I feel like I'm fishing in a swimming pool.....
11-01-2004, 10:05 PM
#11
^^ bing bing.. dave gets a prize.. lol..
This topic may be a little irrelavent, since cone breakup can probably be reduced to the point where its not aubile with any shape you can think of... using the right materials...
However, I believe that a flat piston will have superior rigidiy to a concentric piston of equal dia/mass/material.
I'm sure the best cone design possible would use the almightly triangle in its design for superior weight/rigidity... on the otherhand it also seems overkill for what we acually need...
This topic may be a little irrelavent, since cone breakup can probably be reduced to the point where its not aubile with any shape you can think of... using the right materials...
However, I believe that a flat piston will have superior rigidiy to a concentric piston of equal dia/mass/material.
I'm sure the best cone design possible would use the almightly triangle in its design for superior weight/rigidity... on the otherhand it also seems overkill for what we acually need...
11-02-2004, 06:42 AM
#13
1000 Watt CAFz'r
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 1,649
Yeah.......... then factor in that everyone's ears hear things differently because no two sets of ears are the same, that you hear things differently depending on fatigue, atmospheric conditions, environment, etc, etc. Then ponder the idea of installing these things in the worst environment possible............. I truly believe setting a standard in car audio is insane when we're talking about the fine details. But's that only my opinion. Others think differently.
11-02-2004, 05:55 PM
#15
Yankee
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 3,599
Measurements have their place, they tell the strengths and weaknesses of the design. They tell how efficient or sensitive the driver is, where you might want to cross it over, directionality, and how loud it will ultimately get.
What doesn’t it tell you: how it sounds, how it sounds when it gets loud, how fragile the driver is, does it present a lot of detail and is that musical or analytical detail, does it present depth well, does it have a 'house sound'.
The specs tell how well a driver is engineered (but not how well it is made) and when it is appropriate for a given application. Published specifications don’t really do a good job of approximating the sound of the driver.
What doesn’t it tell you: how it sounds, how it sounds when it gets loud, how fragile the driver is, does it present a lot of detail and is that musical or analytical detail, does it present depth well, does it have a 'house sound'.
The specs tell how well a driver is engineered (but not how well it is made) and when it is appropriate for a given application. Published specifications don’t really do a good job of approximating the sound of the driver.
11-02-2004, 09:22 PM
#16
Xmag will tell you how much excursion (how loud) you will get before the speaker causes audible distortion.
exception is if you have cone breakup, which is what this post is about...
The rest is in the application/installation.... [img]graemlins/thumb.gif[/img]
exception is if you have cone breakup, which is what this post is about...
The rest is in the application/installation.... [img]graemlins/thumb.gif[/img]
11-03-2004, 01:55 PM
#17
Guest
Posts: n/a
^ Maybe for a woofer but for any driver with a highpass on it there's more to consider.
Since I am replying, the best shape for a diaphragm is parabolic - whether convex, concave, or inverted. The only advantage to a flat diaphragm is depth and most companies don't play this feature.
Since I am replying, the best shape for a diaphragm is parabolic - whether convex, concave, or inverted. The only advantage to a flat diaphragm is depth and most companies don't play this feature.
11-03-2004, 07:21 PM
#18
Originally posted by Dukk:
^ Maybe for a woofer but for any driver with a highpass on it there's more to consider.
Since I am replying, the best shape for a diaphragm is parabolic
^ Maybe for a woofer but for any driver with a highpass on it there's more to consider.
Since I am replying, the best shape for a diaphragm is parabolic
What more is there to consider for a highpassed driver? (off axis response?- I'd group that with application & install)
11-03-2004, 09:40 PM
#20
Originally posted by Haunz:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Dukk:
^ Maybe for a woofer but for any driver with a highpass on it there's more to consider.
Since I am replying, the best shape for a diaphragm is parabolic
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Dukk:
^ Maybe for a woofer but for any driver with a highpass on it there's more to consider.
Since I am replying, the best shape for a diaphragm is parabolic
What more is there to consider for a highpassed driver? (off axis response?- I'd group that with application & install) </font>[/QUOTE]My guess would be because a parabolic shape allows for a stronger structure.
