Anyone here have a speaker system that uses...

...an 8" to 12" cone mid-range driver?? I think they are the most "natural" sounding.

 

Nope, sorry. I've had all 2-way systems up until I snagged a very cheap pair of Boston A150's a few months ago. The basic sound isn't bad, but there's too much midrange for my taste at times. Driver looks to be about 5", and has a very stiff compliance.

Curious to know where you've seen a 12" midrange, though...if I were building from the ground up, I'd go with a 6-1/2" midbass. Sort of like the Boston A40 approach, but of course would have a very low bass driver (12") to get the low notes cleanly. But with a larger driver, it can't respond as quickly to higher frequencies (too much driver mass)...which is one argument for a smaller driver.

IMHO, the crossover is the most important part of the speaker, more so than the choice of driver size. It should have a smooth response, preserve phase (12dB/octave which is 180 degrees out of phase, or 24dB/octave), and ensure a smooth handoff between the drivers. Picking good crossover point(s) would ensure the driver operates where it is most linear. IOW, not trying to get treble or low bass out of a midrange unit...beyond its physical limitations.

That's why the speaker designers get all the big bucks.

Awhile ago (in the 80's), one speaker manufacturer made small metal-coned units that went almost full-range, with optional assist from a subwoofer. I'm mixed on that approach. Having all the sound from one location (a point source) would be preferable, but I would worry about modulation distortion...a bass signal somehow over-modulating the midrange, giving it a "warbly" quality. You can hear this if you push a cheaper full-range speaker to its limits.

 

The midrange speaker in my thiel 7.2's is 6.5 inches. I too like bigger mid speakers, but any speaker that has a 12" midrange would be to big for my listening room.

 

I have Dahlquist DQM-9 compact monitors, 3-way, don't know the specs, but I think the mid is 6".

I like the idea of 3-way. What Rudy says makes sense to me, Picking good crossover point(s) would ensure the driver operates where it is most linear. IOW, not trying to get treble or low bass out of a midrange unit...beyond its physical limitations.

2-way just seems like too much work for the bottom.

 

A well-designed two way can arguably better than a middlin' 3-way. I don't have much of a problem with my various 2-way systems unless I really push them beyond the limits of sanity. (And at that point, the ears are so overloaded that all they hear is distortion anyway.) 2-ways are often preferred for their simplicity.

A 3-way is theoretically ideal, though--the mid driver would handle most of the music (especially the important vocal region), where the other drivers fill in the upper and lower ranges. Funny that I got my A150's, and still sort of prefer my older 2-ways. But the A150's are also my project speaker too...I'm doing a few tweaks to improve on them a little.

I'm still amazed at the sound my pair of Boston A40-II's throw out. Except for the deepest bass, they sound a lot larger than they are.

 

Sorry, I meant 10" mid range that some Pro JBL speakers have. They extensively used an 8" mid driver also. I agree 12" is a bit too big, a typo on my part. For some reason cone drivers have a very natural mid range sound. Sure they don't have the speed of either a compression driver or the "delicacy" of domes of various materials but, I'll take the natural voice any day of the week. A cone loaded into a diffraction horn of properly controlled directive dispersion can provide the best of a few worlds. We are not talking the typical small "home" speaker here though.

PS. this would be just the mid. In these sysems there would be 15" or 18" drivers covering the bass/sub bass frequencies. Except some control room situations where a 12" LF driver would be employed.

 

Sort of... my JBL L7's are 4-way: 12" side woofer crossing over @ 180hz to an 8" midbass driver, crossing over @ 800hz to a 5" midrange, and crossing over to a 1" tweeter @ (I think) 3khz.

 

It's that 8" mid that gives it the vocal "character". The system is not asking the 12" in driver to go too high thus optimizing it's performance/range. How long have you had those speakers and what are you driving them with?

 

Khorn, I've had them since July 1996, around the time they were being discontinued. I use an Adcom GFA-5500, which I got about a month later.

I'm not exactly sure what kind of "character" you're thinking of, but if you're thinking of a little extra "warmth" to pretty things up a bit, these don't have that. Not forgiving of bad source material and therefore probably not for everyone, but I appreciate them. They got a nice review back in the old Audio magazine by Don Keele, who had B&W 801 Matrix II's (or III's?) as his reference at the time of the review. Bob Lovely also has L7's.

BTW - the 12", 8", and 5" drivers are cones - the 1" is a titanium dome.

 

I'm not taking about "coloration" when I say character, I'm referring to a naturalness of sound in the vocal range.

 

Oh OK

 

large mid range

I haven't had speakers with that large of midrange. My current speakers are Boston Acoustic A100 sII that have a 10 woofer. When I auditioned speakers ( this was in the late 80's) I remember the A100's sounding more natural to me than the A150, which added a midrange driver that was less than 6" (I'm not sure of the size, please help me out Rudy). I can't remember what the crossover point is but I figure the woofer is responsible for a good part of the midrange of the speaker.

Since we call bass transducers woofers and HF drivers tweeters , why aren't midrange drivers call meowers?

 

Re: large mid range

Because pussies meow .

 

My B&W Nautilus 802 front speakers use two 8" bass drivers in each speaker along with a 6" midrange. I think that the two 8" drivers, combined with the cabinet design produce wonderful, tight bass. There is a certain lower-midrange "thickness" that is achieved that sounds amazing to me!

 

More details on my Dahlquist DQM-9 Compacts. Got 'em in 1983.

9" poly-vinyl acetate laminated cone woofer with flat-wound ribbon-wire voice coil, 5" PVA laminated cone midrange with flat-wound ribbon-wire voice coil, and 1" dome tweeter. Dual rear-firing tuned ports.

Freq response: 35-22,000 Hz

Crossover Freq: 450 Hz, 3500 Hz

My first 'audiophile' speakers were Time Windows, 2-way. The Dahlquist were brighter, and with more overall definition.

Lived with these coming on twenty years. They still have a tight bottom, and I can still feel the skins from hand drums, a guage I've used for a long time to know if the sound is natural.

 

Khorn & Friends,

As Martin knows, I have these same speakers. From my experience, these speakers can handle anything and I drive mine with 300w per channel Mono amps. Vocals sounds intimate and upfront. Recordings mastered by Steve sound especially good because these speakers reproduce midrange very well. Bass response is clean and deep.

I do not use these speakers for mastering however - only playback. For Reel tape mastering, I use a pair of vintage 1975 JBL L-166's in a nearfield set up.

Bob

 

My Evolution Signatures use a pair of 165 mm Focal drivers in a d'Appolito configuration with a 25 mm Focal tweeter. Obviously it's a two-way.

Many other speakers I know and appreciate use multiple smaller drivers to arrive at the sound they deliver, The JMLab and Von Schweikert VR5, for instance. It is the opinion of many speaker designers that a two-way is prefered to a three or four-way design because the more complicated the crossover is the more potential there is for problems to arise. Likewise, many designers prefer to use smaller drivers in an array for greater speed, and thus greater transient response (which we hear as transparency). From what I gather having talked to the Evolution Signature designer or several occasions, he chose the two 165 mm drivers over a single larger one simply because they were capable of the same bandwidth but without the potential liabilities of using a single 10 or 12 inch.

 

sgb's speakers have a very nice sound! Heard them personally... loved them... look very nice too... Coruse having the Quicksilver amp doesn't hurt.

 

I used to think that a 6-8" cone midrange, or a good two-way with an 8-10" bass/midrange was the way to go, until I picked up a pair of VMPS Ribbon Monitors. It's extremely transparent and uncolored--so much so that it made me realize the colorations in my previous cone speakers that I had gotten used to. The surprising thing is that this clarity is not at the expense of harshness or less "naturalness".

P.S. I hope this isn't a thread crap!

 

Of course not, the whole idea here is to discuss the things that interest us and hopefully learn a thing or two in the process.

A few questions. Were the speakers and the rest of your system of a comparable quality level before and after your upgrade to th VMPS speakers. People usually upgrade when changing components and one would expect you would be trying to improve your sound. If your new speakers are a definite step up, even if you didn't change and upgrade other components at the same time (which is a common practice) your new ones should sound better. The question is, if you were to compare an equally priced cone system to the ones you have now do you think the same conclusions you reached would still hold true?


Looking at your profile I see that you have a damn good system. Could you give us a little more detailed info on your speakers?

 

Re: large mid range

It's a 5" cone, with an enclosure behind it. (Isolates is from the bass.) There is actually a pair of mids on eBay for sale right now, as well as another set of A150s.

My A40-II's are darned smooth too, IMHO. In fact, i have them on top of my A150's right now and sometimes just switch the speaker leads to play whatever pair I'm in the mood to listen to.

There is a peak in the midrange that I can't quite put my finger on. With most music it's fine, but certain types will just grate on me. That's why I'm thinking of doing a little tweaking to the crossover. Might even build new ones to the same specs, but use higher-end components. And wire the insides better (which beats the "hookup wire" they use inside).

 

The Carver loudspeakers used ribbons. One of the speaker supply places I use now sells ribbon drivers...including one that is a drop-in replacement for the one Carver used. Ribbons are NOT cheap, but I'm afraid to listen since I might get hooked.

I really fell hard for the Martin Logan CLS-II's I heard back in the late 80's. I came dangerously close to buying a pair. Maybe one of these days...