[420tabbycat]

I’m sniffing around the audible physics offerings and after poking along the rabbit hole I’m wondering something. Some people are adding a tweeter to cover the 10-12k + range with widebanders but a 3-4” driver begins to narrow around 5khz It appears that the dispersion will narrow significantly around the point where the tweeter takes over with an immediate widening thereafter. What are y’all’s thoughts?

 

[ckirocz28]

I’m sniffing around the audible physics offerings and after poking along the rabbit hole I’m wondering something. Some people are adding a tweeter to cover the 10-12k + range with widebanders but a 3-4” driver begins to narrow around 5khz It appears that the dispersion will narrow significantly around the point where the tweeter takes over with an immediate widening thereafter. What are y’all’s thoughts?

That's why we use those widebands as mids, if you're gonna have a tweeter anyway.

 

[bbfoto]

IME, having a smooth directivity between drivers is important in highly reflective environments like a car. It's not as important when you are listening to let's say nearfield studio monitors in a larger space where the room reflections are not contributing nearly as much to what you are hearing...though it will reduce the size of the "sweet spot".

But listen to those same studio monitors that have poor directivity matching in a reflective room and in a more mid-field or far-field scenario, and they lose most of their magic.

In a vehicle, we can't really get away from all of the reflected energy. The reflections are a major contributor to the sound in a vehicle, so IMO, having smooth directivity between drivers is more desirable. It affects both tonality and the imaging cues.

IMO, choosing the best tweeter that you can along with a true high-quality midrange, and using both in an appropriate passband to minimize the delta in directivity is the way to go, and it will provide the desired "air" and ambience.

Though I can't say I've done much experimentation with good "widebanders", as the erratic high end response above 5k-6k in most of them keeps me from going that route, along with the potential beaming issues.

I'm sure you've read @Ge0's "comparison" thread, and I tend to agree with the majority of his impressions. The Focal TBM, Morel Piccolo v2, and Audison Thesis Violino v2 really give you that special 3D "air" and holographic space...and the BliesMa beryllium as well.

I first heard the newer Focal TBM beryllium tweeter variation in the Trio11 Be studio monitors, and let me tell you, they are somethin' special. The "air" and 3D space rendering, as well as the extremely wide sweet spot, blew me away.

Using differential rear fill can also help in this regard, but it doesn't work consistently with all music.

 

[420tabbycat]

That's why we use those widebands as mids, if you're gonna have a tweeter anyway.

I’m sorry but I don’t follow the point you’re making. The widebanders begin to narrow around 4-5khz but people in the know (pssound) for one instance talk about using a tweeter to cover only the sparkle up and past 10khz. The difference in dispersion of 4” at 8khz ish and the tweeter taking over at 10khz is major.

 

[420tabbycat]

IME, having a smooth directivity between drivers is important in highly reflective environments like a car. It's not as important when you are listening to let's say nearfield studio monitors in a larger space where the room reflections are not contributing nearly as much to what you are hearing.

But listen to those same studio monitors that have poor directivity matching in a reflective room and in a more mid-field or far-field scenario, and they lose most of their magic.

In a vehicle, we can't really get away from all of the reflected energy. The reflections are a major contributor to the sound in a vehicle, so IMO, having smooth directivity between drivers is more desirable. It affects both tonality and the imaging cues.

IMO, choosing the best tweeter that you can along with a true high-quality midrange, and using both in an appropriate passband to minimize the delta in directivity is the way to go, and it will provide the desired "air" and ambience.

Though I can't say I've done much experimentation with good "widebanders", as the erratic high end response above 5k-6k in most of them keeps me from going that route, along with the potential beaming issues.

I'm sure you've read @Ge0's "comparison" thread, and I tend to agree with the majority of his impressions. The Focal TBM, Morel Piccolo v2, and Audison Thesis Violino v2 really give you that special 3D "air" and holographic space...and the BliesMa beryllium as well.

I first heard the newer Focal TBM beryllium tweeter variation in the Trio11 Be studio monitors, and let me tell you, they are somethin' special. It blew me away.

Using differential rear fill can also help in this regard, but it doesn't work consistently with all music.

I’m generally on top of what you’re saying but I understand Peter (pssound) to be a successful and highly knowledgeable player in the field and I watched him talk about having a tweeter “take over” around 10-12khz when using the audible physics RG100. It got me wondering how he would recommend that.

 

[seafish]

There are always the mini ribbon tweeters that Audible Physics used to provide with their original NZ3 wide bands.

No crossover necessary ... Wired in series with the midrange speaker they provide just a little bit of air and sparkle...

Its the little thing in the pic below...about 3/4" long and 1/2" tall

 

[ckirocz28]

I’m sorry but I don’t follow the point you’re making. The widebanders begin to narrow around 4-5khz but people in the know (pssound) for one instance talk about using a tweeter to cover only the sparkle up and past 10khz. The difference in dispersion of 4” at 8khz ish and the tweeter taking over at 10khz is major.

My point is, if you're gonna have a tweeter anyway, just use one that plays low enough that the mid (wideband) doesn't have to play past its beaming frequency.

 

[bbfoto]

I’m generally on top of what you’re saying but I understand Peter (pssound) to be a successful and highly knowledgeable player in the field and I watched him talk about having a tweeter “take over” around 10-12khz when using the audible physics RG100. It got me wondering how he would recommend that.

Yes, Peter obviously knows what he's talking about, and as a somewhat more affordable solution, the RG100 and "AMT" tweeters work extremely well and sound great.

But I think if you asked him, he'd be the first to admit that a higher quality dedicated midrange & more traditional tweeter combination such as the Focal Utopias or the Accuton Automotive drivers would wipe the floor of the RG100 + AMT.

With the RG100 + AMT you will achieve the additional "air" and sparkle, but the Depth, Separation/Focus, Room Ambience, and 3D Holographic Soundstage will not compare to the higher end and more traditional setup...assuming that both setups are installed and tuned properly. Been there/tried that.

Yes, I realize it's an entirely different price category, but in terms of pure SQ, that's the reality...IMO&E.

If you have the RG100's and feel you are missing that extra detail and "air", yes, the "air" tweeters are worth adding IF you already have the extra DSP & amplifer channels.

But I don't think I'd upgrade my DSP and/or add another amplifer just to be able to implement the "air" tweeters. However, I would make those upgrades to accommodate a better midrange & tweeter.

 

[420tabbycat]

So funny, I just can’t seem to bury the hatchet on fullrangers, they always find a way to sneak back into my mind. Frogs and Lpg’s are treating me well, it’s not like I could even say something is missing or needed for my enjoyment.