New AA SMD Woofer

[80INCHES]

AMEN

80

[duece212]

What percentage of car audio users aim for 100% accurate reproduction of a recording in their car? What percentage try to get loud first, with decent reproduction of the music in their noisy odd shaped cars taking a back seat?

Just curious where the majority of the money is spent on products with what application in mind.

[snoopdan]

I know for me its 75% loud, 25% SQ.... But when I started out, it was more like 99.9% loud, and if I can hear the rest of the music, it was a bonus

[duece212]

I know for me its 75% loud, 25% SQ.... But when I started out, it was more like 99.9% loud, and if I can hear the rest of the music, it was a bonus

For me its hoping for anything good to happen. If it sounds good or gets loud I'm happy with whatever I get

And regarding this woofer, who cares if it sounds "good". After sitting in a car that could do a 150 on music I couldn't tell you if it sounded good or not, I just know it sounded uncomfortable

I know they can be played at lower volume for enjoyment but that loud I don't think I or many people would really be critiquing the sound.

[Kyle_Keating]

Nope xbl^2 is patented...and you have to pay for it.

There's others out there..that aren't, and yield similar results. Why one would run a variable density coil and a huge gap is beyond me...but i'm not one to think inside of any sort of box.

Have fun figuring it out though

actaully, i have done tons of modeling with split coil and xbl^2 and lms, and other models too, and I'm sure you will be quite surprised at both the linearity of the results and the efficiency of all the models.

I also find it very rude calling Thilo's ideas "useless," thats not very graceful of Fi representative to say after they just bought up a TC patent...

[Mc_Hammer]

[Kyle_Keating]

Some did so without a legal agreement. Not a good situation...that's why some were hesitant on purchasing this patent, as it may have required some legal investment to stop those who were using it without licensing or royalties.

Nick doesn't like anything that's focused on linearity.

well if hes talking about frequency response, thats one thing, most people perfer something not flat in the frequency domain, but if hes talking about BL or something pertaining to the motor, I would not agree. If anything hes asking for more SPL which is a sensitivity thing and linear motors are inherently less sensitive so I think thats what hes getting at.

[NDMstang65]

actaully, i have done tons of modeling with split coil and xbl^2 and lms, and other models too, and I'm sure you will be quite surprised at both the linearity of the results and the efficiency of all the models.

I also find it very rude calling Thilo's ideas "useless," thats not very graceful of Fi representative to say after they just bought up a TC patent...

It's useless to me...it goes against the way we do things. Not saying the idea in and of itself is useless.

You mean to tell me that if you know how to make water burn the same as gasoline...you would still purchase gasoline? Your nothing short of a bold face liar if you say that.

You wouldn't purchase gasoline, as it would be useless to you. (same scenario, different application as I would never use LMS, as you would never use gasoline again)

If you've done all this modeling with accelerometers on the cone assemblies post it up, I'd like to see it.

Now we own the rights to 2 18" frames, both the 12 spoke, and the Ti frame.

[Mc_Hammer]

this thread is far more interesting than studying for my chem test

[Kyle_Keating]

Ok that's fine, But what part of "Linearity Motor Technology" is 100% indicative of a flat response curve? So with that being said take an accelerometer, put it on a Linear Motor System equipped sub-woofer. See how 'linear' it really is. Do you listen to how linear a BL curve sounds and presents itself? Or do you listen to the sound that the moving assembly reproduces through switching electrical energy of the magnetic assembly?

Because it is the displacement of air...that creates the sound correct? Or are you talking in 100% regards to the addage of "Ok, it has a ruler flat BL "Curve" so therefore it must be linear in response throughout a given spectrum." ?

I'm not totally sure in which way you are looking at this. The LMS technology does indeed have a flat BL curve. However, with the suspension setup, cone geometry and how the gap is set up...begs me to ask the question of just how linear is the moving assembly through a given entire stroke through a broad band white noise signal?

It simply boils down to are you listening to the woofer paper that says it has a flat BL curve, and assuming that it yields a 100% Linear and +/- 1dB response?

If so you can't do that, it does not work like that. If somebody has an LMS driver i'll show it to you as I have the accelerometers to show the alleged cone assembly..is not that 'linear' (taking the word for face value meaning 100% in a line), and does lead to cone break up and distortion, and does sway back and forth. (which you supposedly can not hear right since it is very linear and linearity is a direct correlation of zero distortion and zero peaks and zero valleys?)

Again, put yourself in an anechoic chamber. I pluck a string right in front of you with a guitar and capture the acoustical energy going past your ears that you process with a microphone array. I then put a speaker that is 100% linear with respect to a BL curve in nature from 0-20Khz and replay the track (LMS for example), that does have a 'flat' response and is described as sounding 'dead'. I then put a speaker that is not 100% linear motor however it has a 100% "flat" (+/- 3dB) response from 0-20kHz. Which one is going to sound more realistic? The one that completely ignores the actual resonance of the body of the instrument and plays it 100% flat due to the BL curve that it has and it is designed to have. Or the one who takes note of hey I've got a resonance of the body of the instrument here that was 2.8dBa @ 124Hz..I need to play that.

The second of the two is the most accurate of the original recording; Just because something has a "Linear Motor" does not mean that it has a flat response...or an exact response of the original recording. If there is a peak there and it does not have the motor to emphasize the peak, then what's going to happen? Its simply not going to be there correct?

Or am I mistaken?

Edit: You simply do not listen to flat BL curves in a car because flat bl does not equal flat response...or any environment. You do not listen to "flat" response curves..anywhere for that matter. Nothing is flat, no matter what environment you put it in, unless you equalize it...enclosure modes..cone break up modes...reflections...we can go at this for days if you wish .

So with that said, unless you are at the concert...your not going to get a recording any more accurate then being there.



Yep Neil and I simply do not agree on the subject. We've known that for many years now.

flat BL does not mean flat frequency response, Flat BL means the cone will map correctly to the input voltage be it a simple sin wave or some complex harmonics from a musical instrument. Its also not about how much BL you have, its about how flat it is, or rather how relative it is. A non-flat BL curve will invoke the drivers own harmonics that may not necessarily be in the input signal. Not all harmonics sound good either. I agree tho, flat frequency response is not ideal for everyone, but your right, that has nothing to do with linear motors. The largest drawback to ALL linear motors is sensitivity, not their own linear BL product.

[01 S 10]

all i know is its gonna be a bad ass moofa! and yes, critiquing a 150 on music would not be easy lol... I can still hear my mids and highs tho, so that must count for something.

[Kyle_Keating]

It's useless to me...it goes against the way we do things. Not saying the idea in and of itself is useless.

You mean to tell me that if you know how to make water burn the same as gasoline...you would still purchase gasoline? Your nothing short of a bold face liar if you say that.

You wouldn't purchase gasoline, as it would be useless to you. (same scenario, different application as I would never use LMS, as you would never use gasoline again)

If you've done all this modeling with accelerometers on the cone assemblies post it up, I'd like to see it.

Now we own the rights to 2 18" frames, both the 12 spoke, and the Ti frame.

congratulations.

[NDMstang65]

flat BL does not mean flat frequency response, Flat BL means the cone will map correctly to the input voltage be it a simple sin wave or some complex harmonics from a musical instrument. Its also not about how much BL you have, its about how flat it is, or rather how relative it is. A non-flat BL curve will invoke the drivers own harmonics that may not necessarily be in the input signal. Not all harmonics sound good either. I agree tho, flat frequency response is not ideal for everyone, but your right, that has nothing to do with linear motors. The largest drawback to ALL linear motors is sensitivity, not their own linear BL product.

Precisely .

congratulations.

Thanks, we'll make use of it.

[audioholic]

Im confused how a motor having linear BL response would be equated to any form of frequency response (playing 'flat'). Distortion (in this case BL distortion) and frequency response are two different issues. Are we to ignore driver suspension, enclosure size/type/alignment, and the system's environment? Even if an anechoic situation were being discussed, driver suspension and enclosure must still be considered when discussing frequency response (playing flat). But on the topic of linear BL response and how that affects distortion, the driver suspension, enclosure and environment play almost no role what so ever. So again Im confused how these two seperate topics seemed to have become so intermingled in this discussion.

I find it impossible to argue against Neil's point that in a sound quality system the speaker's responsibility, and really the entire system's, is to reproduce the recording as accurately as possible. Not to be 'pleasing'. Pleasing is a subjective term. My cousin's RoadMasters are 'pleasing' to his ears. Who gets to define what is pleasing? The speaker designer? The listener? Which listener?

I agree that a system set flat tends to sound dead. But why is that? If we set up a system that outputs no audible distortion, and is able to play every frequency with equal authority, why does paying music through such a system not sound 'alive'? We have some psychoacoustic experts in here, wtf is up with that? Why must certain frequency ranges be boosted or cut in order for the reproduction to sound accurate to the original? Has anyone tested to find out if this also holds true for spoken recordings, not just music?

Its amazing having someone EQ their stereo till they think they have it sounding 'accurate' (in terms of frequency response) and then turn on some talk radio and see how bad it sounds. Our brain doesn't know how music is suppose to sound nearly as well as it does simple spoken language. Its much easier to pick up on many cues when listening to simple speaking. But try tuning your system on talk radio alone, and then turn on some music and see how you like it. I think this will demonstrate just how much the problem with 'accuracy' most times is not with the speakers, or the EQ's settings, but with the ears/brains listening to the reproduction.

[ngsm13]

I like what I like.

nG