experiences that are so "real" that you'd swear you were in the 69 position with Diana Krall, but they are not *really* re-creations of "the real event." Audiophile sound and live performances are apples and oranges. Each may be delicious in its own way, but they are not directly comparable. I have not heard any of Earl Geddes' speakers (although I'd love to someday) but I doubt having a constant-directivity speaker would make any essential difference in this regard.

"Reproducing acoustically different spaces will not be capable with such drivers." -- Without denying that fullrange drivers have their own limitations, I have not found this assertion to be true in my experience.



thadman said:


> Fullrange drivers don't have unlimited xmax, therefore they will be displacement limited, output limited, and dynamically compressed in the lower octaves since they only have so much surface area.
> 
> Fullrange drivers will have severe doppler distortion since they are required to cover such a broad range.


The first paragraph above is true, although whether it will actually be a problem in use depends on the particulars of the drivers, the music, and the listening environment. Dynamic compression of human hearing at high volumes may at times be a bigger problem than compression in loudspeakers (not that there's anything we can do about it).

With my admittedly limited hearing abilities -- and even more limited _critical_ abilities -- I have never been able to detect any of the "gargling" distortion (call it "doppler" or whatever) in the Feastrex drivers. I think it ought to be possible to create it under laboratory conditions, and if it can be created under controlled conditions, chances are it actually occurs in real life usage. But I have never heard it in a Feastrex driver. (Nor have I heard it in any other fullrange driver, for that matter, and I have never had anyone report to me that they encountered it with a fullrange driver. The only time I ever heard any such "gargling" sound was in a four-way horn system playing the Saint-Saens "Organ" Symphony, but that was probably due to standing waves in the room.) Now, it is conceivable that part of the reason I have not heard such distortion is that the "fullrange" driver is not really playing the full range of the music. In the case of a 9-inch Feastrex driver in a standard ported enclosure, the bass response, which is quite flat well into the 30Hz range, falls off sharply below 30Hz, and the treble is probably extending flat only to 15kHz, even though it does not sound "deficient" in treble by any means. Perhaps the lack of the very bottom of the bass is what's preventing this (alleged) distortion from being apparent. Still, it seems to me that if it was a problem worth worrying about, users of the drivers ought to be encountering it . . . but we are not.

Rod Elliot has written some useful articles about "Doppler distortion" and other types of distortion in speakers:

Doppler distortion in loudspeakers - Real or Imaginary?
sound.westhost.com/doppler.htm

Phase, Time and Distortion in Loudspeakers 
sound.westhost.com/ptd.htm

Loudspeaker Power Handling Vs. Efficiency 
sound.westhost.com/articles/pwr-vs-eff.htm

In the end, the proof is still in the pudding. I do not think fullrange drivers are perfect by any means. They involve trade-offs, just like any other loudspeaker typology. Some people prefer to use them as wideband drivers in a two-way or three-way system, and I think that for some applications that may be the most appropriate use. For me, a fullrange driver is able to suffice for more than 95% of the music I listen to. I feel their lack in the very bottom end with pipe organ music. On the other hand, I don't listen to modern electronically-enhanced music, but only to acoustic instruments and human voice. So for me, fullrange drivers augmented by subwoofers on occasion (i.e., for pipe organ) are all that I need. Just as one example, listening to the Sheffield Lab "Drum & Track Disc," I would take a Feastrex 9-inch field coil speaker in standard ported enclosure over any loudspeaker system made by Altec, any day of the week . . . "dynamic compression" is the last expresson that comes to mind with these drivers. ("Bank account compression" is a definite issue, however.) It has been quite a long time since I have listened to other fullrange drivers, and there are many fullranges that I have never heard (including the new SEAS exotic FRs, for example), so I'm not confident in making a lot of broad generalizations regarding fullrange drivers. I think many of them have their proper place -- and that's *not* in the garbage basket . . .  

-- Chris


----------



## cdwitmer

thadman said:


> Fullrange drivers are far from accurate and recordings will begin to sound monotonic, which is of course fine if you're inclined to the "I'm listening to hi-fi _speakers_ sound". Achieving the "they are here" or "you are there" effect requires paying special attention to the axial field as well as the reverberant field, otherwise they'll just sound like nice speakers...not like the real event. Reproducing acoustically different spaces will not be capable with such drivers.


I don't really know how to respond to the above. How accurate does something have to be to be accurate enough? A few posts ago you were downplaying the importance of distortion figures, so it sounds as if you're trying to have your cake and eat it too. (Please forgive me if I have misunderstood you.) As for recordings sounding "monotonic," unless the term has a specialized meaning I'm not familiar with, I can't imagine how it might apply here. Many fullrange drivers have problems with coloration, such as the infamous Lowther "shout," but even that is not something I would describe as montonic. (Again, it may be simply that I'm not familiar with a particular technical term.)

About "the real event" . . . I listen to as much live music as I do recorded music. I have seven children who are all serious musicians. (My eldest is in a local conservatory and my second is now in the process of applying, and we are blessed to have first-rate professionals for teachers of various instruments and voice -- it's one of the nice things about living in a city like Tokyo.) We frequently attend live concerts large and small. In the span of 10 days we have been able to attend concerts for material as diverse as the Saint-Saens "Organ" symphony, Bach's St. John's Passion, Mozart's Clarinet Concerto in A major K.622 (on period instruments), Verdi's Requiem, and an early baroque dance performance with live accompaniment on period instruments. The venues were diverse -- a church and halls small and large -- and all with excellent acoustics. I have professional live recordings that were made at some of these performances. In face I have a shelf full of live recordings made at performances in which I was in attendance, and I have the ability to make some pretty decent bootleg recordings, thanks to Korg's DSD recorders and inexpensive but high quality condenser microphones. I also have a lot of audiophile friends who don't listen to a lot of live music, and when I take them with me to live performances many of them are struck by the *huge difference* between the experience of a live performance and the experience of listening to recorded music through a pair of speakers. Many of them have commented that they would not want their home listening experience to be "exactly like live," and I'm inclined to agree. My friends who are professional musicians also think that re-creating the live performance experience is neither possible nor particularly desirable for recreational listening at home. I've been told as much by pros who listen with electrostats, by pros who listen with hard-core horn systems, and by pros who listen with fullrange single drivers. I don't deny that there are at-home listening experiences that are so "real" that you'd swear you were in the 69 position with Diana Krall, but they are not *really* re-creations of "the real event." Audiophile sound and live performances are apples and oranges. Each may be delicious in its own way, but they are not directly comparable. I have not heard any of Earl Geddes' speakers (although I'd love to someday) but I doubt having a constant-directivity speaker would make any essential difference in this regard.

"Reproducing acoustically different spaces will not be capable with such drivers." -- Without denying that fullrange drivers have their own limitations, I have not found this assertion to be true in my experience.



thadman said:


> Fullrange drivers don't have unlimited xmax, therefore they will be displacement limited, output limited, and dynamically compressed in the lower octaves since they only have so much surface area.
> 
> Fullrange drivers will have severe doppler distortion since they are required to cover such a broad range.


The first paragraph above is true, although whether it will actually be a problem in use depends on the particulars of the drivers, the music, and the listening environment. Dynamic compression of human hearing at high volumes may at times be a bigger problem than compression in loudspeakers (not that there's anything we can do about it).

With my admittedly limited hearing abilities -- and even more limited _critical_ abilities -- I have never been able to detect any of the "gargling" distortion (call it "doppler" or whatever) in the Feastrex drivers. I think it ought to be possible to create it under laboratory conditions, and if it can be created under controlled conditions, chances are it actually occurs in real life usage. But I have never heard it in a Feastrex driver. (Nor have I heard it in any other fullrange driver, for that matter, and I have never had anyone report to me that they encountered it with a fullrange driver. The only time I ever heard any such "gargling" sound was in a four-way horn system playing the Saint-Saens "Organ" Symphony, but that was probably due to standing waves in the room.) Now, it is conceivable that part of the reason I have not heard such distortion is that the "fullrange" driver is not really playing the full range of the music. In the case of a 9-inch Feastrex driver in a standard ported enclosure, the bass response, which is quite flat well into the 30Hz range, falls off sharply below 30Hz, and the treble is probably extending flat only to 15kHz, even though it does not sound "deficient" in treble by any means. Perhaps the lack of the very bottom of the bass is what's preventing this (alleged) distortion from being apparent. Still, it seems to me that if it was a problem worth worrying about, users of the drivers ought to be encountering it . . . but we are not.

Rod Elliot has written some useful articles about "Doppler distortion" and other types of distortion in speakers. I have not yet made enough posts here to be allowed to include links, but anyone can Google these:

Doppler distortion in loudspeakers - Real or Imaginary?

Phase, Time and Distortion in Loudspeakers 

Loudspeaker Power Handling Vs. Efficiency 

In the end, the proof is still in the pudding. I do not think fullrange drivers are perfect by any means. They involve trade-offs, just like any other loudspeaker typology. Some people prefer to use them as wideband drivers in a two-way or three-way system, and I think that for some applications that may be the most appropriate use. For me, a fullrange driver is able to suffice for more than 95% of the music I listen to. I feel their lack in the very bottom end with pipe organ music. On the other hand, I don't listen to modern electronically-enhanced music, but only to acoustic instruments and human voice. So for me, fullrange drivers augmented by subwoofers on occasion (i.e., for pipe organ) are all that I need. Just as one example, listening to the Sheffield Lab "Drum & Track Disc," I would take a Feastrex 9-inch field coil speaker in standard ported enclosure over any loudspeaker system made by Altec, any day of the week . . . "dynamic compression" is the last expresson that comes to mind with these drivers. ("Bank account compression" is a definite issue, however.) It has been quite a long time since I have listened to other fullrange drivers, and there are many fullranges that I have never heard (including the new SEAS exotic FRs, for example), so I'm not confident in making a lot of broad generalizations regarding fullrange drivers. I think many of them have their proper place -- and that's *not* in the garbage basket . . .  

-- Chris


----------



## Oliver

Allow me Chris  

http://sound.westhost.com/

There is a ton of info


----------



## thylantyr

> I do not think fullrange drivers are perfect by any means. They involve trade-offs, *just like any other loudspeaker typology.*


You can probably summarize this thread with that quote   

When people debate about audio sometimes people forget to mention what
SPL levels they prefer as this can dictate on what type of speaker design is
needed. For instance, a single driver can't support my listening habits  
No matter how elite the single driver is, it will hit it's performance limit and
you have to figure out if your listening preference is within the drivers
performance envelope.

If you want you can try to figure out a performance per dollar ratio but
it would be too subjective and just keep that ratio to yourself when you
analyze it.


----------



## cvjoint

I am coming to the realization that there are two types of audiophiles out there. The first will want to get as close as possible to the real performance, he will push for transparency, neutrality and a flat response curve. The second seeks the sweetest speaker timber and will most likely be shaping the frequency response to his liking. This is where tube lovers will fall imo.

There is one thing that I expect the FR drivers to shine at. The stage will be focused. I have noticed that I like the 200hz up region to come from the same general area in the past installs. Naturally, I think an all dash setup or all kick setup is hard to beat. Not sure exactly how much this is a benefit in home audio, but a good FR driver in a car might give some good results.


----------



## thehatedguy

I agree until the last sentence.

As you get into the tube amp world, you will soon find out that world is divided into those same two camps you have (correctly IMO) divided the speaker/listeners preference into.

I too thought that all tube guys wanted that "warm liquid" midrange. Well, no not all of them do b/c that is a characteristic of distortion. And the single ended guys want a fast direct presentation without that liquid warm quality most people associate from tubes. 





cvjoint said:


> I am coming to the realization that there are two types of audiophiles out there. The first will want to get as close as possible to the real performance, he will push for transparency, neutrality and a flat response curve. The second seeks the sweetest speaker timber and will most likely be shaping the frequency response to his liking. This is where tube lovers will fall imo.


----------



## mowry

This kills me. 

"By combining an extremely open weave with a new resin formulation, all noises normally created by the friction of the threads rubbing together are virtually eliminated. Additionally, the open weave is highly acoustically transparent, minimizing the reflections and resonances associated with conventional spider designs." From http://www.seas.no/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=193&Itemid=189.

Are these guys okay? I didn't think they had the cronic in Norway. I thought it was just available in California and Thailand.

Most of the technologies they use are ancient, AlNiCo, whizzer cone, light paper cone, etc. What are the new rechnologies anyway. I cannot find any.


----------

