Why are coaxials so rare?

[Pearljam5000]

So yeah the question is in the title
I see very few (relatively) coaxial speakers in comparison to tradional ones
Why aren't they more common if they're better than the tradional design?
You would expect to see them much more but it's not the case

 

[Matias]

I think the reasons may be here.

Any downsides to coaxial design?

Is there anything the Genelec 8000 series does better than the Ones? Obviously it's just an example, and I'm asking a general question about coaxials.

www.audiosciencereview.com

 

[abdo123]

KEF made the first Uni-Q driver in 1988, it took a lot of time and effort for them to 'perfect' it to the way it is in the KEF LS50 Meta. And even now, hell breaks loose the moment you make the woofer bigger than 5.5 inches so you're limited in headroom.

So yeah, until the KEF patents or the Genelec patents expire it's very unlikely for us to have widespread coaxial adoption. I really would rather the industry shift to slim but very long line arrays that would snuggle on the two sides of my TV. Enough with this 'If it is a big box it can't be a bad design' mentality.

 

[Tonygeno]

Because they're not "better" than a traditional design. Look at Amir's reviews of an Elac coaxial and then non coaxial on these pages.

 

[abdo123]

I think the reasons may be here.

Any downsides to coaxial design?

Is there anything the Genelec 8000 series does better than the Ones? Obviously it's just an example, and I'm asking a general question about coaxials.

www.audiosciencereview.com

The OP opened that thread themselves.

 

[BrokenEnglishGuy]

So yeah the question is in the title
I see very few (relatively) coaxial speakers in comparison to tradional ones
Why aren't they more common if they're better than the tradional design?
You would expect to see them much more but it's not the case

Maybe because it's harder

 

[voodooless]

The OP opened that thread themselves.

Then I hope he can tell us why he thinks that thread does not yet contain the answer to his question? @Pearljam5000?

 

[Pearljam5000]

Then I hope he can tell us why he thinks that thread does not yet contain the answer to his question? @Pearljam5000?

Asking why are they rare and asking if they have any downsides is a completely different thing

 

[sigbergaudio]

It's a conservative market. It would be hard for B&W or any other of the older companies to suddenly sell such a change in direction now.

 

[sigbergaudio]

KEF made the first Uni-Q driver in 1988, it took a lot of time and effort for them to 'perfect' it to the way it is in the KEF LS50 Meta. And even now, hell breaks loose the moment you make the woofer bigger than 5.5 inches so you're limited in headroom.

Not necessarily, 5.5 should be plenty for a midrange in almost any application. So you just need to add additional woofers. Even if you add only one, you have a 3-way (or 2.5-way) in the same space needed for a traditional 2-way. So in reality using a coax will typically give you MORE headroom.

 

[BrokenEnglishGuy]

Not necessarily, 5.5 should be plenty for a midrange in almost any application. So you just need to add additional woofers. Even if you add only one, you have a 3-way (or 2.5-way) in the same space needed for a traditional 2-way. So in reality using a coax will typically give you MORE headroom.

i have a question, a bigger coaxial should allow to crossover lower their point? something like 200hz?. A coaxial speaker with their crossover at 90hz will be something interesting? so you just needs add subs to the box ?

 

[Soniclife]

KEF made the first Uni-Q driver in 1988, it took a lot of time and effort for them to 'perfect' it to the way it is in the KEF LS50 Meta. And even now, hell breaks loose the moment you make the woofer bigger than 5.5 inches so you're limited in headroom.

And Tannoy were earlier...

Tannoy | Innovation | Dual Concentric Compression Technology

www.tannoy.com

Though they don't seem to have got it right yet .

 

[abdo123]

Not necessarily, 5.5 should be plenty for a midrange in almost any application. So you just need to add additional woofers. Even if you add only one, you have a 3-way (or 2.5-way) in the same space needed for a traditional 2-way. So in reality using a coax will typically give you MORE headroom.

The thing is with typical speakers is that you're theoretically only tweeter limited because of comb filtering, you can always add more (sub/mid-)woofers as long as you keep directivity controlled.

A coaxial design does not add to that in anyway, it takes from it because now you're both tweeter limited and mid-woofer limited.

Also the sensitivity penalty will be severe as well. To get around that KEF tunes their large floor standers a bit darker, especially the KEF R7.

for example the KEF R11 Has four 6.5 inch mid-bass woofers and still the maximum output is at 113 dB (only 3 dB higher than the R3 with only one mid-bass driver), and the sensitivity is just 90 dB. This is too low for a gigantic speaker costing 2500 euro each.

 

[ernestcarl]

Some coaxials — horn loaded types — require significant DSP to equalize adequately. It is very difficult, if not impossible, to do this passively. Horn designs may need individualized FIR corrections to reduce reflections adequately and to further clean up the response.

This would require expertise and additional cost.

Think of Fulcrum’s coaxes, If one checks their “unprocessed” or unequalized frequency and time response, it is not going to look very good at all.

*actually, some aren’t even happy with the resulting equalized response — may not be as smooth in other angles as other designs.

 

[NeoZs99]

OP is stuck on the death loop of uncertainty..can't blame him

 

[sigbergaudio]

The thing is with typical speakers is that you're theoretically only tweeter limited because of comb filtering, you can always add more (sub/mid-)woofers as long as you keep directivity controlled.

A coaxial design does not add to that in anyway, it takes from it because now you're both tweeter limited and mid-woofer limited.

Also the sensitivity penalty will be severe as well. To get around that KEF tunes their large floor standers a bit darker, especially the KEF R7.

for example the KEF R11 Has four 6.5 inch mid-bass woofers and still the maximum output is at 113 dB (only 3 dB higher than the R3 with only one mid-bass driver), and the sensitivity is just 90 dB. This is too low for a gigantic speaker costing 2500 euro each.

Still not sure how it makes you mid-woofer limited. Do you see a lot of speakers with multiple midrange drivers?

 

[sigbergaudio]

i have a question, a bigger coaxial should allow to crossover lower their point? something like 200hz?. A coaxial speaker with their crossover at 90hz will be something interesting? so you just needs add subs to the box ?

That's basically what we built with the SBS.1 active speaker. Not by using a bigger coax, but by having a 5.5" coax combined with a midwoofer in a 2.5-way configuration. Both the coax and the midwoofer have a -3dB point at 90hz.

 

[abdo123]

Still not sure how it makes you mid-woofer limited. Do you see a lot of speakers with multiple midrange drivers?

Beefy Speakers? For sure, mostly in MTM configuration. In fact I own several vintage Speakers that have multiple mid-range drivers.

 

[daftcombo]

As @ernestcarl said, it seems impossible to design a passive speaker with coaxial drivers sounding good without correction. They need correction via DSP.

That's why you don't have Genelec 80x1.

 

[tomtoo]

Not necessarily, 5.5 should be plenty for a midrange in almost any application. So you just need to add additional woofers. Even if you add only one, you have a 3-way (or 2.5-way) in the same space needed for a traditional 2-way. So in reality using a coax will typically give you MORE headroom.

Dont think so, the mid needs the room in the case. This or that way, no big differene.