View Full Version : Xmax = 0.5 mm? seems small

11-13-2005, 11:44 PM

looking at those tang band full range drivers that lemans recommended...noticed a particularly small Xmax, which is maximum excursion right? does that mean its gonna move very little air? what does this tell me about driver performance?

11-13-2005, 11:46 PM
i dunno...my subs have 19 mm i think....not sure

11-13-2005, 11:47 PM

Xmax isn't everything. Full range drivers often have very small excursion, which can be compensated for by using them in a bass reflex enclosure, or horn loading them.

SSS 18734
11-13-2005, 11:48 PM
i dunno...my subs have 19 mm i think....not sure

how the hell does that help him?

a 3" fullrange driver wont need to move a lot of air. Don't expect any bass or midbass from it though.

11-13-2005, 11:51 PM
hey jack whats with the sigh...

yea i figured it wasnt taht big of a deal cuz i have heard good thigns about tang bad but i was just checking...i saw some 2 inch speakers with twice the Xmax of this 3 inch one so i didnt know what that meant...do full range drivers have a lower excursion than just midrange drivers?

11-13-2005, 11:52 PM
hey jack whats with the sigh...

Not really directed at you, more at the guy that posted after you...

You don't need a lot of throw to get decent output levels with full range drivers, especially if they're relatively high in efficiency.

PV Audio
11-14-2005, 12:35 AM
xmax = irrelevance when it comes to wide range drivers. por ejemplo, the hivi b series (b3s) has an xmax of 3mm, while the tangband 879s (i think that's right) has an xmax of .75 mm. in reality, the tangband has cleaner excursion and more total output. i'll find the graph for ya if i got a spare minute.

11-14-2005, 11:08 AM
not necessary, im sure i can find the graph myself...good points tho, now i know that full range drivers dont need high xmax to be efficient....question answered :)