One can give a "broader" description (several have already by fleshing out the acronym) . . . but what sreten writes is where you end up if you do it right.
It comes down to little more than adding a woofer to address baffle step and give some bass extension.
Probably. I still loathe it though since I can't see how crossover design has become technology in this case but is presumably not in the case of other multiway systems. 😉
Sorry. One of my little foibles. You don't want to know what I tell my students whenever I see them write, for example "1880's." 😀 Of course, I'm not exactly one to talk given that I managed to miss out the 'e' at the end of 'loathe' in my original post, which you were kind enough not to mention. 😉
Last edited:
Yeah, I'm not much for acronyms in general. 😱
I can see a design that has no electrical slope characteristic not being a multi-way design. Or one that just uses electrical components for eq... Or even one that is just a ".5".
I think I'd even stretch that to a full-range design (no filtered slope) that needs an active "sub" to fill-in for pressure loss in the lower midrange. (..which is likely to be a great many "fullrange" designs that use no baffle-step compensation filter.) In this case I've usually seen it as two separate designs (A. fullrange, and B. subwoofer).
While lacking the lettered credentials suffixed to my surname, an certainly lacking the acuity with which to express such an opinion as viscerally in the Queen's bloody-right English as we find by our Dr. Lindgren, I wholeheartedly agree with the thrust of his flèche. Indeed, as I've said in several prior posts on the subject, I prefer to refer to this configuration as "2ways with low XO", or some such linguistic gyration.
Unfortunately, absent a more concise technical description of operating standards and agreed nickname/ sobriquet, acceptable to be spoke without offence in the native tongues of any of our international "brotherhood", I guess we're stuck with this for now - or else it's
- "you know, that thing we read about on that forum post -a dinky little driver, with woofer- sorta like a regular 2-way, but not exactly"
- "not exactly, how's that then?"
-" right, I'm really sure, let's Google it!"
Edit: Scott re your post above, does that beg the question as to what exactly constitutes a "sub" ?( at least in this context - don't Google just those 3 letters alone - not all replies will be SFW
Unfortunately, absent a more concise technical description of operating standards and agreed nickname/ sobriquet, acceptable to be spoke without offence in the native tongues of any of our international "brotherhood", I guess we're stuck with this for now - or else it's
- "you know, that thing we read about on that forum post -a dinky little driver, with woofer- sorta like a regular 2-way, but not exactly"
- "not exactly, how's that then?"
-" right, I'm really sure, let's Google it!"
Edit: Scott re your post above, does that beg the question as to what exactly constitutes a "sub" ?( at least in this context - don't Google just those 3 letters alone - not all replies will be SFW
Last edited:
Yes, for quite some time now the abbreviated "sub" in our context (..short for subwoofer), really doesn't "match-up" with the word's meaning IMO:
"Sub" or *below* that of a woofer (in frequency).
Woofer's are really supposed to extend well into the bass region, certainly below 50 Hz near the average spl for the loudspeaker it's designed for.
At the very least then, a subwoofer should have the majority of its output below 50 Hz then..
AND YET,
The ubiquitous "plate" amp "subwoofer" is often marketed and even used at freq.s well above 50 Hz - often 80-120 Hz (for it's low-pass setting). That's in the lower midrange. 😱
So yup, I don't think they are really subwoofers (or "subs") at all.
I don't know.. perhaps my viewpoint on "woofers" is skewed, there is a legitimate claim to be made that even a four inch fullrange driver is a "woofer" - but I don't think of it like that at all. 😱
Woofer - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
(note that it's woofer OR tweeter, with no mention of "midrange".. so in that context anything that is not a tweeter is presumably a woofer: ergo, a 4 inch fullrange driver with very limited low freq. extension is a woofer.)
This nomenclature quandry does seem to parallel the FAST acronym though. 😱
You can forget FAST (silly acronym anyway) then, because you will be disappointed. Rock (loud rock, as if there was another) has a lot mid and bass that a full range will struggle with. Better to cut to the chase and go three way active.
Abs
That's what I was suspecting. I like the idea of the electronic simplicity of FR, and the potential imaging, but suspect the FAST might still work. Interesting project all the same!
Sir,you may well be short-changing what a well-implemented FAST is capable of.
dave
A lot of the builds I've seen labelled as FAST, my own included, would be better described as a full range unit with helper woofer(s) or full range and woofer(s). Wording very much dependant upon what type of enclosure the FR unit is housed, plus how and at what point a crossover is implemented... Just a thought.
Twaddle. Sweeping statements like that sans a very large amount of extra data are at best misleading. It depends on the drive units, crossover frequencies and crossover slopes. A bit like every other multiway loudspeaker. For example, here's one that isn't too shabby when it comes to LF dynamic range, relative to many more conventional systems: http://www.blackdahlia.com/html/tip_45.html
Last edited:
I cannot believe I read this far.
This sort of fluff really irks me!
In answer to the OP. FAST is yet another flavour of audiowafle.
Ok it is great that diy people are enthused and proud of what they (we) produce. Similarly it is fine that people with products to sell dress them up as best they can.
FAST? As marketing hype it is more grist for the mill.
Does an active crossover make a difference? Without any question whatsoever. Only in the worst "limiting case" of no bass and all midrange does there exist no difference between active and passive. The truth is that while this occurs, for the vast majority of material a two way system implemented actively is streets Ahead of a passive system.
Does this warrant a poncy acronym? Not unless I was trying to sell it to the unwary.
Should you look at active crossovers? Absolutely. Aside from your drivers themselves there is no single thing that will have more effect on your overall system performance.
Sorry for the spray.
This sort of fluff really irks me!
In answer to the OP. FAST is yet another flavour of audiowafle.
Ok it is great that diy people are enthused and proud of what they (we) produce. Similarly it is fine that people with products to sell dress them up as best they can.
FAST? As marketing hype it is more grist for the mill.
Does an active crossover make a difference? Without any question whatsoever. Only in the worst "limiting case" of no bass and all midrange does there exist no difference between active and passive. The truth is that while this occurs, for the vast majority of material a two way system implemented actively is streets Ahead of a passive system.
Does this warrant a poncy acronym? Not unless I was trying to sell it to the unwary.
Should you look at active crossovers? Absolutely. Aside from your drivers themselves there is no single thing that will have more effect on your overall system performance.
Sorry for the spray.
sorry no snappy sounding acronym needed
yeah I always disliked 'FAST' as a name and nobody remembers what the letters stand for
"Assisted" doesn't differentiate between a helper Tweeter or Woofer, so it's kinda useless.
how about FR+W ( Full Range Plus Woofer )?
as a concept > I'm sure it sounds wonderful to the FR crowd but it could be problematical if not done right, IMO seems you want a single driver to cover the human voice frequency range 80-1,100 Hz plus overtones.
Try some male singers or interviews and such, see if it stands up , it could sound weird depending on the implementation.
yeah I always disliked 'FAST' as a name and nobody remembers what the letters stand for
"Assisted" doesn't differentiate between a helper Tweeter or Woofer, so it's kinda useless.
how about FR+W ( Full Range Plus Woofer )?
as a concept > I'm sure it sounds wonderful to the FR crowd but it could be problematical if not done right, IMO seems you want a single driver to cover the human voice frequency range 80-1,100 Hz plus overtones.
Try some male singers or interviews and such, see if it stands up , it could sound weird depending on the implementation.
Last edited:
AudioKarma has (had? Who cares) a full-range forum. I suggested that the definition of what would be acceptable for discussion should be any speaker with one driver covering 300-3kHz. I was essentially banned. I still think that this definition is appropriate if one stops using the rather silly term "full-range" as substitute "wide-range".
Bob
Bob
That's a subversion of the recording industry based on a the hypothetical hearing of 20 Hz to 20 kHz range (..which is often highly unrealistic). 😉
To me it based on real sources and their fundamentals (vocals and instruments). Middle C is usually the middle of the midrange (at almost 262 Hz). (..and extrapolate from there.)
basic audio glossary | Audvidgeek's Blog
- Status
- Not open for further replies.