# Tweeterless! Who has gone tweeterless and liked it?



## johnmasters (Mar 30, 2009)

I came across a thread yesterday regarding someone with a "Totally Awsome" Hybrid Audio system and about half way through the thread you find out that he had NO tweeters in his system. Apparently his 2" or 3" midrange was enough to cover the needed range.

I had wondered about this before and I am intrigued. It would seem as though if this is possible, it would be almost like running 3-way active upfront without the additional hassle.

Is anyone else doing this successfully? If so, can you post your experience and what midrange speakers are making it possible?


----------



## deadenddude (Jun 3, 2009)

johnmasters said:


> I came across a thread yesterday regarding someone with a "Totally Awsome" Hybrid Audio system and about half way through the thread you find out that he had NO tweeters in his system. Apparently his 2" or 3" midrange was enough to cover the needed range.
> 
> I had wondered about this before and I am intrigued. It would seem as though if this is possible, it would be almost like running 3-way active upfront without the additional hassle.
> 
> Is anyone else doing this successfully? If so, can you post your experience and what midrange speakers are making it possible?


I've disconnected my tweeter at the crossover just to see what it sounded like and it made the mid ranges sound harsher with out the highs to balance them out.


----------



## ItalynStylion (May 3, 2008)

deadenddude said:


> I've disconnected my tweeter at the crossover just to see what it sounded like and it made the mid ranges sound harsher with out the highs to balance them out.


That's probably also because on a passive crossover, when you change the impedance load of the speaker by using a speaker with a different load (or disconnecting it) you change the crossover point. Keep that in mind.


I really can't believe how much full range talk I've seen on these forums the past couple weeks. It's astounding. Anyways, check out the offerings from Fostex, Tang Band, Mark Audio and CSS. They all offer incredible sound at a decent price. I know Seas makes a full range unit but it's about 800 PER DRIVER! Same goes for Feastrex $$$$$$


----------



## BigRed (Aug 12, 2007)

im trying it in my truck as we speak same driver. ill let you know my findings


----------



## stuckinok (Jul 22, 2008)

So is no tweeters the new Hotness? I too have thought about the simplicity of it all but would want to hear how it sounds before I did it myself.


----------



## ItalynStylion (May 3, 2008)

stuckinok said:


> So is no tweeters the new Hotness? I too have thought about the simplicity of it all but would want to hear how it sounds before I did it myself.


You came to the meet at Foosmans house right? Those towers I had were full range. And not full range meaning just no tweeter, I mean down to 50hz. And those drivers are only about $60 a pair. Think about that.


----------



## AAAAAAA (Oct 5, 2007)

When I had 3inch tangbands I ran them from around 300hs and up no tweets. I was surprised how it sounded, it was pretty good, however I did prefer a tweeter even if xovered only around 8 or 10khz.


----------



## ItalynStylion (May 3, 2008)

The top end on all full range drivers is not created equal...did you try other things?


----------



## stuckinok (Jul 22, 2008)

ItalynStylion said:


> You came to the meet at Foosmans house right? Those towers I had were full range. And not full range meaning just no tweeter, I mean down to 50hz. And those drivers are only about $60 a pair. Think about that.


Yea that was me........ you also had that fancy enclosure and well you know that a home enviorment is way diferent then me driving down the road at 45MPH


----------



## tspence73 (Oct 14, 2008)

> Tweeterless!


SACRILIGE! The Earth is flat and the center of the universe! Burn this man! :whip::behead: per the order of kingspence :crown:


----------



## RMAT (Feb 13, 2007)

I am currently tweeterless using L3's


----------



## Oliver (Jun 25, 2007)

The guy was running an L4 


quote>

The dedicated midrange driver in this component system is the Legatia™ L4, one of the widest bandwidth, and best-sounding 4" midranges...

quote>

DO NOT TRY THIS {with any 0' 4 inch midrange }, http://www.diymobileaudio.com/forum/member-product-reviews/60325-bob-morrows-h-t-tacoma.html


----------



## ItalynStylion (May 3, 2008)

a$$hole said:


> The guy was running an L4
> 
> 
> quote>
> ...


How bout a modified 4.5" driver?


----------



## johnmasters (Mar 30, 2009)

Although I know nothing about Hybrid Audio, I assumed that what ever midrange he was using was very expensive but in the nature of DIYMA I wanted to find out if anyone else was achieving decent results at a smaller price.



ItalynStylion said:


> I really can't believe how much full range talk I've seen on these forums the past couple weeks.


What do you mean exactly by that? To much talk about it?


----------



## ItalynStylion (May 3, 2008)

stuckinok said:


> Yea that was me........ you also had that fancy enclosure and well you know that a home enviorment is way diferent then me driving down the road at 45MPH


Tis true...but remember, that enclosure was only designed to help the low end response of the driver. The high end, which is what we are talking about, isn't really affected by the enclosure.


----------



## awgray (Apr 4, 2007)

ItalynStylion said:


> That's probably also because on a passive crossover, when you change the impedance load of the speaker by using a speaker with a different load (or disconnecting it) you change the crossover point. Keep that in mind.
> 
> 
> I really can't believe how much full range talk I've seen on these forums the past couple weeks. It's astounding. Anyways, check out the offerings from Fostex, Tang Band, Mark Audio and CSS. They all offer incredible sound at a decent price. I know Seas makes a full range unit but it's about 800 PER DRIVER! Same goes for Feastrex $$$$$$


I want to clarify this a bit...By disconnecting the tweeter from a 2-way, 3-way whatever passive crossover you haven't changed the response of the remaining drivers you're just letting the midrange filter out as the crossover intended with no driver to continue to pick up the higher frequencies. The crossover point changes when you replace one driver with another because the driver's filtered response is different.


----------



## Sassmastersq (Jan 12, 2007)

I'm tweeterless with a pair of fostex FF85k's, at $35 from madisound (I think, I bought them from solen here in canada) they're an awesome driver, and have true tweeter performance.

I'm also running a midbass driver, full range as well.....

I'm using no crossover or EQ except the crossover for my sub, and I'm luvving it.

full range is the new sexiness


----------



## jets88 (May 12, 2008)

Right now I'm just running an L8 + L4. I intended to run a 3 way up front but the L4 covers such a wide range I don't feel I need a tweeter. But, they have to be directly on axis. I tried running the L4s facing directly across the floor and they rolled off much earlier that way and I would definately need a tweeter then.


----------



## vibrator (Mar 24, 2005)

I am very interested in doing this. It would really be the ideal setup for my particular car (3" on dash IB vending under dash, 7" midbass in the door)

I can't seem to decide on the 3" that would be best though. I would really like to hear opinions on the fostex FF85k vs the mark audio alpair 5 vs mark audio chr-70 vs something better in this price range????

any input would be great


----------



## Candisa (Sep 15, 2007)

I'm working on it, with 4" TangBand titanium drivers and according to the tests I already did, I have good hope it'll work as long as the FR-drivers are points straight to my ears.

I chose 4" because:
- I want the whole human voice range out of 1 pair of drivers on my dashboard
- it is easily doable to make pods on my dashboard with the FR-drivers pointed straight to my ears
- I play a lot of metal, hard-rock, electro, but sometimes also a bombastic piece of classical music, so I need an install that is able to play highly dynamic at high volume levels without having a 'if you crank this 1 notch more up, the install will disintegrate'-sound. Knowing that those 4" titanium cone tangband drivers have 11 (eleven!!!) times the volume displacement of their 3" brothers!
- Using 3" drivers without sacrificing dynamics would require a 500Hz crossoverpoint. Not only does the human voice range go a lot deeper than that (even the female voices that are in most of the music I listen to), my midbasswoofers aren't designed to reach that high (Tangband long-throw 6" subwoofers).

But this doesn't mean 3" drivers aren't useable in a car:
- 3" drivers beam less, so they don't have to be angled that precisely
- If your midbasswoofers allow a crossoverpoint of 500ish Hz, you can get great dynamics and spl level out of 3" drivers
- A 3" driver will be better at highs than a 4" driver of the same quality level

About the Fostex vs. Alpair vs. CHR: Fostex drivers have a very low x-max, most of them even lower than 3" Tangband drivers and those already have only .5mm of x-max. Fostex drivers sound great at home, but in a car, I don't think they will handle very dynamic music at higher volume levels, unless you cross them very high.
The Markaudio drivers have a much greater x-max and from what I've read, the 'Alpair' is better than the 'CHR', so I would prefer those.
The grey coned version should be a little more detailed, wich would be a must if you use a warm sounding amplifier like an Audison, Soundstream, Audio-System... While the copper coned version should be a little more forgiving wich should be great on amps like Genesis, Steg..


----------



## tspence73 (Oct 14, 2008)

Candisa said:


> I'm working on it, with 4" TangBand titanium drivers and according to the tests I already did, I have good hope it'll work as long as the FR-drivers are points straight to my ears.
> 
> I chose 4" because:
> - I want the whole human voice range out of 1 pair of drivers on my dashboard
> ...


There you go. A PERFECT explanation of the quandary you find yourself in when trying to "raise the image" in a car going to the A-Pillar. If you want a full/rich vocal, you have to risk beaming effects (poor off-axis response) and if you reverse that and go with a smaller midrange, you risk losing dynamics or good vocal depth. There seems to be no high-efficiency/low-frequency-output 3" driver. The only answer I could think of is to do an array to add greater possible dynamic output, but arrays come with their own issues too.
--------------------------
For those who don't understand what we're talking about here. Here's a breakdown. The range from 200Hz to 500Hz is the critical range of note in running an A-Pillar set of mid/hi's. 

3" driver with good xmax can get lower but loses output efficiency and hence, loses dynamic range.

3" driver array which uses good xmax to get good low vocal range which also (due to multiple drivers) increases output and improves dynamics but presents odd acoustic problems like lobing and comb filtering. 

4" drivers have beaming issues and poor off-axis response.

Seriously. Is there anyway to win in this very odd dilemma of unperfect choices?

The solution is the find a 3" driver which has really good efficiency (loud output) plus have the ability to reach down to AT LEAST 300Hz, but ideally 200-250Hz. 

The key to me in achieving the best result with a 3" driver with at least 90db sensitivity while still having an effective response down to 300Hz will require the steepest hi-pass you can get. I'm talking like 48db/octave if you can do it (which requires a special digital sound processor). That's my working theory right now.


----------



## br85 (May 2, 2008)

Ugh. It's q-correction problems you are going to run into up on the dash, man. Even if you find the perfect driver set, good luck getting the volume of air you need up there.

Consider arrays for dynamics and low crossover points. Arrays also allow you to control the lobe (which is very good if you want to steer things away from glass etc). Unlike your standard spherical-conical beaming pattern, as you go higher with the array, you have the ability to play with the geometry of the "beam" if you will.

FASCINATING stuff really.


----------



## Candisa (Sep 15, 2007)

Arrays don't work that great in near-field situations. Array's need a minimum listening distance to 'sum'.
You can make it better if you let one driver play 250-20k and the other one only 250-600 or something like that (trial and error testing), but in a nearfield situation as a car, I would prefer one pair of 4" full-rangers and maybe add a .75" tweeter for 8-10k and up (far above the vocal range), than using arrays of smaller drivers. 

Like I said, the 4" titanium cone Tangbands I'm using can move <b>eleven(!!!)</b> times the volume of air as the comparable 3" titanium cone Tangband, so to really get the same dynamics and possible output level, you would need an array of eleven of those 3" drivers per side (wich is impossible to get to sound right nearfiel, even if it was possible to get it on the dashboard)!

Now, if you know that array's are mission impossible in a car, you would need 3" drivers with a huge excursion to be able to get the same dynamics as out of a medium-excursion 4" driver, and I'm pretty sure such a high excursion would really f*ck up the highs.

3": Fine, if you cross high enough and/or don't expect very high spl levels ànd dynamics, otherwise go for a 4" and put some more time in aiming them, even if you find a 3" driver with a huge excursion or are able to put 2 or 3 of them per side...


----------



## tspence73 (Oct 14, 2008)

Candisa said:


> Arrays don't work that great in near-field situations. Array's need a minimum listening distance to 'sum'.
> You can make it better if you let one driver play 250-20k and the other one only 250-600 or something like that (trial and error testing), but in a nearfield situation as a car, I would prefer one pair of 4" full-rangers and maybe add a .75" tweeter for 8-10k and up (far above the vocal range), than using arrays of smaller drivers.
> 
> Like I said, the 4" titanium cone Tangbands I'm using can move <b>eleven(!!!)</b> times the volume of air as the comparable 3" titanium cone Tangband, so to really get the same dynamics and possible output level, you would need an array of eleven of those 3" drivers per side (wich is impossible to get to sound right nearfiel, even if it was possible to get it on the dashboard)!
> ...


Yeah, but see? There is no way to be perfect on this in a car. It's such a pain in the ass. Perhaps a 3.5" driver and a 'slightly' higher highpass, like 350 Hz with a really steep slope (48db/octave)?


----------



## Fast1one (Apr 6, 2007)

Guys guys, music is dynamic. Don't be so discouraged when you see xmax figures. My Fostex FF85k are crossed over at 325hz with NO enclosure (open baffle) at home and they get plenty loud and literally don't visibly move 90% of the time. 

In sealed pods, there is no problem crossing a 3 inch driver as low as 200hz.


----------



## subwoofery (Nov 9, 2008)

Tweeterless for me but in a different way  
Image Dynamic Horns CD1e v.3 

Dynamic is unbelievable and am getting a response flat up to about 18khz. 

One thing I know is that my next car project is gonna have horns 

Kelvin


----------



## br85 (May 2, 2008)

Candisa said:


> Arrays don't work that great in near-field situations. Array's need a minimum listening distance to 'sum'.
> You can make it better if you let one driver play 250-20k and the other one only 250-600 or something like that (trial and error testing), but in a nearfield situation as a car, I would prefer one pair of 4" full-rangers and maybe add a .75" tweeter for 8-10k and up (far above the vocal range), than using arrays of smaller drivers.


The near field thing applies the same way beaming does. Get the array shorter than any single driver you'd consider, and it's really not a problem. Arrays don't have to be LINE arrays. You can try curved arrays, which don't meet the same requirements. Two drivers instead of "heaps" can work too. I don't think anyone should actually try a bona-fide line array in a car.


----------



## Candisa (Sep 15, 2007)

The less drivers, the easier off-course, I think anyone can understand that. Staging and placement wise, 1 driver is the best and 2 drivers right against eachother or 3 drivers in a cluster is the second best option, but...

The main staging-key in most music are vocals, that's why I prefer 1 pair of 4" full-range drivers instead of an array of smaller ones, 1 pair of drivers give the best focus and staging. 
If that 1 pair of bigger full-range drivers isn't able to reproduce the top-octaves, you can still add a pair of small tweeters, crossed outside the vocal range, wich I think is a better (and easier!) solution than building an array of smaller drivers. The best solutions shouldn't always be the hardest ones...


----------



## Oliver (Jun 25, 2007)

Candisa said:


> I'm working on it, with 4" TangBand titanium drivers and according to the tests I already did, I have good hope it'll work as long as the FR-drivers are points straight to my ears.
> 
> .


and how will you deal with the known break-up of metal coned drivers ?

without a notch filter 

quote>
The typical metal cone breakup *doesn't start until around 4 kHz* and is subject to the typical metal cone breakup and resonance artifacts...
quote>


----------



## Candisa (Sep 15, 2007)

I have an AudioControl EQX, 2x13band equalizer, I hope that'll suffice


----------



## matthew (Jun 7, 2009)

I have a pair of tang band 3" drivers and a pair of 7" daytons in my front doors running off a zapco dc360.4 with the 3's playing from 125Hz up and the daytons playing 125 down. I'm in love with tweeterless. It may not be perfection, but it's the best I've had.


----------



## tspence73 (Oct 14, 2008)

matthew said:


> I have a pair of tang band 3" drivers and a pair of 7" daytons in my front doors running off a zapco dc360.4 with the 3's playing from 125Hz up and the daytons playing 125 down. I'm in love with tweeterless. It may not be perfection, but it's the best I've had.


I would think from 125Hz and up you're likely distorting your mid, even if you're using an ultra steep filter.


----------



## matthew (Jun 7, 2009)

Well I'm certainly no professional at this but I haven't heard anything of that nature. I am using a 48dB filter on the Zapco. I had it set to 100Hz to begin with but I could only get a little over 90dB out of the system before I'd hear distortion. With them at 125, I haven't noticed any. I do listen to my system a little quieter than most probably and that could play into it. With the car off I'm probably no more than 90dB and going down the road not much louder than 100dB and only for the occasional good song. The road noise may be covering the distortion at those times.

BTW, I'm pretty excited about finding this forum. I'm finding that there are others out there that share similar audio ideas to mine. My current system is way out in left field for most people.


----------



## beerdrnkr (Apr 18, 2007)

I currently have a tweeterless setup (not by choice) and I'm really impressed on how it's sounding. I have the Daytor RS 6's (cone area looks more like a 5") in kick panels and the RS 8's in the doors. The 6's aren't full range drivers so I am missing a little of the top end but overall they sound great. By the way, I am loving Dayton speakers. I have my 8's playing from 40hz - about 180hz and the 6's playing full range from 120hz up. I also have the Dayton RS100's that I'm really wanting to try out on the a-pillars as soon as I stop being a sissy about it. I could only imagine how nice a pair of actual full range drivers would sound on axis, especially on the dash.


----------



## Candisa (Sep 15, 2007)




----------



## br85 (May 2, 2008)

Candisa said:


> The less drivers, the easier off-course, I think anyone can understand that. Staging and placement wise, 1 driver is the best and 2 drivers right against eachother or 3 drivers in a cluster is the second best option, but...
> 
> The main staging-key in most music are vocals, that's why I prefer 1 pair of 4" full-range drivers instead of an array of smaller ones, 1 pair of drivers give the best focus and staging.
> If that 1 pair of bigger full-range drivers isn't able to reproduce the top-octaves, you can still add a pair of small tweeters, crossed outside the vocal range, wich I think is a better (and easier!) solution than building an array of smaller drivers. The best solutions shouldn't always be the hardest ones...


Oh I think you're right, but when you consider that, in 2 channel playback you actually have TWO 4" drivers no where near each other, doesn't seem like a tradeoff to have arrays anymore. On panned mono recordings (99% of music out there), you've already got 2 identical drivers playing the same freq. range ACROSS THE CAR from each other.

Gets you thinking, doesn't it?


----------



## Candisa (Sep 15, 2007)

Actually, it doesn't, you have a speaker to the left wich is mostly heard by the left ear and a speaker to the right wich is mostly heard by the right ear.
Now open your door and put a chair next to your car so you are listening to both speakers with the same ear... It'll sound crappy, very crappy, and you just explained why.


----------



## DS-21 (Apr 16, 2005)

johnmasters said:


> I had wondered about this before and I am intrigued. It would seem as though if this is possible, it would be almost like running 3-way active upfront without the additional hassle.
> 
> Is anyone else doing this successfully? If so, can you post your experience and what midrange speakers are making it possible?


I've run an augmented wideband (2.2-channel) setup in my car since 2004. With a driver much better (and cheaper) than anything HAT offers: the 2" Aura Whisper. And currently the CSS Trio 8 on the bottom. It has been widely discussed on this forum and others.



Candisa said:


> Now, if you know that array's are mission impossible in a car, you would need 3" drivers with a huge excursion to be able to get the same dynamics as out of a medium-excursion 4" driver, and I'm pretty sure such a high excursion would really f*ck up the highs.


Actually, the highs on the longest-throw 3" driver known to me (the Aura NS3) are quite good even when the drivers are moving visibly far more than perhaps a small driver should.


----------



## br85 (May 2, 2008)

Candisa said:


> Actually, it doesn't, you have a speaker to the left wich is mostly heard by the left ear and a speaker to the right wich is mostly heard by the right ear.


Not as much as you'd think. Do some measurements*, and then consider that the shadow effect doesn't mean much at all when we've got a highly reflective, tiny listening environment to deal with, let alone the fact that axis' are going to be skewed no matter how we install and that equalizing PLD's is a lost cause if you want CLOSE to identical Left and Right FR by the time it gets to our ears.

*measure left drivers distance to left and right ears
*measure right drivers to left and right ears.
*How much do you REALLY think is heard by the ear respective to a given channel (and this is BEFORE you take into account any side reflections)

Point: The more you think about it, the more you realize that the mono fanboys have a point with car audio. What we are trying to achieve with 2 discrete channels, I'm at a loss to figure out. It certainly isn't "natural". Sure, electronic and other panned mono stuff might work OK but it's still a stupid playback method in such a horrid environment.


> Now open your door and put a chair next to your car so you are listening to both speakers with the same ear... It'll sound crappy, very crappy, and you just explained why.


Sure thing, but I need to put a piece of glass on the side of my head that's facing away from the car for the test to make sense. In the end, my point is that there's nothing to lose from trying arrays if you have the common sense to implement them in accordance with the laws of physics.


----------



## infiniti23 (Dec 4, 2008)

br85 said:


> Not as much as you'd think. Do some measurements*, and then consider that the shadow effect doesn't mean much at all when we've got a highly reflective, tiny listening environment to deal with, let alone the fact that axis' are going to be skewed no matter how we install and that equalizing PLD's is a lost cause if you want CLOSE to identical Left and Right FR by the time it gets to our ears.
> 
> *measure left drivers distance to left and right ears
> *measure right drivers to left and right ears.
> ...



So, if I wanted to do two full range drivers in each kick panel, how would they need to be oriented?


----------



## doitor (Aug 16, 2007)

a$$hole said:


> The guy was running an L4


The L4 can actually play higher, lower and louder than the L3.
And I agree with the othe post about that you have to fire them on axis to take advantage of that.

Jorge.


----------



## johnmasters (Mar 30, 2009)

I just saw this on another thread and thought it was relatable...

Reviews of small drivers...

Zaph|Audio

(Make sure you click on the link for the Fountek FR88 driver!)


----------



## tr0y_audi0 (Feb 13, 2007)

*the L4 will play 100Hz to 17kHz*

>L4<


----------



## goodstuff (Jan 9, 2008)

awgray said:


> I want to clarify this a bit...By disconnecting the tweeter from a 2-way, 3-way whatever passive crossover you haven't changed the response of the remaining drivers you're just letting the midrange filter out as the crossover intended with no driver to continue to pick up the higher frequencies. The crossover point changes when you replace one driver with another because the driver's filtered response is different.


Your changing the impedance of the crossover when you don't use all the drivers that were intended to be used in that circuit...I think. Someone else with crossover knowledge?


----------



## tr0y_audi0 (Feb 13, 2007)

goodstuff said:


> Your changing the impedance of the crossover when you don't use all the drivers that were intended to be used in that circuit...I think. Someone else with crossover knowledge?


The HAT gear is ment to run Active, But you can get a Pasive Xover is needed..


----------



## Candisa (Sep 15, 2007)

goodstuff said:


> Your changing the impedance of the crossover when you don't use all the drivers that were intended to be used in that circuit...I think. Someone else with crossover knowledge?


Nothing changes to the rest of the drivers if you disconnect 1 driver from a passive crossovernetwork. 
If the mid is cut-off at 4.5kHz with a tweeter connected, it won't play up to 20kHz without the tweeter connected, it will still be cut off at 4.5kHz.
Only if you replace 1 driver with another one with a different impedance, the crossoverpoint(s) for that driver will change, but then still all the other drivers won't work differently.

If you have a 3-ways crossover network and you want to use it as a 2-ways crossovernetwork, you'll have to modify it so the low-pass part of the mid-output is out of the circuit, without removing the high-pass part.
In most crossovernetworks that means soldering a bridge over a coil and scratching trough a print-line or removing a capacitor.


----------



## br85 (May 2, 2008)

infiniti23 said:


> So, if I wanted to do two full range drivers in each kick panel, how would they need to be oriented?


All drivers should point straight at your head. This is commonly called "toe in", but really, it's about as axis as we need 2 channel setups to be to have a fighting chance.


----------



## tspence73 (Oct 14, 2008)

a$$hole said:


> and how will you deal with the known break-up of metal coned drivers ?
> 
> without a notch filter
> 
> ...


Easy. Use Infinity's CMMD driver instead. I believe it raises the breakup frequency of the metal above 4KHz to around 12KHz.


----------



## Scott Buwalda (Apr 7, 2006)

DS-21 said:


> I've run an augmented wideband (2.2-channel) setup in my car since 2004. With a driver much better (and cheaper) than anything HAT offers: the 2" Aura Whisper.


2" Aura Whisper better than an L4? Seriously???

The Aura plays from 250 Hz to 15 KHz
The L4 from 110 Hz to 17 KHz

The Aura has a titanium dome with significant cone break-up modes
The L4 is paper with no noticeable cone break-up

The Aura has a foam surround which deteriorates rapidly in sun and humidity
The L4 has a high-loss Santoprene surround

The Aura has an Fs of 250 Hz
The L4 has an Fs of 90 Hz

The Aura has a thermal (no crossover) power handling of 15 watts
The L4 has a thermal (no crossover) power handling of 30 watts

The Aura has a peak Xmax of 3mm peak to peak
The L4 has a peak Xmax of 6mm peak to peak

The Aura has a nominal impedance of 8 ohms
The L4 has a nominal impedance of 4 ohms

The Aura has a sensitivity of 84 dB
The L4 has a sensitivity of 89 dB

The Aura does not have Faraday rings
The L4 does have Faraday rings

The Aura has cheap solder pad connections
The L4 has solid slide terminals with PCB mounting tab

The Aura is a stamped basket driver, prone to basket and edge mode resonance
The L4 is a heavy cast basket not susceptible to resonance

The Aura has no spider or pole piece venting
The L4 is an extended phase plug driver with pole piece venting

The Aura cannot play the entire human vocal frequency range, therefore this is not a point-source driver
The L4 plays the entire human vocal spectrum (160 Hz to 6,500 Hz, plus or minus), and is therefore a true point source driver

The L4 has a warranty. Has pre- and post-purchase support. Has dealers for advice and warranty assistance. The L4 has a failure rate of 0.3%.

All I can hear through your Whispers is an axe grinding. If you changed to a pair of L4's, your axe grinding would sound significantly better, your axe would play through one set of speakers verses having to crossover between a midbass and the midrange, and would be near phase-coherant because of the point source midrange tones. Your axe would also play louder, play lower, play higher, have better thermal capability for when you really hit the throttle, and you'd be able to hear your axe grinding for considerably longer in a car environment.

Scott


----------



## goodstuff (Jan 9, 2008)

Scott Buwalda said:


> 2" Aura Whisper better than an L4? Seriously???
> 
> The Aura plays from 250 Hz to 15 KHz
> The L4 from 110 Hz to 17 KHz
> ...




:lurk:


----------



## tr0y_audi0 (Feb 13, 2007)

I was just about to send you to this thread..

A-B fokes.. HAT L4 *>* 2" Aura


----------



## dubbreak (May 9, 2008)

Candisa said:


> Nothing changes to the rest of the drivers if you disconnect 1 driver from a passive crossovernetwork.
> If the mid is cut-off at 4.5kHz with a tweeter connected, it won't play up to 20kHz without the tweeter connected, it will still be cut off at 4.5kHz.
> Only if you replace 1 driver with another one with a different impedance, the crossoverpoint(s) for that driver will change, but then still all the other drivers won't work differently.
> 
> ...


If it's a parallel crossover, sure. The parallel legs have very little interaction with each other (otherwise passive biamping wouldn't be possible). Of course switch what driver you are using with the one leg (e.g. different woofer on the lowpass) then the x-over point and overall acoustic slope is not going to be the same. Pulling out a driver (e.g. tweeter) won't affect the mid or woofer (again, if it is a parallel passive x-over), but you must disconnect that section of the xover from the amp if it has any components that short from lead to ground or you will have amp issues (e.g. a inductor running from lead to ground).

Series x-overs are a whole other deal though. Even as the drivers are playing the x-over point can shift. A series x-over is meant to work as a single unit and you can't just use parts of it.


----------



## br85 (May 2, 2008)

Scott Buwalda said:


> The Aura has a peak Xmax of 3mm peak to peak
> The L4 has a peak Xmax of 6mm peak to peak


Wrong. The aura has 6mm peak to peak too.


> The Aura has a nominal impedance of 8 ohms
> The L4 has a nominal impedance of 4 ohms


No big deal, 8 ohm drivers are sometimes preferred anyway. 4 ohms >! 8 ohms


> All I can hear through your Whispers is an axe grinding. If you changed to a pair of L4's, your axe grinding would sound significantly better, your axe would play through one set of speakers verses having to crossover between a midbass and the midrange, and would be near phase-coherant because of the point source midrange tones. Your axe would also play louder, play lower, play higher, have better thermal capability for when you really hit the throttle, and you'd be able to hear your axe grinding for considerably longer in a car environment.
> Scott


Listen, we get it. A very expensive 4" driver outperforms a very affordable 2" driver in many ways. Still beams MUCH earlier, and due to it's paper cone exhibits many 2nd order harmonic distortion artifacts that the titanium cone of the aura does not. Sure 2nd order HD may sound "better" than high order distortion due to break-up, but it's still distortion, and still should be unwanted.

I'd love to hear A big orchestral piece with stupid amounts of dynamic headroom played at concert levels through a pair of L4's crossed at 110hz. 

Having said that, I wouldn't want to hear the aura's do that crossed at 250hz either, but at least if you spend the same money on aura's you can build some line arrays that will surely thwop the L4's in dynamic capabilty.


----------



## DS-21 (Apr 16, 2005)

Sigh. Somebody's going to regret starting this stupid little fight. And it's _not_ going to be the person who isn't selling anything...



Scott Buwalda said:


> 2" Aura Whisper better than an L4? Seriously???


It has considerably better motor, yes. _Considerably_ better. In addition to being underhung, it makes good use of Faraday shielding. And despite that it costs under $20 a pop in quantities of one. Drivers like this pesky little thing must make it suck to be in the speaker business!

Also, it has the decided advantage of fitting in the upper door panels of a Miata, whereas the L4, like all other >2" drivers, does not. So for my particular application, the Whisper is infinitely superior. The humble little Whisper, for this particular application, is even superior to a 12" Tannoy Dual Concentric driver! Or a Quad ESL-63 panel! Alas, that kind of sharp and incisive reasoning seems quite beyond you.

Of course, if a bigger driver fit I would still use a better driver than your over-priced, second-rate gear. Possibly the Vifa TG9 or Peerless's 3" wideband, but most likely the 3" Uni-Q out of KEF's HTS1005 set. _Maybe_ Thiel's coax, now not the glorified wideband+whizzer driver out of the CS2.4 that Genesis sells for car-fi, but the true coax one out of their higher-end speakers. Kathy quoted me about $450 each for the old CS6-series coax drivers, if memory serves. Over six years ago! So probably the KEF Uni-Q is the current sharp knee of the price-performance curve for small drivers, between its well-designed waveguide terminus for the tweeter and the well-ventilated (and adorable) little polymer basket that makes the thing look for all the world like a scale-model TC Sounds TC2000 subwoofer. Worst case, they are currently available for under $150/pr, including an excellent passive crossover between the coincident tweeter and midwoofer (which will work just fine in a car, as the spatial relationships between the drivers is established; the KEF crossover does not have baffle-step compensation or anything else built in) and a small Class-D amplifier and iPod dock one could use somewhere else (with any speakers) or discard.



Scott Buwalda said:


> The Aura has a titanium dome with significant cone break-up modes
> The L4 is paper with no noticeable cone break-up


We can agree that a "signifcant cone breakup mode" will show up as a ripple in the the impedance curve at a given frequency, right? As well as manifest itself at the same frequency in a sharp spike in the frequency response. Well, here is a credible third party (John Krutke) measurement of the Whisper's impedance and frequency response.








*SHOW ME JUST ONE OF THE ALLEGED "SIGNIFICANT BREAKUP MODES!"*

And how about you post credible measurements of your drivers, instead of relying on idiot mysticism to peddle them?



Scott Buwalda said:


> The Aura has a foam surround which deteriorates rapidly in sun and humidity
> The L4 has a high-loss Santoprene surround


_Oh, and paper doesn't bio-degrade?_

Seriously, the things silly marketers want people to believe!
(If your retort is, as it should be "we coat it," the obvious rejoinder to that is _foam can be coated, too!_)

But leaving aside the light-year wide gap in your logic, let's talk real-world results. It depends on what you mean by "rapid," perhaps. I think we can agree that the harshest possible environment for a surround is an open-top car in a place with temperature extremes and lots of humidity, right? Someplace like the SE USA, perhaps? Well, mine have lasted since 2004. In a Miata. In Atlanta, Athens, GA, and Washington, D.C. I'm half-tempted to go out and take pictures of them just to visually show you how idiotic your comments are. And if they only last till, say, 2014, who really cares? That's a decade of reliable service for less than a decent lunch costs!
(As an aside, I did briefly try KEF 2" widebanders with paper cones and "high loss Santoprene" surrounds. The adhesive failed. Of course, I could've reglued them with a different adhesive and likely had no problem, but with the Whispers being so good it wasn't worth the bother.)



Scott Buwalda said:


> The Aura has an Fs of 250 Hz
> The L4 has an Fs of 90 Hz


So what? The Aura driver directly comparable, the NS4, has an Fs of ~70Hz. Assuming your point is that lower Fs is better, Aura wins here.



Scott Buwalda said:


> The Aura has a thermal (no crossover) power handling of 15 watts
> The L4 has a thermal (no crossover) power handling of 30 watts


I trust Aura's ratings more than yours, frankly. How big is your vc diameter? The Aura's is ~1.5".



Scott Buwalda said:


> The Aura has a peak Xmax of 3mm peak to peak
> The L4 has a peak Xmax of 6mm peak to peak


You have already shown yourself incapable of reading a simple spec-sheet here. Moreover, my hunch is (and correct me if I'm wrong) that your driver is overhung, with no BL linearization technology (DDD, XBL^2, LMS/LMT, etc.) used. So the 6mm p-p linear excursion of the underhung Whisper is probably quite a bit more linear than what you're getting out of your motor!

It's worth noting that the tiny little 2" driver has a rated Xdam of 12mm p-p. That's pretty damn impressive for a sub-$20 2" driver, wouldn't you say?



Scott Buwalda said:


> The Aura has a nominal impedance of 8 ohms
> The L4 has a nominal impedance of 4 ohms


If you care about that one bit, you're frankly not very sophisticated.



Scott Buwalda said:


> The Aura has a sensitivity of 84 dB
> The L4 has a sensitivity of 89 dB


A 4" driver is more efficient than a 2" widebander. The sky is falling! (Of course, one wouldn't use a 2" driver when a slightly larger one would fit just as well. But fitting in places where bigger drivers can't fit is the raison d'etre for baby widebanders!)



Scott Buwalda said:


> The Aura does not have Faraday rings
> The L4 does have Faraday rings


Incorrect. All Aura NRT drivers that I have seen use Faraday shielding. The cutaway of the Whisper, shown with a proprietary trade name "Bambina" here, clearly shows a Faraday ring under the neo-radial magnet array. It does not have a cap on the pole-piece, that is true. Peerless's similarly-priced neo-magnet 2" widebander, which is also better than anything you sell in terms of design, does have a copper cap on the polepiece. It is at least 6 years newer a design than the Aura. Probably more like 10 years newer.



Scott Buwalda said:


> The Aura has cheap solder pad connections
> The L4 has solid slide terminals with PCB mounting tab


Actually, the current-production Whisper has normal tabs. I'll grant you that the solder pads on my older ones were annoying.



Scott Buwalda said:


> The Aura is a stamped basket driver, prone to basket and edge mode resonance
> The L4 is a heavy cast basket not susceptible to resonance


Incorrect. The Whisper's "basket" is in fact plastic. Yes, the pot around the radial neo magnet array - which, in the brilliantly elegant simplicity of the NRT motor, is also the polepeiece! - is metal. But resonance does not seem to be an issue considering that it's a pair of fairly thick concentric tubes joined at the bottom. See, again, here.

It's worth looking at that again. The cutaway of the Whisper and NS3 in that propaganda-sheet display the brilliance of the Aura NRT motor in a way I've never seen before. Just look how elegant! The magnetic gap is defined by the height of the radially-arrayed neo slugs themselves, eliminating the need for a top plate entirely. And the magnet pot doubles as the polepiece. It's really an astounding little feat of engineering, yielding an extremely linear, extremely high performance underhung motor at what must be considerably less cost than an overhung motor. No wonder they can sell 'em so cheaply.



Scott Buwalda said:


> The Aura has no spider or pole piece venting
> The L4 is an extended phase plug driver with pole piece venting


Are you stupid? The _entire area under the Whisper's dome and surround_ is one big vent. In fact, one needs to stuff it with absorbent material to fix the frequency response around 2kHz! As for no spider, that is true. However, it does have a double-roll surround. 

Again, I refer you here.



Scott Buwalda said:


> The Aura cannot play the entire human vocal frequency range, therefore this is not a point-source driver
> The L4 plays the entire human vocal spectrum (160 Hz to 6,500 Hz, plus or minus), and is therefore a true point source driver


Anyone with a rudimentary understanding of acoustics knows that the modal region in a typical closed car starts at about 300Hz. So anything in that range is controlled primarily by the "room," not the driver. So in a typical closed car - not, I'll grant you, an open car such as my Miata - that extra octave of extension is entirely meaningless.



Scott Buwalda said:


> The L4 has a warranty. Has pre- and post-purchase support. Has dealers for advice and warranty assistance. The L4 has a failure rate of 0.3%.


I've never heard of a failed Whisper. And at under $20 a pop, who cares about a warranty.

As for dealers, most car-fi dealers are considerably less knowledgeable than the below-average reader of this forum. They typically don't provide any real value-added, such as quality measurements or crossover modeling. So I'd rather order from Madisound/PE/Meniscus/Solen than pay a premium to someone who knows demonstrably less about serious audio than I do.



Scott Buwalda said:


> All I can hear through your Whispers is an axe grinding. If you changed to a pair of L4's, your axe grinding would sound significantly better


And if I changed to a 4" driver better than your L4, such as perhaps a Vifa 10BGS or one of the new Peerless ones, or KEF's 4" Uni-Q, I would hear even more improvement. So what, exactly, is your point? Besides that your overpriced, overhyped stuff would not make the list of a rational, informed music lover?

What part of "they don't fit" so painfully eludes you? Obviously, a slightly bigger driver would be better. But _they don't fit._ Even the old JBL GTO220 2.5" coax _doesn't fit._


----------



## dkm201 (Nov 29, 2007)

In before trophies


----------



## chad (Jun 30, 2005)

dkm201 said:


> In before trophies


Thank got it was only an eMac I spit coffee on this time........


----------



## tspence73 (Oct 14, 2008)

DS-21,

In regards to breakup. Metal-based cones have been known to have breakup issues according to many manufacturers, which is why you see crossovers designed to work around that breakup in midranges. 

I can understand how those speakers could be useful in near-field applications in quiet rooms for PC speakers and such, but in a car where 85db-90db noise is common, that speaker is very inefficient. I can't speak to it's sound quality but in a car it's not likely to be an effective option for most people's tastes.


----------



## chad (Jun 30, 2005)

You have drool on your shirt spence, forget your bib again?


----------



## tspence73 (Oct 14, 2008)

chad said:


> You have drool on your shirt spence, forget your bib again?


Where were my statements incorrect? I just have my doubts a 2" driver is going to be loud enough in a car environment to satisfy the average car audio lover.


----------



## chad (Jun 30, 2005)

You need to use it with a mid-bass, think of it as a tweet that plays much lower......


----------



## Genxx (Mar 18, 2007)

The Aura has its market and it does a great job at its price point. I am not saying it is not a very good little widebander. It works for the challenging locations but it is not as good as an L4.

If you have not heard or played with the L4 it really is a very impressive driver. I prefer it over the 12M.

It may not work in DS-21 A-Pillar in a Miata but not much will. You could get creative with pods though.

I was skeptical like many other's about the HAT speakers so instead of just making statements before hearing them I bought a set. I had a plan then started playing with some Hertz stuff and they sat in the closet for over a year. Then I decided to give them a try and I will say that I have been grinning ear to ear ever since. Should have installed them much sooner.

You can say what you like about HAT but I have been very impressed with them. 

As many like to say look it does not have this or that but they work and work very well. I cannot scientifically tell you why but its like other speakers that we the DIY folks have been shocked by after listening to them.

The L4 IMO is truly a gem if you ever get to try one out. Mine are never coming out of my vehicle.

Also we keep comparing cost. Aura, Peerless ect. are also OEM companies and have the benefit of being able to mass produce stuff for other markets which in-turn allows for a much lower price point. They are great companies but HAT is also a great much smaller company. 

Don't let a few people around here let you make a personal judgment about Scott B. If you have never meet him you are truly missing out. All around great guy with a ton of knowledge.

Not sure why people get all bent out of shape about Scott defending his company. Should he not be passionate about his own company?


----------



## tspence73 (Oct 14, 2008)

chad said:


> You need to use it with a mid-bass, think of it as a tweet that plays much lower......


Ah. What's the HP frequency? Still seems like a rather low output to use in a car, tweet or otherwise but whatever make him happy.


----------



## michaelsil1 (May 24, 2007)

Genxx said:


> Not sure why people get all bent out of shape about Scott defending his company. Should he not be passionate about his own company?


His speakers are doing very well in IASCA.


----------



## tspence73 (Oct 14, 2008)

> If you have not heard or played with the L4 it really is a very impressive driver. I prefer it over the 12M.


That's a stretch. The 12M is used in really high-end home theater and car audio setups. Sometimes speakers that don't measure the best can sound really good. The 12M is one of those types of speakers it would seem. I haven't gotten a chance to hear it for myself yet, but many designers seem to hear something about it they like a lot. The L4 isn't being sourced AFAIK for other applications.


----------



## chad (Jun 30, 2005)

michaelsil1 said:


> His speakers are doing very well in IASCA.





dkm201 said:


> In before trophies


YES!!!!!


----------



## el_chupo_ (May 27, 2007)

tspence73 said:


> That's a stretch. The 12M is used in really high-end home theater and car audio setups. Sometimes speakers that don't measure the best can sound really good. The 12M is one of those types of speakers it would seem. I haven't gotten a chance to hear it for myself yet, but many designers seem to hear something about it they like a lot. The L4 isn't being sourced AFAIK for other applications.


1. He said he preferred it over the 12m. Not that it was better in all aspects. That makes it opinion, not fact, and not a stretch.

2. You have never heard either driver. You are basing your ideas that the 12m is a better driver simply because it is sourced for other speakers. Not the best way to pick drivers, but again, as you have stated before: its not about the sound or how much you like it, its about how it measures...


----------



## Genxx (Mar 18, 2007)

tspence-Once again proving to be a complete idiot. Reading comprehension and you.

Did you eat lead paint chips when you were a kid or something?
Have you been checked for retardation?

You have been on here for a while yet you still refuse to learn anything. You make statements based on nothing more than assumptions or I heard someone else say it.

You can list all the companies that use the 12M and then we can list all the car's that have won in comps that use the L4 or HAT. Its the same difference you have never heard either of them.


----------



## tspence73 (Oct 14, 2008)

Genxx said:


> tspence-Once again proving to be a complete idiot. Reading comprehension and you.
> 
> Did you eat lead paint chips when you were a kid or something?
> Have you been checked for retardation?
> ...


Defensive are we? Chill out man. I wasn't making any opinion or definitive statement. I was simply saying that companies sourcing drivers for a VERY expensive speaker likely selected that driver for a very good reason. No need to attack someone over that thinking.


----------



## michaelsil1 (May 24, 2007)

tspence73 said:


> Defensive are we? Chill out man. I wasn't making any opinion or definitive statement. I was simply saying that companies sourcing drivers for a VERY expensive speaker likely selected that driver for a very good reason. No need to attack someone over that thinking.


Yes the Scan-Speak Driver's are used in High End Home Systems; in a Car it's hard to say which Driver will work better.


*Car's are not Audiophile friendly*.


----------



## BigRed (Aug 12, 2007)

What I've learned so far........a 4 inch driver won't fit into a 2 inch hole.....very informative


----------



## michaelsil1 (May 24, 2007)

BigRed said:


> What I've learned so far........a 4 inch driver won't fit into a 2 inch hole.....very informative


It will with a *Hammer!* :smash:


----------



## Arc (Aug 25, 2006)

Genxx said:


> If you have not heard or played with the L4 it really is a very impressive driver. I *prefer* it over the 12M.





tspence73 said:


> That's a stretch. The 12M is used in really high-end home theater and car audio setups. Sometimes speakers that don't measure the best can sound really good. The 12M is one of those types of speakers it would seem. I haven't gotten a chance to hear it for myself yet, but many designers seem to hear something about it they like a lot. *The L4 isn't being sourced AFAIK for other applications*.



You see that big big word up there? That means he has heard/used both and PREFERS one over the other. 
Yes I know that the 12m is used in various high end systems, but that has nothing to do with car audio and neither does your statement.
I haven't heard either...so no comments for me on either's sound.


----------



## ErinH (Feb 14, 2007)

tspence73 said:


> I was simply saying that companies sourcing drivers for a VERY expensive speaker likely selected that driver for a very good reason. No need to attack someone over that thinking.


Fyi, some companies are charging $20,000 for these $36 mids in their towers. 
Swans Speaker Systems - Speaker Systems

Kinda blows your whole theory apart, doesn’t it?

And, in a direct listening test of the two pictured below (one featuring a 7” scan rev midbass and dome tweeter; the other featuring the $36 hi-vi mid and $12 hi-vi tweeter), I couldn’t tell much of a difference at all. In fact, the only area that I really noticed the difference was in the low end, which as you might guess would go in favor of the Scan setup due to its 7” driver. 
The hivi setup exhibited a problem in the 2khz range, iirc, but nothing that couldn’t be corrected by moving them off a hardwood floor. 




And let’s see… the hi-vi bookshelves were roughly 1/5th the cost of the scan bookshelves. Maybe better audiophile ears could notice the difference, but I can’t.

*This post IN NO WAY is arguing ANYTHING about the L4. Just making a point that cheaper drivers can and do perform very well, contrary to price point implementations*

/says the guy with an all scan front stage.


----------



## tspence73 (Oct 14, 2008)

michaelsil1 said:


> It will with a *Hammer!* :smash:


x2


----------



## johnmasters (Mar 30, 2009)

BigRed said:


> What I've learned so far........a 4 inch driver won't fit into a 2 inch hole.....very informative


I wasn't totally sure about that when I started this thread :laugh:


Their certainly is some very good information in this thread so far but I didn't mean to start several fights.


----------



## 94VG30DE (Nov 28, 2007)

I love this place. Best lunch reading ever. 

I can't fault Scott for defending his product, but DS-21 expressed my concern for the situation:


> Sigh. Somebody's going to regret starting this stupid little fight. And it's not going to be the person who isn't selling anything...


It's really tough to come out on top as a company rep. when you are arguing with a consumer. The dynamic just sucks for the company before anyone steps into the ring. 

Luckily 'spence strolled in and made everyone look like geniuses.


----------



## chad (Jun 30, 2005)

michaelsil1 said:


> It will with a *Hammer!* :smash:


Saws-all


----------



## tspence73 (Oct 14, 2008)

johnmasters said:


> I wasn't totally sure about that when I started this thread :laugh:
> 
> 
> Their certainly is some very good information in this thread so far but I didn't mean to start several fights.


When audio discussions go into preferences, fights usually happen. These guys have seen this all before.


----------



## chad (Jun 30, 2005)

94VG30DE said:


> Luckily 'spence strolled in and made everyone look like geniuses.


----------



## ErinH (Feb 14, 2007)

^ /thread


----------



## michaelsil1 (May 24, 2007)

chad said:


> Saws-all















Now we're talking!


----------



## dawgdan (Aug 10, 2006)

Merry Christmas!

****ter was full!


----------



## chad (Jun 30, 2005)

michaelsil1 said:


> Now we're talking!



They even work fer tree-trimmin!

Deck the halls!


----------



## tspence73 (Oct 14, 2008)

lawl. I love this thread now. :laugh:


----------



## goodstuff (Jan 9, 2008)

michaelsil1 said:


> Now we're talking!


WTF are they using a sawsall to take out the windshield? Do they not own hammers? It must have been the womans idea.


----------



## johnmasters (Mar 30, 2009)

Shes cutting a hole for her L4!


----------



## johnmasters (Mar 30, 2009)

Or, her Aura Whisper.

I dont want to offend anyone


----------



## MiniVanMan (Jun 28, 2005)

It's a shame that this guy doesn't have any IASCA trophies on his shelf. Probably because he uses Aura Whispers in one of his designs. He must be retarded.

Pluto introduction


----------



## michaelsil1 (May 24, 2007)

goodstuff said:


> WTF are they using a sawsall to take out the windshield? Do they not own hammers? It must have been the womans idea.


What she is actually doing is increasing the depth of the Sound Stage.


----------



## tspence73 (Oct 14, 2008)

No way. They're cutting for Infinity Reference I bet.


----------



## tspence73 (Oct 14, 2008)

I've heard all kinds of gimmicky speaker designs at AES before. I've not really been impressed by much of it.


----------



## michaelsil1 (May 24, 2007)

tspence73 said:


> I've heard all kinds of gimmicky speaker designs at AES before. I've not really been impressed by much of it.












Looks interesting.


----------



## michaelsil1 (May 24, 2007)

So those of you that have gone Tweeter less did you notice a loss of depth?


----------



## michaelsil1 (May 24, 2007)

Autiophile said:


> But infinity blew your socks off.
> 
> Gotcha.
> 
> And by "at AES" which convention are you referring to, or are you simply full of **** again?


I thought it was CES?


----------



## imjustjason (Jun 26, 2006)

Autiophile said:


> But infinity blew your socks off.
> 
> Gotcha.
> 
> And by "at AES" which convention are you referring to, or are you simply full of **** again?


Asshat Electronics Show


----------



## dawgdan (Aug 10, 2006)

imjustjason said:


> Asshat Electronics Show


Hehe. I chuckled.


----------



## MiniVanMan (Jun 28, 2005)

tspence73 said:


> I've heard all kinds of gimmicky speaker designs at AES before. I've not really been impressed by much of it.


You heard it here folks. Sigfried Linkwitz is "gimmicky". 

I now have a headache thanks to you because I was forced to hit myself in the head with a large rock to stop the seizures, and convulsions induced by the most ridiculous statement you've ever made.

I'm sure Scott Buwalda, and Scan Speak are peeing themselves in excitement that you're on their team.

Let's see if I can make some comparisons to relay how ridiculous.

Ghandi = Warlike
Ghengis Khan = Hippy
Mother Theresa = Muslim
Chad = Handsome
David Carradine = Alive
Jenna Jameson = Virgin
France = Never Surrender
Siberia = Tropical
Hippies = Cannibalistic
Politicians = Honest
Obama = White (wait, he kinda is)


----------



## tspence73 (Oct 14, 2008)

Autiophile said:


> But infinity blew your socks off.
> 
> Gotcha.
> 
> And by "at AES" which convention are you referring to, or are you simply full of **** again?


There were a series of conventions that I attended from 1996-1999 that had AES going at the same time as CES. I just stopped going after it just seemed like an audio gimmick-fest. Weird speaker designs and loopy ideas. Not full of **** in the least.


----------



## tspence73 (Oct 14, 2008)

michaelsil1 said:


> Looks interesting.


Looks like a speaker box that belongs on the movie Hellraiser.


----------



## dawgdan (Aug 10, 2006)

tspence73 said:


> There were a series of conventions that I attended from 1996-1999 that had AES going at the same time as CES. I just stopped going after it just seemed like an audio gimmick-fest. Weird speaker designs and loopy ideas. Not full of **** in the least.


Good job playing it off.


----------



## ArcL100 (Jun 17, 2005)




----------



## Fast1one (Apr 6, 2007)

MiniVanMan said:


> You heard it here folks. Sigfried Linkwitz is "gimmicky".
> 
> I now have a headache thanks to you because I was forced to hit myself in the head with a large rock to stop the seizures, and convulsions induced by the most ridiculous statement you've ever made.
> 
> ...


I think I just peed in my pants a little, dear god that was hilarious...


----------



## 89grand (Nov 23, 2006)

dawgdan said:


> Good job playing it off.


Yeah, I was wondering how he was going to get out of that one. He did a decent job, even though no one believes the BS.


----------



## tspence73 (Oct 14, 2008)

dawgdan said:


> Good job playing it off.


I was done going there when I saw a glowing (blacklight) fluid surrounding a power cable and speaker cables. It was snake oil supreme. No thanks. There was a lot of crap at those conventions. Seriously.


----------



## tspence73 (Oct 14, 2008)

ArcL100 said:


>


I'm hungry too. Tacos sound good. :surprised:


----------



## ArcL100 (Jun 17, 2005)

In before cat, 'er, too late.


----------



## MiniVanMan (Jun 28, 2005)

tspence73 said:


> I was done going there when I saw a glowing (blacklight) fluid surrounding a power cable and speaker cables. It was snake oil supreme. No thanks. There was a lot of crap at those conventions. Seriously.


We know there's a lot of crap being peddled out there. However, at no point does ANYBODY here think you have any capacity to determine what is crap and what isn't. Especially now that the Pluto has been called "gimmicky".

If it glows with bright shiny lights, then that's a good start in deducing something may be crap. However, you have failed time and time again to give us anything substantial beyond that.

****!! My eyes still want to roll into the back of my head.


----------



## michaelsil1 (May 24, 2007)

Autiophile said:


> So those were the AES conventions held in Los Angeles, New York, Amsterdam, San Francisco, Munich and Copenhagen?
> 
> Not exactly Las Vegas where CES is held.
> 
> ...


----------



## tspence73 (Oct 14, 2008)

Autiophile said:


> So those were the AES conventions held in Los Angeles, New York, Amsterdam, San Francisco, Munich and Copenhagen?
> 
> Not exactly Las Vegas where CES is held.
> 
> ...


I'm serious. I went each year. Two of the years I went with another person. The first year I went with my brother, and a couple years after that I went with a friend. Each time they were unimpressive geeky projects like you would see at a science fair and then a few high-end snake oil companies handing out advertising pamphlets. To get to the AES part, you had to take a bus off the main convention area to an old hotel.


----------



## capnxtreme (Feb 5, 2008)

Spence is obviously talking about AES Las Vegas.

Although this part:


tspence73 said:


> a friend


Makes me suspicious.


----------



## tspence73 (Oct 14, 2008)

Autiophile said:


> Oh, you're serious? That must settle it.
> 
> I listed the dates and locations for AES conventions from 1996-1999, the 100th through the 107th conventions.
> 
> ...


I'm telling you it was AES, and if I kept the old materials from that day (each year), I'd drag them out and scan them for you. I wish I would have kept that crap. If you had a CES pass, you got to go check out the AES part if you got on the shuttle there. I'm not telling any stories. I don't make things up.


----------



## dawgdan (Aug 10, 2006)

Magic wormhole shuttle bus to Finland FTW!


----------



## MiniVanMan (Jun 28, 2005)

tspence73 said:


> Each time they were unimpressive geeky projects like you would see at a science fair


So says you. You have proven time and time again that you have such limited capacity to understand even fundamental concepts in audio that now you're going to tell us that you comprehended everything going on at an AES convention to the level that you were unimpressed because it was geeky and science fair quality. 

Spence, for somebody that has stood up for you for a long time, I'm getting ready to swing the ban hammer based on general principle alone. 

You have no idea where you were going. An AES event has NEVER been held in conjunction with a CES event. An AES event has never been in the same ****ing city as a CES event, and that being Las Vegas. 

I'm really getting to be done with you Spence.


----------



## 86mr2 (Apr 29, 2005)

I was going to reply over the implication SL's speakers were gimmicky. Then MVM covered it all. Now, I am just post-whoring.

tspence, you should really spend about a year studying Siegfried's site, and the various other sites it leads you to. It is tough slogging at time but it does really provide an excellent education in the application of the scientific method to speaker design. Not everyone loves Siegfried's design goals, but his contributions to the DIY hobby are well respected.


----------



## Genxx (Mar 18, 2007)

tspence=Full of **** but what else is new. Every once in a while he does copy and paste something that makes sense though.

Here is your sign=:icon_bs:

Tspence in school with the other kids=:bash: :kaboom:--You must have gotten smacked around a lot in school

This is what Tspences co-workers want to do to him at work=:rifle:

After being around Tspence all day=:bomb:


----------



## johnmasters (Mar 30, 2009)

I guess that I have not been around long enough to know if all of this is good natured ribbing or not but if its not I must say that Tspence certainly is taking it in stride.


----------



## michaelsil1 (May 24, 2007)

johnmasters said:


> I guess that I have not been around long enough to know if all of this is good natured ribbing or not but if its not I must say that *Tspence certainly is taking it in stride*.


He should be use to it by now.


----------



## michaelsil1 (May 24, 2007)

Haven't you ever had a day when it didn't matter what you said or did things just kept going down hill?


----------



## Genxx (Mar 18, 2007)

michaelsil1 said:


> Haven't you ever had a day when it didn't matter what you said or did things just kept going down hill?



The story of Tspences life.:laugh:


----------



## 89grand (Nov 23, 2006)

Tspence = J.R. Ewing of DIYMA!


----------



## DS-21 (Apr 16, 2005)

Genxx said:


> Also we keep comparing cost. Aura, Peerless ect. are also OEM companies and have the benefit of being able to mass produce stuff for other markets which in-turn allows for a much lower price point.


This is quite true. For the audio hobbyist, the factors behind price are, by and large, also quite irrelevant. The end result is what matters.



Genxx said:


> Don't let a few people around here let you make a personal judgment about Scott B.


Agreed. If one judges SB on his thread, it should be by his airheaded-at-best post, not what others said.



Genxx said:


> Not sure why people get all bent out of shape about Scott defending his company. Should he not be passionate about his own company?


There's a great world of difference between "passionate" and simply "wrong on fact." Here, SB, unprompted, jumped squarely into the latter category. Note that on literally _every single point_ in his previous post Buwalda demonstrated a truly Dick Cheney-like regard for facts. It's frankly a little unbecoming of him.



michaelsil1 said:


> So those of you that have gone Tweeter less did you notice a loss of depth?


No, but with the engine off a slight loss of "airyness." With the engine on and moving, I don't think there's much point to trying to reproduce the tippy-top octave anyway.


----------



## imjustjason (Jun 26, 2006)

tspence73 said:


> I'm serious. I went each year. Two of the years I went with another person. The first year I went with *my brother*, and a couple years after that I went with a friend. Each time they were unimpressive geeky projects like you would see at a science fair and then a few high-end snake oil companies handing out advertising pamphlets. To get to the AES part, you had to take a bus off the main convention area to an old hotel.


OH DEAR GOD!!!! IS IT POSSIBLE THERE ARE TWO!!!!


----------



## tspence73 (Oct 14, 2008)

imjustjason said:


> OH DEAR GOD!!!! IS IT POSSIBLE THERE ARE TWO!!!!


FOOL!!!!









I DONE TOLD YOU THERE IS ONLY ONE TSPENCE!


----------



## michaelsil1 (May 24, 2007)

tspence73 said:


> FOOL!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


:bowdown:


----------



## tr0y_audi0 (Feb 13, 2007)

can you guys chill?
this thread now a trash can of anger
what was the topic? oh yeah 
Tweeterless! Who has gone tweeterless and liked it?


----------



## michaelsil1 (May 24, 2007)

I'm old and I don't think I can live without what others would consider excessive highs.


So I don't think I'll give them up.



Now you really have something to be angry about.


----------



## chad (Jun 30, 2005)

I've pretty much decided that my next home speakers will likely be a Dayton 10HF or 12HF and these a3N's I've been harboring here for almost 2 years out of fear I'd screw one up.

Them lil ****s sound good... to me... nice top end.


----------



## chad (Jun 30, 2005)

michaelsil1 said:


> I'm old and I don't think I can live without what others would consider excessive highs.
> 
> 
> So I don't think I'll give them up.
> ...


I went on a kick 2 years ago on 3 inch full range drivers for my ham rig, intelligibility was one key. I now rock a set of 3" TB's in a sealed enclosure for that but the a3N's can do VERY well with a MILD shelving EQ to compensate indoors... if you don't need zing they will do fine as is! And trust me.. I know what you mean with the age thing.. think about what I have been thru


----------



## michaelsil1 (May 24, 2007)

chad said:


> I went on a kick 2 years ago on 3 inch full range drivers for my ham rig, intelligibility was one key. I now rock a set of 3" TB's in a sealed enclosure for that but the a3N's can do VERY well with a MILD shelving EQ to compensate indoors... if you don't need zing they will do fine as is! And trust me.. I know what you mean with the age thing.. think about what I have been thru


Yeah, live shows as a job. 


I was a crew member in the Air Force; Ultrasonics and Engine Running on loads and offloads cost me dearly. Jimi Hendrix didn't help either! :laugh:


----------



## michaelsil1 (May 24, 2007)

DS-21 said:


> No, but with the engine off a slight loss of "airyness." With the engine on and moving, I don't think there's much point to trying to reproduce the tippy-top octave anyway.


How were they mounted?

I would think this would be a good time to use the reflections off the windshield.


----------



## chad (Jun 30, 2005)

michaelsil1 said:


> I would think this would be a good time to use the reflections off the windshield.


----------



## michaelsil1 (May 24, 2007)

chad said:


>


Oh Nooz did I just commit some kind of ..................tspence?


----------



## chad (Jun 30, 2005)

Remember that paper is 2 dimensional when looking at polar plots and often times they just tell you what they do off axis in frequency response... but think of the polar plot being a semi-circle for ease of thinking and make that graph relate to said semicircle....... Now.... slice that semicircle with something angled and pointed at you. Not only do you have response issues up and down the reflection area but you also have combing from the reflected /vs/ the direct radiation. Works for LF but for a widebander it could be flat-out scary.


----------



## tspence73 (Oct 14, 2008)

michaelsil1 said:


> Oh Nooz did I just commit some kind of ..................tspence?


It wouldn't be the first cat and probly won't be the last...


----------



## michaelsil1 (May 24, 2007)

tspence73 said:


> It wouldn't be the first cat and probably won't be the last...


None of us are perfect and do step in it every once in awhile. :blush:


----------



## imjustjason (Jun 26, 2006)

Here comes Tspence...


----------



## MarkZ (Dec 5, 2005)

Holy f'ing crap...


----------



## michaelsil1 (May 24, 2007)

imjustjason said:


> Here comes Tspence...




OMG!


----------



## tspence73 (Oct 14, 2008)

I didn't do it. :bucktooth:


----------



## MiniVanMan (Jun 28, 2005)

tspence73 said:


> I didn't do it. :bucktooth:


I'm serious Spence, I don't want to hear a "PEEP" out of you. If it's not directly, and appropriately relevant to any thread you decide to pop your head into, I will ban you. This is to include making ridiculous statements that are fundamentally wrong because you have spent however long you've been here failing to learn ANYTHING.

I don't want to see you respond to any goading from other members either. The other members will be held accountable for their actions as well, if they continue to taunt, and goad you.

No more spence. LAST WARNING!!!!


----------



## michaelsil1 (May 24, 2007)




----------



## Riveted1 (Oct 23, 2008)

Back to the topic (once again!) I'm running Vifa TC9's on axis in some makeshift baffles (a-pillars) atm and am pretty happy. I'm still playing with aiming and I'm going to try them in the kicks too. I did have 2 diff. sets of Vifa tweets and with them I could only tell a slight difference in the extreme upper frequencies when the engine was off (as was mentioned before.) I will say that with a more potent midrange than the TC9, a tweeter might be necessary and/or desired. But since I don't sit in my car when it's not running, and SO FAR the TC9's have been plenty, I'm gonna stick w/the tweeterless configuration. YMMV.


----------



## MiniVanMan (Jun 28, 2005)

Riveted1 said:


> Back to the topic (once again!) I'm running Vifa TC9's on axis in some makeshift baffles (a-pillars) atm and am pretty happy. I'm still playing with aiming and I'm going to try them in the kicks too. I did have 2 diff. sets of Vifa tweets and with them I could only tell a slight difference in the extreme upper frequencies when the engine was off (as was mentioned before.) I will say that with a more potent midrange than the TC9, a tweeter might be necessary and/or desired. But since I don't sit in my car when it's not running, and SO FAR the TC9's have been plenty, I'm gonna stick w/the tweeterless configuration. YMMV.


The Peerless 2" Peerless 830970, 2" Full Range 4 ohm from Madisound did very well tweeterless, but I eventually moved to a tweeter and built a simple passive crossover. Works great, and gives me a bit more shimmer on the top end. 

Though, like DS-21 mentioned, there's a point where trying to eek as much top end out as you can in a car turns into trying to squeeze blood from a turnip. 

That all being said, I'll take a good full range on-axis over a tweeter off-axis any day.

Now, for a tweeterless application I do prefer a 2" over a 3". You sacrifice the bottom end, but realistically, while it's nice to boast 150-250 hz out of your full range, it's not absolutely necessary. Most vehicles you can combat the lobing that occurs between the mid and midrange by crossing as high as the 500 hz range. 500-750 hz is very acceptable as well, with little compromise in the lobing department, but greater gains in power handling.

Don't discount what Foglght's been saying about sensitivity. My 2" I drive HARD, and I mean hard. I drive it to the point where distortion becomes audible on some content (Tool for example). It's a sacrifice I'm willing to live with for the lower crossover point. I actually cross mine at 1000 hz, at 6 db, and leave the woofer (Seas CD18RE) wide open with no low pass. Combats the lobing quite well, and I get very good polar, and power response from both drivers. Again though, I still have to drive them very hard to get the output I really like and at times, distortion is audible. When I say loud, I mean ****ing loud. I run generally in the 105 db range when in the car, but the car tested upwards of 108 db during a stress test in bandwidth the full range and tweeter were using. LOUD, but you lose some clarity. If you're looking to pick out the tiniest of details in an orchestral arrangement at over 100 db, a full range probably isn't your best option. If you're looking to absolutely rock out, and simplify your install, a full range can be a great option. 

So, while a 2" option isn't the end all be all of solving the car audio acoustic riddle. It's a great option if you understand the sacrifices that even the perfect solution requires.


----------



## michaelsil1 (May 24, 2007)

MiniVanMan said:


> The Peerless 2" Peerless 830970, 2" Full Range 4 ohm from Madisound did very well tweeterless, but I eventually moved to a tweeter and built a simple passive crossover. Works great, and gives me a bit more shimmer on the top end.
> 
> Though, like DS-21 mentioned, there's a point where trying to eek as much top end out as you can in a car turns into trying to squeeze blood from a turnip.
> 
> ...


What I don't understand is why you would want to cross the 2" that low; I take it that you're not running just a Sub and 2". Let the Mid Bass Driver play up a little higher and the 2" won't have to strain as much with the Higher Frequencies.


----------



## MiniVanMan (Jun 28, 2005)

michaelsil1 said:


> What I don't understand is why you would want to cross the 2" that low; I take it that you're not running just a Sub and 2". Let the Mid Bass Driver play up a little higher and the 2" won't have to strain as much with the Higher Frequencies.


Exactly, but once again, we're dealing with misconceptions based on lousy math.

The benefit of running your midrange lower is to reduce the lobing effect that occurs when you have a large separation between midbass and midrange. This is the real failing of the typical 2-way component design where you have a mid down in the doors and a tweeter up in the sails or pillars. 

It's pretty easy to figure out where your install will lobe. Just measure the distance between the two drivers in question and find the wavelength of that measurement. Let's say it's 20" from midbass to tweeter. Frequency associated with a wavelength of the 20" is 675 hz. If you keep your crossover point below 675 hz, you'll eliminate the lobing. However, if you're crossing over to a tweeter at 3500 hz, the lobe is massive as 3500 hz is only 3.87" long. 

You can get away with some lobing, but don't get crazy. My application the distance is 19" from door mount to sail panel in a Hyundai Santa Fe "SUV". I cross at 1000 hz and am realizing no real audible lobing. 19" is a little over 700 hz. So, there's some leeway.

At 1000 hz though, like I said, I get excellent power response from the full range, and can drive them exceptionally hard, while not getting into the beaming range of the 7" woofer, providing very good polar response as well. All is good up till the distortion part. That's the sacrifice.


----------



## Riveted1 (Oct 23, 2008)

MiniVanMan said:


> Don't discount what Foglght's been saying about sensitivity.


Could you point me to this? I looked and couldn't find what you were talking about. Too much nonsense in this thread!


----------



## Fast1one (Apr 6, 2007)

Riveted1 said:


> Could you point me to this? I looked and couldn't find what you were talking about. Too much nonsense in this thread!


Please refer to the following thread: http://www.diymobileaudio.com/forum...speaker-sail-panels.html?highlight=sail+panel


----------



## Riveted1 (Oct 23, 2008)

Thx Fast1One, I had read that thread, but thought MVM was referring to something in this thread. That one is almost as bad as this one as far as having to cut through all the ******** to get to the information. 

So MVM, maybe I'm missing what you were trying to point out that Foglght was saying? 

I don't listen to classical in the car, so hearing EVERY little subtle nuance in the recording isn't that important to me. A balanced sound w/excellent staging (for ME) is what I'm after. I've actually been running the TC9's w/a 125HZ x-over while my midbass/sub amps were getting the royal treatment by Steve Mantz. Can't push em too hard, but they sound HUGE (for a 3.5" FR!) Now that I've got my amps back, they'll probably get pushed back to the >300Hz range where they are happier. Once I start getting into the >500Hz HP range, the soundstage droops to the doors, but I still have lots of playing to do, and that may just be something that can be EQ'd out.


----------



## MiniVanMan (Jun 28, 2005)

Riveted1 said:


> Thx Fast1One, I had read that thread, but thought MVM was referring to something in this thread. That one is almost as bad as this one as far as having to cut through all the ******** to get to the information.
> 
> So MVM, maybe I'm missing what you were trying to point out that Foglght was saying?
> 
> I don't listen to classical in the car, so hearing EVERY little subtle nuance in the recording isn't that important to me. A balanced sound w/excellent staging (for ME) is what I'm after. I've actually been running the TC9's w/a 125HZ x-over while my midbass/sub amps were getting the royal treatment by Steve Mantz. Can't push em too hard, but they sound HUGE (for a 3.5" FR!) Now that I've got my amps back, they'll probably get pushed back to the >300Hz range where they are happier. Once I start getting into the >500Hz HP range, the soundstage droops to the doors, but I still have lots of playing to do, and that may just be something that can be EQ'd out.


In the effort of being fair, and critical, it's important to point out ALL aspects of a given approach, even the negative ones. 

I've been a huge proponent of using full ranges for some time now. However, when providing reviews and subjective analysis of a given solution I always try to make sure I point out the drawbacks as well. Foglight mentioned a really big one about the general sensitivity of a full range driver. 

The other one, while I got snippy with him about his attitude, was Randy (aka theotherhatedguy). Randy pointed out utilizing equal path lengths. This is especially true in sail panel installs. You can't time align a 10,000 hz signal. So no matter what you do, you'll still get that 10khz signal sounding like it's coming from exactly where it is. So, while you may get a wider stage by using time alignment and affecting the lower frequencies, you'll still have the localization of the top end frequencies. 

They're two very key points when recommending a solution like using a full range and going "tweeterless".


----------



## Oliver (Jun 25, 2007)

MiniVanMan said:


> In the effort of being fair, and critical, it's important to point out ALL aspects of a given approach, even the negative ones.
> 
> 
> 
> They're two very key points when recommending a solution like using a full range and going "tweeterless".


Try a hearing test, there are some on the internet 

then buy a speaker that will play up to the range you can here 

I can hear 17 or so Hz [ at 14Hz the speaker was moving and everything was shaking....no sound though ].

On the top end is where you want to concentrate


----------



## MiniVanMan (Jun 28, 2005)

I can hear 20 khz, albeit faintly, and only in the left ear. I can hear 16khz fairly well in both ears. But it's where my hearing loss starts to degrade based on the average hearing curve.

So, 16 hz I consider a target when designing my own systems, and can easily sacrifice the 16-20 khz range. However, if the system will be listened to critically by others, then I attempt to get the full range of frequencies. 

This is a great link that goes into our own internal equalization. The overall sensitivity of 20khz isn't high to begin with, and with age, only gets worse. Being nearly 39, and being able to hear 20khz at all is pretty remarkable considering I've worked on flight lines, and other highly intensive noise areas.


----------



## thehatedguy (May 4, 2007)

Geddes when testing and gathering data says anything past 10k isn't really important to look at.


----------



## michaelsil1 (May 24, 2007)

MiniVanMan said:


> I can hear 20 khz, albeit faintly, and only in the left ear. I can hear 16khz fairly well in both ears. But it's where my hearing loss starts to degrade based on the average hearing curve.
> 
> So, 16 hz I consider a target when designing my own systems, and can easily sacrifice the 16-20 khz range. However, if the system will be listened to critically by others, then I attempt to get the full range of frequencies.
> 
> This is a great link that goes into our own internal equalization. *The overall sensitivity of 20khz isn't high to begin with, and with age, only gets worse. Being nearly 39, and being able to hear 20khz at all is pretty remarkable considering I've worked on flight lines, and other highly intensive noise areas.*


I'm 56 and was an Air Crew member; I've been accused of having a little too much *Tweet*.................


At my age how much of the upper frequencies have I lost?


----------



## Oliver (Jun 25, 2007)

I would do a test and then make a decision...

But that's me kinda silly


----------



## michaelsil1 (May 24, 2007)

a$$hole said:


> I would do a test and then make a decision...
> 
> But that's me kinda silly


That's........... uh............. too............ smart................:dunce:


----------



## Oliver (Jun 25, 2007)

I'm gonna go just full-range with a 3"

No sub ,No tweeter

:laugh:

actually , these will be better ...

Quote>
From Decware [ 60nDown swears by Decware ]

MODEL

DFR-65

$295.00 PR

TYPE

FULL RANGE
6.5 " DRIVER

EFFICIENCY

HIGH 94dB @ 1W/1M

RESPONSE


*39Hz ~ 22kHz 8 ohms*


----------



## michaelsil1 (May 24, 2007)

a$$hole said:


> I'm gonna go just full-range with a 3"
> 
> No sub ,No tweeter
> 
> :laugh:


HAT L3? :laugh:


----------



## Riveted1 (Oct 23, 2008)

MiniVanMan said:


> In the effort of being fair, and critical, it's important to point out ALL aspects of a given approach, even the negative ones.
> 
> I've been a huge proponent of using full ranges for some time now. However, when providing reviews and subjective analysis of a given solution I always try to make sure I point out the drawbacks as well. Foglight mentioned a really big one about the general sensitivity of a full range driver.
> 
> ...


How PC of you!  Ya you gotta give up something to get something.


----------



## MiniVanMan (Jun 28, 2005)

thehatedguy said:


> Geddes when testing and gathering data says anything past 10k isn't really important to look at.


I think you should clarify that statement though. "Isn't really important" can be taken many different ways. 

I think you can agree that there are cases where the 10k+ range should be critically looked at. In the case of extreme breakup nodes and high end harmonic distortion it can be beneficial to know exactly what you're looking at. 

However, if you're dealing with a driver like that, you've probably gone the route of inexpensive, and are willing to make a few sacrifices. 

The case of full ranges though, it can be a good way to determine level of performance over one driver or another. 

In the end, Geddes is correct. Don't dwell on information above 10khz, but it can't be completely discounted either.


----------

