# why build/buy fullrange towers?



## vann_d (Apr 7, 2009)

Hi All,

I'm getting really interested in speakers, speaker building, subwoofer building, etc. The question the keeps coming to mind is why would I buy/build a full range speaker or even a speaker that extends below 80 Hz when we all know how much we all love subwoofers here on HT shack. Seems to me that anything below 80 Hz is irrelevant when you incorporate a sub(s).

I've heard the arguments about being able to locate the sub and at what frequency that is possible etc. The simple fact is that subwoofers are cheap (in my limited experience) compared to designing a speaker to achieve true full range. I'd rather build two in stereo. You can buy two cheap subs for around $400 and put your bookshelves on them.

Additionally, I'm curious about the output capabilities of different bookshelf speakers. Should I rely on power handling? If a certain speaker has a 5 1/2 inch woofer and can extend down to 80 Hz will it yield the same impact as a 7 inch driver with the same frequency response at the same power levels? This part is confusing. Seems like the 7" should dominate but frequency response charts are always at low levels.

I like my music at high levels. I want maximum impact. But that doesn't mean that I want fullrange speakers if I'm gonna have a subwoofer anyway. 

Advice?? Wisdom??
Thank you

-Vann_d


----------



## dyohn (Apr 17, 2008)

A few thoughts. First, building a full-range system that you then cross over at 80Hz with a subwoofer is not a waste of driver capability. Just because you set a crossover at 80Hz does not mean the main speakers will not be asked to reproduce lower frequencies. A crossover is not a cut off, it is a slope. If it's say, 12db/octave that means the mains will receive 40Hz information, but it will be at -12db compared to the signal level at 80Hz. So those woofers still need to be able to handle lower frequencies. Pushing a driver below it's design bandwidth results in increased distortion, which is bad.

Next, if you are after the highest dbSPL at a given frequency/power level, several things will determine the output level. One is the sensitivity of the driver (and the overall efficiency of the system) and second is the moving piston area of the driver. All else being equal, a larger cone will generate higher sound pressure levels in the room. If you want the best bass output and you have the choice between a 5.25" woofer and a 7" woofer I say go for the 7" woofer every time, as long as you are also using a dedicated midrange driver. If it's a 2-way system then the choice becomes a little trickier; but me, I use a 6.5 or 7 inch-er in every design I build if I can.

Ultimately all loudspeakers are a compromise. You just have to decide which set of compromises creates results you can enjoy. Go for it!


----------



## Drew Eckhardt (Oct 24, 2009)

vann_d said:


> Hi All,
> Additionally, I'm curious about the output capabilities of different bookshelf speakers. Should I rely on power handling?


No, because at the bottom of their range drivers are limited by excursion and distortion becomes unacceptable before they run into their mechanical limits.



> If a certain speaker has a 5 1/2 inch woofer and can extend down to 80 Hz will it yield the same impact as a 7 inch driver with the same frequency response at the same power levels?


A 5.5" driver lacks the displacement needed to play cleanly down to 80Hz for subjectively realistic acoustic music listening levels to say nothing of home theater.

Lets use the Seas Excel W15CY001 as an example. It has 75 cm^2 of surface area (Sd), and is linear out to about 4mm (xmax) which yield only 88dB at 80Hz and 1 meter using less than 2 Watts to get there. Crossed to a sub-woofer that only nets 94dB per channel.

Power handling is spec'd at 70W; although with mechanical limits of 7mm in one direction you'll run them to their stops with under 6W at 80Hz.

Even an 8" driver is marginal.

The Seas Excel W22EX001 has Sd of 220 cm^2 and 5mm xmax which net 99dB at 80Hz. With a sub-woofer you'll get to 105dB at 1 meter which is perhaps 100dB at your listening position.

The other complication here is that driver directivity is a function of the wave lengths relative to diameter; so for a given directivity the 5.5" driver will play .8 octaves higher.

To mate a tweeter to such a driver without having polar/power response problems you're going to have to cross it over lower, with a full octave calling for 4X more excursion to reach the same SPL.

That will call for an extra beefy tweeter.



> I like my music at high levels. I want maximum impact. But that doesn't mean that I want fullrange speakers if I'm gonna have a subwoofer anyway.


You need more mid-bass than you can get out of most 2-ways. Since most people want low bass and you've already paid for the driver, cross-over, and cabinet such speakers built for the consumer market will be full-range and sold as such.



> Advice?? Wisdom??


With traditional midrange sizes you want at least a 3-way. An 8" 2-way (this is the limit for beefy conventional tweeters) might work especially with stereo sub-woofers (a 120Hz cross-over will get you to 112dB with the above example). A 2-way wave guide design which lets you use a large (even 15") midrange driver without compromising polar and power response will work.


----------



## vann_d (Apr 7, 2009)

So if I go with an MTM or TMM instead of a TM I'm doubling my Sd (given the same driver size)...correct? Does that mean my SPL capability goes up accordingly? Does this also mean that I get the benefits of the smaller driver when crossing with the tweeter? If so, I could see why these designs are so popular.

Since I'm a beginner, I was hoping not to have to do a 3-way. There are not a lot of kits out there (any?) for 3 way designs. Almost all are 2 or 2.5 way. Not sure way 2.5 way means.

I think I'm starting to understand. Thanks guys!


----------



## ironglen (Mar 4, 2009)

the 2.5 way design uses the same mid drivers below the other one (or two in an MTM) producing the lower freqs, so it often has more drivers used as they are needed to prevent over excursion, I'm interested in this because it can be slimmer.


----------



## Drew Eckhardt (Oct 24, 2009)

vann_d said:


> So if I go with an MTM or TMM instead of a TM I'm doubling my Sd (given the same driver size)...correct? Does that mean my SPL capability goes up accordingly?


Yes, by 6dB.



> Does this also mean that I get the benefits of the smaller driver when crossing with the tweeter? If so, I could see why these designs are so popular.


Part way.

Horizontal polar response is similar regardless of whether you have one or two midranges, although with two you get a power response notch due to vertical polar response which is more severe in MTM designs. I think this is why MTM designs don't sound as natural as MT plus woofers.



> Since I'm a beginner, I was hoping not to have to do a 3-way. There are not a lot of kits out there (any?) for 3 way designs.


There are well-respected 3-way designs you can build at a variety of price points.

Linkwitz Orion/Pluto+ (linkwitzlab.com, the Pluto+ may not give you the volume you want but it's an example), John Krevosky NaO/NaO mini (musicanddesign.com), Dennis Murphy MBOW1 3-way (murphyblaster.com), John Krutke (zaphaudio.com) ZDT3.5, Statements.

Cost can be more than double a 2-way (there's more magnet and metal in the woofer and the reactive cross-over components are bigger due to the low frequency)



> Almost all are 2 or 2.5 way. Not sure way 2.5 way means.


A second low frequency driver which only has a low-pass filter so you can do baffle step compensation without loosing sensitivity and can have 6dB more headroom than with a 2-way using the same mid-range driver.

I'd do a 2.5 way before a 2 way with multiple midrange drivers since it'll have the same excursion limited head-room and have better power response.


----------



## Drew Eckhardt (Oct 24, 2009)

You want to look at Siegfried Linkwitz's SPL spreadsheet. Use the monopole column, add 6dB for drivers operating into half space (say a floor mounted bass driver or a tweeter), and add 20 log # drivers for multiples.

www.linkwitzlab.com/spl_max1.xls

Reading Vance Dickason's Loudspeaker Design Cookbook will give you a better understanding of the trade-offs involved in speaker design.


----------



## evilskillit (Oct 7, 2008)

Why build full range towers... Because they're cool? Thats a pretty good reason.


----------



## vann_d (Apr 7, 2009)

Drew Eckhardt said:


> Reading Vance Dickason's Loudspeaker Design Cookbook will give you a better understanding of the trade-offs involved in speaker design.


Thanks for trying to explain but I don't understand everything you said here. I really do need to read this book...

Oh, and thanks for the project references. I hadn't heard of these except for the Zaph one that is on Madisound


----------



## vann_d (Apr 7, 2009)

Drew Eckhardt said:


> Yes, by 6dB.


6dB? That's a lot! I was expecting 3dB but I don't know any of the math behind the calculation. Again, I guess it all points to more reading for me ...


----------



## fbov (Aug 28, 2008)

As I recall, it's 3dB for the second driver and another 3dB when wired in parallel due to the halving of impendence - at a given voltage, a parallel pair pull twice the current of a single driver. 

As to speaker designs, here's the master thread
http://techtalk.parts-express.com/showthread.php?t=211558

There's more to this than you think, so my standard advice is to go with a proven design that others with like reauirements have built and found met their needs. 

HAve fun,
Frank


----------



## sfdoddsy (Oct 18, 2007)

You could also make the argument that two truly full-range mains paired with a sub can smooth room bass modes along the lines of what Earl Geddes and Floyd Toole suggest.

And, as mentioned above, they look cooler too.


----------



## Synthsayer (Dec 19, 2007)

I am really glad to see this thread.
All of the speakers for my DIY 2-ways use the same 5.5" Vifa mid/woofer. They sound nice but don't really put out the full mid-bass I would like to hear from them.
But, all the speakers seem to work well together for surround effect. Same drivers, same crossovers. (Same problems).
Since I have a very nice pair of 10" woofers I would like to make a psuedo-tower. My main concern is that by using a 3-way system as front L+R combined with 2-way Center, Surround L+R, I will encounter phase problems. The 2-ways use a passive 6db low pass and 12db high pass at 3500Hz.
If I made a 3-way system and used a mid to tweeter crossover point of 3500hz with identical slopes, then add a first order woofer to mid crossover at around 400Hz, would that make sense? I suppose I could pull the crossovers out of the existing cabinets, then put them into the new ones and add the first order crossover at around 400Hz.
Next part of this question:
The 10" woofer can use a 1.2 cu. ft. enclosure and achieve an f3 of about 40Hz. Would this increase in piston area and the woofer's placement closer to the floor possibly fill out the low end and mid-bass which I would like?
I have played drums since I was 7 years old and I know what a drum kit should sound like. I also play keyboards, and some guitar and bass. Even though I am using the NHT1259 sub with a nice sub amp, it still lacks the real full mid-bass and bass quality I would like for both home theater and music reproduction.
Thanks in advance for your responses.


----------



## 1Michael (Nov 2, 2006)

Synth, you might want to start your own thread since your post has nothing to do with the OP


----------



## harami (Nov 19, 2009)

ironglen said:


> the 2.5 way design uses the same mid drivers
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You are absolutely right, More drivers plus over excursion prevention with slimmer model is always a good deal, It should be interesting to test it.


----------



## ironglen (Mar 4, 2009)

harami said:


> You are absolutely right, More drivers plus over excursion prevention with slimmer model is always a good deal, It should be interesting to test it.


I'm in the process of trying to integrate/use a set of 6 MB quart satellite monitors, QL C 50 SAT, that is stated 68-32khz, perhaps by building bass bins below them using 2 anarchy drivers each to create nice, powerful free-standing mains on the cheap.

Regarding the original post. The think the real benefits of fullrange towers are increased output capability(my in-wall left/right main output is severely limited), strong/accurate 2 ch stereo sound especially for music, visual appeal (for some people), and perhaps greater depth from the front stage. Did I miss anything or get anything wrong?


----------



## ironglen (Mar 4, 2009)

Looking back at the original post, I believe a good quality MT or MTM coupled with a sub for <80hz material along with suitable amplification will probably satisfy most listeners. There is probably a smaller segment that have greater expectations or a larger/less-lively listening area that will probably seek a bit more ummph:wave: Some may be perfectionists and want to diy better than they can afford/even buy. And then there might be those that are sick, with upgraditis, constantly trying to improve upon their sound, eh?


----------



## tonyvdb (Sep 5, 2007)

why build/buy fullrange towers? I think this question needs to be looked at from a music standpoint. There is usually not much information below 30Hz Jazz and Classical are the exception so full range towers alone is usually adequate in a small to medium sized room.
Most good receivers and pre pros have a pure direct mode and regardless of if you do or do not have a sub is irrelevant as the direct mode disables the sub output. This requires a person to either use the stereo mode for music or get some/build some good quality full sized towers that will go down to at least the 30Hz range.
It is true that adding a sub to good bookshelves will sound very full and if you have the space and are running the sub through its high level inputs or bypassing the receivers processing it does work well but really bypasses the purest way of thinking a two channel rig should be used.


----------



## 1Michael (Nov 2, 2006)

It all comes down to two main questions in my world.
1. How much cash do you have to spend.
2. How big of a box can you handle?
These will determine whether you will go with a tall tower or small bookshelf and of what quality caliber.
Until these are answered there is no point speculating...:spend::T


----------



## vann_d (Apr 7, 2009)

tonyvdb said:


> It is true that adding a sub to good bookshelves will sound very full and if you have the space and are running the sub through its high level inputs or bypassing the receivers processing it does work well but really bypasses the purest way of thinking a two channel rig should be used.


I just don't see any reason why (musically) it should matter whether the driver reproducing your low frequencies is physically in the same box as your mid/upper frequency drivers. Most full range loudspeakers have a physical separation between driver enclosures anyway. Is there some big component being missed by not having the expensive passive crossover? Also, what exactly is wrong with the receiver's processing?

From my (limited) experience, many of the "pure" ways of thinking in audiophile-land make absolutely no sense from an engineering perspective.


----------



## tonyvdb (Sep 5, 2007)

vann_d said:


> I just don't see any reason why (musically) it should matter whether the driver reproducing your low frequencies is physically in the same box as your mid/upper frequency drivers. Most full range loudspeakers have a physical separation between driver enclosures anyway. Is there some big component being missed by not having the expensive passive crossover? Also, what exactly is wrong with the receiver's processing?


 It really does not matter if the sub is in a separate box or in the same enclosure. I personally think In the end you will get better room response going with a separate sub and it puts alot less stress on the receivers amp section.
The receivers processing adds "color" to the sound and some noise (at least thats what some would have you believe) Good quality receivers are now really concentrating on the audio and put very high DACs and other components to get the best out of the sound. 



> From my (limited) experience, many of the "pure" ways of thinking in audiophile-land make absolutely no sense from an engineering perspective.


True, generally most hard core audiophiles are still stuck in the mindset that towers reproduce the sound better than a good sub/mid sized bookshelf speaker setup and I really dont think there is any hard proof that it does. I myself like the looks of Towers/floor standers and you will also understand that in most cases you will get higher SPL out of them over a bookshelf.


----------



## vann_d (Apr 7, 2009)

Thanks Tony, that's what I'm thinking.

Seeing how you can get pretty good LF equalization for $100 and a free software program, I see no reason not to go with separate amplification and separate sub(s). This even includes in-room correction which is something I'm not sure you will get with full-rangers costing thousands...


----------



## tonyvdb (Sep 5, 2007)

Just make sure your speakers do go low enough (around 60Hz) so that you subs crossover is not going to be set to high. Like most have said already 80Hz is the optimal setting and gets rid of any possibilities of localization issues with the sub.


----------



## Jason Schultz (Jul 31, 2007)

Full range or sub? For me it comes down to how the system as a whole plays music. From what I have noticed when I look at the woofer drivers designed to be in many 3 ways, compared to subwoofer drivers is 1/ subwoofer drivers are designed to operate below 100 Hz and have large excursion capabilities. they have heavier cones and can have high Inductance and lower efficiencies. this is great for low and mid bass duties. "woofers" which are designed to be used in 3 way speakers are often more efficient have lower inductance and can play higher into the mid-range area. they usually have less x-max but are light and play upper bass much better probably due to superior transient response. when you consider most musical energy is in the region of 60 to 500 Hz (sorry I forget where I read that) It makes sense to me to use (for music) the best type of driver for this duty and this is for me a large coned, efficient woofer of 10 to 12 inches with comparetivly less x-max. These drivers may not go into the bottom octave but they play the higher stuff really well and don't sound wooly. Alot of generalizations here I know but i'm hoping someone gets my meaning. 2/ A full range tower has woofer producing all bass sounds so there is no difficult phase problems as can be experienced when setting up sub -sattelite systems. pulse response in bass section will be superior when phase response is optimal. 3/ small drivers producing mid and upper bass sounds, sound to me less dynamic. That is subjective ofcourse. Food for thought?


----------



## vann_d (Apr 7, 2009)

Jason Schultz said:


> From what I have noticed when I look at the woofer drivers designed to be in many 3 ways, compared to subwoofer drivers is 1/ subwoofer drivers are designed to operate below 100 Hz and have large excursion capabilities. they have heavier cones and can have high Inductance and lower efficiencies. this is great for low and mid bass duties. "woofers" which are designed to be used in 3 way speakers are often more efficient have lower inductance and can play higher into the mid-range area. they usually have less x-max but are light and play upper bass much better probably due to superior transient response. when you consider most musical energy is in the region of 60 to 500 Hz (sorry I forget where I read that) It makes sense to me to use (for music) the best type of driver for this duty and this is for me a large coned, efficient woofer of 10 to 12 inches with comparetivly less x-max. These drivers may not go into the bottom octave but they play the higher stuff really well and don't sound wooly.


I get your meaning here Jason. There are definitely subwoofer designs I would not want to take into the mid-bass. I think your point here has hit home with me when I think about system design and I may have realized the answer to my question.

For example, the LLT is definitely a design that I would like to pursue as a HT enthusiast. Consider the situation where (please please) I win the Malstrom 21" sub. :daydream: In that case I'm want to build a giant ported enclosure that will have awesome LF response but I wouldn't want to take this driver past 60-80 Hz. In the case that it is 60 Hz max, I would definitely want my speakers to go down below this point. Otherwise I've probably got some issues. Frequency response issues. Additionally, SPL capability would definitely be an issue with my current whimpy bookshelves. This case definitely lends itself to needing a full-range design.

I have to ask, though, why does x-max have to be (or generally be) lower for a driver to be lightweight, stiff, and have response higher in frequency? Does this have to do with suspension compliance and trade-offs in design? I don't see why a low x-max would be necessary. It must be some sort of suspension design limitation. (see my loudspeaker design ignorance here)

There should be designs out there that could satisfy the musical needs though, I think, and still go to the first octave. Not all these designs were made for LLT's. Anyway, I guess if you want to go really low and sound good you are gonna need a sub and a full-range unless you want to spend $$$.

The thing that raises the biggest questions for me, though, is when I look at people's systems in this forum. I would say the majority of systems out there utilize MTM designs in 2 or 2.5 way with 7 inch or less diameter woofers. Nothing wrong here I guess. Then we have a 350L - 600L sonotube with 1200 Watts. Is this pure HT overload or does this actually work for music? This just seems like an unbalanced system. This is a generalized view based on my observations of the forum and I haven't been here long so forgive me if I'm out of line.


----------



## evilskillit (Oct 7, 2008)

I guess the main reason to have full range towers is to let the subs handle the truely subsonic frequencies, like 40 or 30hz and below or maybe even 50hz and lower. Usually towers will have several different drivers covering the mid and low mid, or low mid and bass which means each driver has to cover a smaller frequency range. Also the drivers in full range speakers that cover the mids and lows are usually designed more for this duty, using a few 7" drivers in a tower infront of you it is easy to have loud volume well up into the hundreds of HZ which gives a recording a nice feel of "attack" that LF doesn't give you. Also there is the argument that generally lower x-max drivers sound better, subs are usually high excursion devices, so if the upper and even mid bass can be handled efficiently by several smaller lower excursion drivers it may yeild a cleaner sound.

Lower x-max drivers sound better.


----------



## Jason Schultz (Jul 31, 2007)

[/QUOTE]I have to ask, though, why does x-max have to be (or generally be) lower for a driver to be lightweight, stiff, and have response higher in frequency? Does this have to do with suspension compliance and trade-offs in design? I don't see why a low x-max would be necessary. It must be some sort of suspension design limitation. (see my loudspeaker design ignorance here)


> I guess a lower x-max is the result of a compromise in driver design. It is to reduce weight of moving mass of cone/ voice coil thereby obtaining greater sensitivity. With many higher x-max designs a long voice coil is needed which means a higher moving mass, and lower sensitivity. There are ofcorse some exceptions to this such as the Lambda Series of drivers from Acoustic Elegance which have "decent " x-max and are higher in sensitivity. also The XBL patented (Adire Audio, CSS and others) designs acheive extreme x-max and low resonance and still retain acceptable efficiency. These drivers are more expensive though. Most sound reinforcment type speakers are very high in sensitivity and power handling but have low x-max. They tend to be limited in there low frequency extension but play very loud in higher octaves. I'm not necessarily advocating the use of these types of drivers but I guess this is a good example of how design compromise works. I suppose I am kind of favouring 3 way designs with larger efficient woofers + a sub underpinning it all
> There are some three way designs out there but many more 2 way and 2.5 way ones. I guess two way designs MTM or MMT are popular because of there simplicity and easier to design cross overs.
> I reckon that with 2 way and 2.5 way designs you need at least twin 6.5 inch drivers or larger to acheive good upper and mid bass "impact" for movies and also in music for dynamics and warmth.
> I also think a sub is a must for those bottom octaves. You see I want my cake and to eat it too!
> ...


----------



## StereoClarity (Apr 22, 2008)

Just so we are clear....are we talking about full range towers as Tweeters, midbass and or bass driver? Or are we talking about a tower incorporating full range drivers?


----------



## Drew Eckhardt (Oct 24, 2009)

StereoClarity said:


> Just so we are clear....are we talking about full range towers as Tweeters, midbass and or bass driver? Or are we talking about a tower incorporating full range drivers?


Multi-driver with frequency response extending below 80Hz at home theater output levels (> 105dB)

Discussions have mostly been about conventional tweeter+midbass+bass designs, although I suggested a wave-guide 2-way, and one could theoretically mate a large (Fostex/Lowther/Manger) or small (1.6" Aura) "full range" driver to a larger than typical mid-bass.

I haven't been impressed with the full-range whizzer coned drivers I've heard (acoustic recordings sound subjectively more amplified than with well-implemented more (4-way NHTs) or less (Linkwitz Orion/Pluto, RAAL Requisite Eternity) conventional designs); I couldn't point out where that comes from though).

The 2" Aura NSW2 works great as a mid-tweeter crossed at 1KHz given 3.2 cm^2 Sd with 1.8mm xmax (6mm xsus). They'd be an interesting combination with an unusually large mid-bass if the low efficiency+power handling didn't limit head room. Roll-off in the top octave isn't really noticeable and can be fixed with equalization.


----------



## mjg100 (Mar 12, 2008)

80hz optimal? I think that is too generalized a statement. I cross all of my speakers to my subs at 100Hz and there is no localization. Nor is there localization if I cross all of my speakers to the subs at 120Hz. I have a sub located below each speaker (5.1). If you have an AVR that allows individual crossover points then you can set what you need. Lets say you have small speakers that have more headroom if crossed at 120Hz and you have two subwoofers. Would you not be better off if you located a sub near each main and set the mains crossover point to 120Hz? Set all other speakers to cross to the subs at 80Hz. This way there is no localization of bass with the center or surrounds and none at the mains since the bass on the main channel is coming from the same location as the mains. The increased headroom is nice.


----------



## Synthsayer (Dec 19, 2007)

Are you guys talking about ful-range single driver systems or Full-range 2-way or 3-way systems that use larger diameter drivers?

My posting 'assumed' this was about multi-driver fullrange systems.

Thanks


----------



## lsiberian (Mar 24, 2009)

mjg100 said:


> 80hz optimal? I think that is too generalized a statement. I cross all of my speakers to my subs at 100Hz and there is no localization. Nor is there localization if I cross all of my speakers to the subs at 120Hz. I have a sub located below each speaker (5.1). If you have an AVR that allows individual crossover points then you can set what you need. Lets say you have small speakers that have more headroom if crossed at 120Hz and you have two subwoofers. Would you not be better off if you located a sub near each main and set the mains crossover point to 120Hz? Set all other speakers to cross to the subs at 80Hz. This way there is no localization of bass with the center or surrounds and none at the mains since the bass on the main channel is coming from the same location as the mains. The increased headroom is nice.


Multiple sub setups are rare. So the 80hz recommendation stands for most setups. 

80hz is the place to start. Then you use your ears to adjust. 



Synthsayer said:


> Are you guys talking about ful-range single driver systems or Full-range 2-way or 3-way systems that use larger diameter drivers?
> 
> My posting 'assumed' this was about multi-driver fullrange systems.
> 
> Thanks


a full range system is the main topic here.


----------



## vann_d (Apr 7, 2009)

mjg100 said:


> 80hz optimal? I think that is too generalized a statement. I cross all of my speakers to my subs at 100Hz and there is no localization. Nor is there localization if I cross all of my speakers to the subs at 120Hz. I have a sub located below each speaker (5.1). If you have an AVR that allows individual crossover points then you can set what you need. Lets say you have small speakers that have more headroom if crossed at 120Hz and you have two subwoofers. Would you not be better off if you located a sub near each main and set the mains crossover point to 120Hz? Set all other speakers to cross to the subs at 80Hz. This way there is no localization of bass with the center or surrounds and none at the mains since the bass on the main channel is coming from the same location as the mains. The increased headroom is nice.


That sounds like a pretty cool system. This is kinda what I was thinking about. Have something like an mtm with an active sub underneath it for the LR mains. I could build this type of system for cheaper I think than an integrated full range 3-way system with the expensive passive crossover network. It would likely go lower and louder and I wouldn't need an expensive amp to drive the system. Maybe the 3-way would have a smoother anechoic response but I'm gonna use REW and BFD at the low end anyway to correct in-room.

Also, with the 3-way I'd still need a sub for HT no?


----------



## mjg100 (Mar 12, 2008)

There are a lot of people on AVS that have multiple subs. Most people that have a dedicated HT end up with more than one sub. They may start with one, but usually end up with two or more.


----------



## mjg100 (Mar 12, 2008)

vann_d said:


> That sounds like a pretty cool system. This is kinda what I was thinking about. Have something like an mtm with an active sub underneath it for the LR mains. I could build this type of system for cheaper I think than an integrated full range 3-way system with the expensive passive crossover network. It would likely go lower and louder and I wouldn't need an expensive amp to drive the system. Maybe the 3-way would have a smoother anechoic response but I'm gonna use REW and BFD at the low end anyway to correct in-room.
> 
> Also, with the 3-way I'd still need a sub for HT no?


Yes. One reason that you can do this pretty cheap is because there are a lot of small speakers available at close out prices that would work for a mid/high unit. I am still thinking that the active Behringer studio monitors would be a good way to go if you are starting out. The tweeters have a waveguide so there is some directivity to match with the woofer and the mark up for pro studio monitors is a whole lot less than consumer speakers.


----------



## tonyvdb (Sep 5, 2007)

mjg100 said:


> I am still thinking that the active Behringer studio monitors would be a good way to go if you are starting out. The tweeters have a waveguide so there is some directivity to match with the woofer and the mark up for pro studio monitors is a whole lot less than consumer speakers.


The Behringers are by no means a studio monitor They may call it that but do not have the sound quality or the build quality of real monitors. To say that the markup on monitors is less than home audio speakers is just false as a proper real pair of studio monitors will run you a minimum of $800. Consumer end speakers have the least amount of markup due to sales quantities.


----------



## mjg100 (Mar 12, 2008)

vann_d said:


> That sounds like a pretty cool system. This is kinda what I was thinking about. Have something like an mtm with an active sub underneath it for the LR mains. I could build this type of system for cheaper I think than an integrated full range 3-way system with the expensive passive crossover network. It would likely go lower and louder and I wouldn't need an expensive amp to drive the system. Maybe the 3-way would have a smoother anechoic response but I'm gonna use REW and BFD at the low end anyway to correct in-room.
> 
> Also, with the 3-way I'd still need a sub for HT no?


That is how I started out. I added subs/bass bins below my mains and used an active crossover to integrate them so that my mains were three-way. I tried various (100 up to 200Hz) cross over points to the bass bins and found that 120Hz worked the best with my speakers. The drivers I used in the small sealed bass bins were low distortion, low inductance drivers with shorting rings. I also tried the LFE+Mains setting. While the system did sound good, It sounded better when I placed those subs on the LFE channel and set speakers to cross to the subs at 100Hz. I even went back today and switched it back so that the mains were a three-way. I tried several cross over points, LFE+Mains and I even tried overlapping (Mains at 100Hz and bass bins at 100, 120, 150, 180 & 200) the mains and the bass bins. None of it is as good as just using the subs on the LFE channel with the crossover point raised to 100Hz.


----------



## mjg100 (Mar 12, 2008)

tonyvdb said:


> The Behringers are by no means a studio monitor They may call it that but do not have the sound quality or the build quality of real monitors. To say that the markup on monitors is less than home audio speakers is just false as a proper real pair of studio monitors will run you a minimum of $800. Consumer end speakers have the least amount of markup due to sales quantities.


Have you seen the inside of a Behringer? Ricci uses 10 of the B2031A's in a couple of systems. He measures all of his systems and he is getting good response and SPL out of them. For subs he has 18" LMS 5400, 18" RE XXX. As far as pricing I have had several pro audio dealers tell me that the mark-up is lower. Here is a post from (dealer) AVS in regards to studio monitors.


"You guys are all approaching the question from a Technical point of view. But you are all missing why so few people use pro monitors in the home. It comes down to two basic factors...

1) Saleability. Most people buy their speakers from either stores or from ID companies. The vast majority of people, when they buy speakers know one thing...hook up speaker wires to a receiver and turn it on. Most pro studio monitors are active (not all, but *most*). There are two very good reasons for that in a studio. First, active monitors typically sound better. Second, it is easier to run XLR cables out of the console right to the speaker and not have to deal with another box (amp). You pitch an active speaker to the average home theater consumer and their eyes will glaze over as you talk about RCA to XLR adapters and biamping. Plenty of people have tried full active in consumer, but the acceptance has been very slow (to say the least). In truth, it is EASIER to sell passive speakers to the average consumer. In addition, as previously pointed out, many pro speakers are not built with fancy wood finishes. Studios are a place of business and this isn't a big deciding factor. Matter of fact, it may be a distraction. Home speakers, on the other hand, often do have aesthetic considerations. There ARE some pro speaker companies who do cross into the home market with the same speakers as the studios but in nice wood finishes. PMC is one of them (I sell them) but they are primarily passive.

2) *Second, and most important factor of all....profitability. The truth of the matter is that a lot of pro gear lines are considerably less profitable compared to consumer gear. Pro monitors are tools. As tools, they are purchased differently than a home speaker with different thought processes and different logic. In a commercial studio, they are there to make money and are a capital business investment, not a discretionary purchase. Also, the market is far more limited and the competition is fierce.* Go to the average home theater store with thousands of dollars in overhead per month and do you really think the owner is going to sell a speaker he can make a 20 point margin on...or is he going to sell a speaker he can make a 50 point margin on? *The plain truth is, most entry to mid level active NFM's are low margin products in a very competive market. How low? Look at Behringer B2031A's. Good little monitor for cheap. They sell out on the street for $349 a pair with free shipping (figure $35 a pair to the dealer). Dealer cost? $264 a pair. Dealer nets a whopping $45 a pair after he pays to ship them to the customer. Compare that to a consumer speaker. Sells for $349 a pair. Dealer cost? About $180 a pair (less if they are Internet Direct). Dealer makes $134 a pair. Big difference versus $45 a pair. Which one would sound better? The active ones. Which one is the store owner going to display? Well DUH!*

*Technically, pro monitors work just fine in home theaters. I've been selling them for many many years. JTR, Danley, PMC, Behringer, etc. At the lower end of the spectrum, a near field monitor is typically going to be good only in a smaller room because most NFM's have limited output (there is no reason to have high output for a bridge monitor that is going to sit 2-3' from your face). You look at most small to mid NFM's and they usually peak out around 110 db which is going to cover a smaller space but won't meet reference when you get into a larger space.* Midfield and main monitors are going to work fine in medium to larger spaces because they have higher output levels. At that point, you do run up against diminishing returns. The elite main monitors are VERY expensive. PMC BB5/XBD Actives run $175,000 for an LCR setup, and they are simply STAGGERING, but they still cost what a Ferrari does. A serious top line production company or composer mixing or composing multi-million dollar sound tracks will find them worth the investment because they *are* that good and they are a known reference in the professional field...but the average home theater buyer may blanch just a bit. That is why the trend in home theater is away from main studio monitors and more towards ultra high end LIVE sound type speakers like JTR, Seaton, and Danley. These products have close to, or equal accuracy as many of the more exotic main monitors and have equal or greater output (albeit typically less bass extension, which is made up for with subs in a home theater installation) and a far lower cost. Their reference is live sound (always a good thing to compare to). Products like the Active Danley SH-50 with a dual active TH-50 sub system will easily match (and in some areas, outdo) a BB-5/XBD system for a mere $28K for an LCR setup. There are fewer of these designs out there but they are starting to make make a noticable impact in the home theater community AND in the studio community. The companies who make this type of product have a mix of both passive (JTR) and Passive OR Active designs (Danley and Seaton) at prices that an average person can afford to get into their home. They deliver a mix of ultra high performance, flexibility, sound quality and value that is making some serious waves. So pro speakers ARE getting into more and more homes, but not quite the pro speakers you may have had in mind."

The B2031A's work a little better in rooms because they have a larger LF driver than most of the other monitors at that price point. These speakers top out at 116db at 1 meter so they do not have enough SPL to hit reference in medium to large rooms, but they will do nicely in a small room.  Ricci posted that the LF driver used in the B2031A's is a Vifa driver that Behringer has custom made for them.


----------



## lsiberian (Mar 24, 2009)

tonyvdb said:


> The Behringers are by no means a studio monitor They may call it that but do not have the sound quality or the build quality of real monitors. To say that the markup on monitors is less than home audio speakers is just false as a proper real pair of studio monitors will run you a minimum of $800. Consumer end speakers have the least amount of markup due to sales quantities.


Tony, Have you seen the measurements on the Behringer 2030p's or done an ABX test with these? 

Cost isn't a valid basis to evaluate a product IMO. Behringer has it's issues, but the Behringer 2030p's are certainly diamonds in the rough so to speak. 

I don't recommend the active version due to reported amp issues.


----------



## mjg100 (Mar 12, 2008)

lsiberian said:


> Tony, Have you seen the measurements on the Behringer 2030p's or done an ABX test with these?
> 
> Cost isn't a valid basis to evaluate a product IMO. Behringer has it's issues, but the Behringer 2030p's are certainly diamonds in the rough so to speak.
> 
> I don't recommend the active version due to reported amp issues.


The 2030P is very hard to beat for the money. The B2031A's are said to be pretty reliable. The B2030A's had some issues with the amps. I have not heard of any problems with regards to the B3031A's, but they have not been around very long.


----------



## tonyvdb (Sep 5, 2007)

I never said that the Behringer's were junk (they are a good speaker for the price) only that they are not Monitors no matter what they call them. Monitors need to be designed differently than Home audio speakers in the way that Monitors are designed for near field listening (Less than 4 feet) with a flat response not to fill a room and dont fulfill the function for Home theater use very well.
IMOP The Behringer's are good for surrounds or for a small room theater setup but for most larger rooms they simply wont cut it.


----------



## lsiberian (Mar 24, 2009)

The 2031's have midrange issues. I'd stick to the 2030p's 

I've not seen a waterfall on any other speaker, but the 2030 waterfall is very impressive. Now the off axis response is terrible, but this is a $130 per pair investment. for 260 you can have a basic home theater setup. The next step up is the Ascend Acoustics 170.


----------



## mjg100 (Mar 12, 2008)

I am more interested in the B3031A's, but I have not been able to locate a pair to listen to. I would like to hear the ribbon tweeter.


----------



## tonyvdb (Sep 5, 2007)

lsiberian said:


> Now the off axis response is terrible


Thats another difference between "monitors" and Home audio speakers. Monitors also dont have good off axis coverage.
Sorry guys did not mean to start a debate on this.:hide::surrender:


----------



## ironglen (Mar 4, 2009)

I'll have to go somewhere to demo speakers with 'exotic' things as ribbon tweeters:rofl2: I'm hoping my mb quarts' titanium tweets are pretty good compared to other tweets, as I don't foresee an upgrade in those for a long time:rubeyes:

Did we address the post's question on full range towers?:whistling:


----------



## mjg100 (Mar 12, 2008)

tonyvdb said:


> Thats another difference between "monitors" and Home audio speakers. *Monitors also dont have good off axis coverage.*
> Sorry guys did not mean to start a debate on this.:hide::surrender:


Sorry but that is too much of a generalization. There are monitors that do have good off axis response and there are many consumer speakers that do not have good off axis response. You have to look at speaker measurements no matter what type of speaker it is. Also many consumer speakers do not have any directivity. They just stick a tweeter on a flat baffle. A tweeter on a flat baffle usually will not match the dispersion characteristics of the LF driver. Directivity is just as important as off axis response. If you have a small HT, only three or four seats wide and you have the mains toed in then you do not have to worry much about off axis response. In a situation like that directivity is probably more important.


----------



## JerryLove (Dec 5, 2009)

So buy your subs, build your bookshelves, build a custom mounting to put one on the other and presto: You've built a full range speaker.

My own plan is similar... but I'm building the subs first: then building the middle/high frequency drivers.

Even if it's all DIY: it's easier to control resonance in a bookshelf.


----------



## Synthsayer (Dec 19, 2007)

> Monitors need to be designed differently than Home audio speakers in the way that Monitors are designed for near field listening (Less than 4 feet) with a flat response not to fill a room and dont fulfill the function for Home theater use very well.


In my experience with studio near field monitors and audiophile speaker systems there is a difference between them. But, it may be possible to use near field monitors as HT speakers. I used a pair of JBL 4311's for a long time and they sounded very good. But monitors specifically designed as near field like the Genelec 6010A may be best suited for close proximity like Tonydvb said. 

But if you like the sound of a speaker then who is to say different.

Read more: why build/buy fullrange towers? - Page 2 - Home Theater Systems - Electronics and Forum - HomeTheaterShack http://www.hometheatershack.com/for...lrange-towers-2.html#post215889#ixzz0Zq25smUD


----------



## mjg100 (Mar 12, 2008)

Synthsayer said:


> In my experience with studio near field monitors and audiophile speaker systems there is a difference between them. But, it may be possible to use near field monitors as HT speakers. I used a pair of JBL 4311's for a long time and they sounded very good. But monitors specifically designed as near field like the Genelec 6010A may be best suited for close proximity like Tonydvb said.
> 
> But if you like the sound of a speaker then who is to say different.
> 
> Read more: why build/buy fullrange towers? - Page 2 - Home Theater Systems - Electronics and Forum - HomeTheaterShack http://www.hometheatershack.com/for...lrange-towers-2.html#post215889#ixzz0Zq25smUD


You have to use some common sense when buying studio monitors just like you do when buying speakers. The Genelec 6010A has a max output of [email protected] for a pair. Even a small HT would place them two to three meters away from the listening position. They just do not have enough output.


----------



## Synthsayer (Dec 19, 2007)

> Genelec 6010A may be best suited for close proximity like Tonydvb said.





> The Genelec 6010A has a max output of [email protected] for a pair. Even a small HT would place them two to three meters away from the listening position. They just do not have enough output.


Please note the word MAY. I was using a general example.

Read more: why build/buy fullrange towers? - Page 2 - Home Theater Systems - Electronics and Forum - HomeTheaterShack http://www.hometheatershack.com/for...lrange-towers-2.html#post216239#ixzz0ZrYdOoCz


Read more: why build/buy fullrange towers? - Page 2 - Home Theater Systems - Electronics and Forum - HomeTheaterShack http://www.hometheatershack.com/for...lrange-towers-2.html#post216239#ixzz0ZrYSo8h1


----------



## mjg100 (Mar 12, 2008)

Synthsayer said:


> Please note the word MAY. I was using a general example.
> 
> Read more: why build/buy fullrange towers? - Page 2 - Home Theater Systems - Electronics and Forum - HomeTheaterShack http://www.hometheatershack.com/for...lrange-towers-2.html#post216239#ixzz0ZrYdOoCz
> 
> ...


A was not arguing with you. I am agreeing with you. Those studio monitors are not suitable for HT use. Just like there are many consumer speakers that really are not suitable for HT use. You have to analyze the speakers to determine if they are suitable for their intended purpose.


----------

