Full Range OR Coaxial?

[Ardacer]

Fine, you do you.

But have a look at this:

Making a KEF LS50 Clone

KEF makes some of the best coaxial speakers in the market, and they use the same driver platform in all their speakers ranging from the entry-level Q series to all the way up to Blade. The drivers in their higher end speakers usually have stronger motors and better crossovers, but the higher...

www.audiosciencereview.com

Also, the t/s parameters of a ls50 driver for example are known. You could get quite a higher quality coaxial for the same amount of cash as a new one. It's really hard to do coaxials properly - only a couple of manufacterers can pull it off.

 

[Salt]

Looking for KEF?:
Käffchen

 

[Ardacer]

Oh boy look at those numbers.. pricey

 

[Andro]

Coaxial build is a lot more expensive and complex to build, but will produce proportionally better final result. Price/performance will probably be the same.

 

[nas]

Coaxial build is a lot more expensive and complex to build, but will produce proportionally better final result. Price/performance will probably be the same.

I disagree a little.
It is not "a lot" if we are talking not about some exotic or "esoteric" fullrange drivers. In the OP was mentioned mediocre-bad coax example, which, imho, is not much expensive than crossover parts needed to filter it.

When talking about ~100-200+ EUR/USD coax drivers (+50EUR for crossover parts) and comparable fullrange drivers (150-250 EUR/USD piece) - coax starts to win in almost every aspect, except the complexity of the build.

Another case is a relatively small diameter, like 2.5-3.5 inch fullrange driver, assisted with subwoofer/woofer and equalized - typical 2.1 system or 2.2 system, you can call it WAW or FAST. It can be fun and cheap project if you have some gear already: power amplifiers for 3-4 channels, measurement gear and some DSP solution. That DSP can be done in software with CamilaDSP or EQ APO if the source is computer with multiple channel soundcard. I use this setup. All of them: coax, 2.1 and FR can be DSP/EQ corrected to sound really really well for their price. Full gear still will be more expensive than pretty good pair of bookshelf speakers.

 

[Salt]

It depends ... as allways.
For desktop use, a fullrange with some ambition to do bass via BR or TML will be sufficent and will need only correction of baffle step in a xover.
For in room reproduction, a FAST (fullrange and Sub) may even be sufficient, as long as xover frequency and directivity of the transducers fit.
In comparison a coax needs a xover within the frequency band where the fullrange does not need any, but can specialise a driver for it's purpose.
Both concepts are charming, but the results of concepts will count.

 

[nas]

will need only correction of baffle step in a xover

In that case why not add 3-6 additional components and, make crossover for full 2-way speaker?

 

[Salt]

In that case why not add 3-6 additional components and, make crossover for full 2-way speaker?

It's the idea of point source behind a single full range or coax.

 

[nas]

It's the idea of point source behind a single full range or coax.

Well... 2-way speaker can be coax. 3-way speaker can be with all drivers in single coax driver basket, there are examples. It is a technicality. My point was if fullrange solution can be done in a quick, cheap, fun way with parts laying around - it is an advantage. And it is hard to think another one. Yes, some BSC or other filter may be needed anyway, but the advantages of single driver fullrange diminish very very quickly as you go just little up in complexity and cost, for me a deal breaker is a physical crossover/filter parts needed. I use software eq for that, because that is cheaper and simpler in my listening conditions. For others 1-5 physical filter parts for fullrange are not a dealbreaker and still considered as simple and cheap solution.

 

[Andro]

Well... 2-way speaker can be coax. 3-way speaker can be with all drivers in single coax driver basket, there are examples. It is a technicality. My point was if fullrange solution can be done in a quick, cheap, fun way with parts laying around - it is an advantage. And it is hard to think another one. Yes, some BSC or other filter may be needed anyway, but the advantages of single driver fullrange diminish very very quickly as you go just little up in complexity and cost, for me a deal breaker is a physical crossover/filter parts needed. I use software eq for that, because that is cheaper and simpler in my listening conditions. For others 1-5 physical filter parts for fullrange are not a dealbreaker and still considered as simple and cheap solution.

I've tried some popular freeware software equalizer and the result was really bad. The reason is, for the best result I am using the Tidal client with "Use Exclusive Mode" switch in options. This makes the incoming bit stream to be sent forward to USB bit-for-bit, without any Widows software meddling in between. In order to use any EQ I need to switch this off and the deterioration of sound quality is pretty dramatic. Foobar2000 also has this exclusive switch for the local files, with same result. The exclusive mode is a must.

 

[AnalogSteph]

In order to use any EQ I need to switch this off and the deterioration of sound quality is pretty dramatic.

Then you'll need to investigate what's screwing up shared mode. The Equalizer APO Configurator can turn off other (possibly hidden) APOs in its troubleshooting options, that would be worth a shot. A good thread to reference for shared mode life:

Ending the Windows Audio Quality Debate

A debate has been long raging in the audio community that Windows isn't fit for use in a high resolution audio system. Sceptics counterargued that bits are bits and Windows audio degradations are a figment of an over-active audiophile imagination. I decided to investigate this as I kept...

www.audiosciencereview.com

 

[Andro]

Then you'll need to investigate what's screwing up shared mode. The Equalizer APO Configurator can turn off other (possibly hidden) APOs in its troubleshooting options, that would be worth a shot. A good thread to reference for shared mode life:

Ending the Windows Audio Quality Debate

A debate has been long raging in the audio community that Windows isn't fit for use in a high resolution audio system. Sceptics counterargued that bits are bits and Windows audio degradations are a figment of an over-active audiophile imagination. I decided to investigate this as I kept...

www.audiosciencereview.com

Oh no, I don't need to do that. I've made the perfect curve I want in the passive crossover. If I ever need to change anything I'll take my soldering iron and change parts.
So I'm a firm believer that Windows should not be allowed to mess with the sound bits in any shape or form, the Exclusive Mode is the way to go and I'm very happy with it, it is a full equivalent of a good BlueRay player as it is with all the convenience of online streaming.
I was simply responding to someone else who proposed a cheap and fun solution, my way to have fun is not cheap, I have a Tang Band W6 coaxial and very happy with it.

 

[nas]

I've tried some popular freeware software equalizer and the result was really bad. The reason is, for the best result I am using the Tidal client with "Use Exclusive Mode" switch in options. This makes the incoming bit stream to be sent forward to USB bit-for-bit, without any Widows software meddling in between. In order to use any EQ I need to switch this off and the deterioration of sound quality is pretty dramatic. Foobar2000 also has this exclusive switch for the local files, with same result. The exclusive mode is a must.

You mentioned here 2 things: first is use of equalizer and some exclusive mode or some streaming client, which I don't use.

First of all: the app which is streaming or playing music or we can call "reading music file/stream bits" DOES NOT produce sound. It just reads. And sends it to the DAC. Call them "Readers". That is all the function of it. I have at least 5 different music "Readers" on my pc, from Windows Media Player to MPC-HC and so on. And when they send signal to my soundcard - they all sound absolutely the same. I don't hear the difference, because there is none. It has to be none. If there is difference - your software is buggy, maybe drivers, maybe smth else in windows, or maybe somewhere is some sound alteration enabled in "Reader". But when I change soundcards - difference is dramatic. It is very very of topic, but my suggestion is to disable all sound enhancement options in some "Reader" app or Windows.

The second part: I use EQ APO. And it is MAGNIFICIENT! Nothing short of this word! It does pretty much everything with sound I need. I am not into making hardcore filters, but I can do all the things I want with soundstreams: EQ, delay, mix channels, copy channels and so on. It has even the convolve function which pretty much allow to mimic sound of some theoretical filters and design speakers. The only limitation is how many channels your soundcard has and hom many channels of separate amplification you have. In this case - more is better. And EQ APO works very very well.

To stay on topic - with many channels of soundcard and many channels of amp available coax is a good choice, because crossover can be made in software and can be changed with mouse clicks. With all of this already at hand coax wins vs fullrange.

 

[LSPhil]

I recently measured the CX3 and was very pleased with the results. Acoustically, they performed well from 500Hz, with a crossover point at 3kHz using an acoustic Butterworth filter at 18dB/Oct. The sound is highly coherent, and the imaging is truly impressive.

I also measured and listened to the Visaton B100. It features a very lightweight membrane and delivers a clean sound, but the high frequencies are not quite on par with those of a 1" tweeter. Personally, I would opt for a coaxial speaker for a more balanced performance.