Menu
Forum
What's new
New posts
Live Activity
Search forums
Members
Registered members
Classifieds Member Feedback
Car Audio Discussion
General Car Audio
Car Audio Build Logs
Car Audio Equipment
Subwoofers
Speakers
Amplifiers
Head Units
Car Audio Help
Wiring, Electrical and Installation
Enclosure Design & Construction
Car Audio Classifieds
Car Audio Classifieds
Car Audio Wanted
Classifieds Member Feedback
Gallery
New media
New comments
Search media
SHOP
Shop Head Units
Shop Amplifiers
Shop Speakers
Shop Subwoofers
Shop eBay Car Audio
Log in / Join
Test
Forum
Search
Search titles only
Search titles only
Log in / Join
Search
Search titles only
Search titles only
What's new
New posts
Live Activity
Search forums
Members
Registered members
Classifieds Member Feedback
Menu
Reply to thread
Forum
Car Audio Equipment
Subwoofers
12" vs 15"
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="audioholic" data-source="post: 7367887" data-attributes="member: 549629"><p>Between you denoting a difference between your 'stereo' and your stereo 'equipment', but not saying what the difference is... and your arbitrary example of some 1000 watt sub with a 1500 watt amp hooked to it to somehow prove "75%" is a universal threshold... Ive lost sight of what this portion of your replies is getting at.</p><p></p><p>Every cone material type has its advantages and disadvantages. Metal cones advantage main advantage is rigidity. They aren't light (generally speaking), and they have poor damping compared to other materials like paper and carbon fiber. Paper cones advantages are good damping qualities (generally speaking) and light weight. Paper cones disadvantage is rigidity. This is all basic speaker cone 101 info. Im not saying that to be crass, but again Im starting to wonder where this portion of the discussion is leading.</p><p></p><p>Now box size is the reason there are fewer "SQ" 18's than there are 10's? I thought your stance was because of higher moving mass? There are fewer 15"+ sized SQ oriented drivers than smaller sizes because fewer SQ guys feel the need for 18's subs than do SPL guys. Marketing and profit are the reason you dont see many SQ oriented 18's.</p><p></p><p>Lets approach your moving mass theory from another direction. Say you were right and moving mass did play a significant role in SQ potential of a subwoofer. So common sense tells us a 10 has lower mass, therefore lower "moving mass", and thus <em>must</em> be more accurate. That is your stance, correct? The problem is more mass does not necessarily mean more <em>inertia</em>. Yes, the 18 will have more mass, but its greater displacement will also mean it wont need to move as far/fast (less excursion) to reach the same output level as the 10" would require. Less excursion means less BL loss (less BL distortion), AND it means that larger mass of the 18 isn't moving as fast as the 10".</p><p></p><p>Im far too lazy to calculate the difference in displacement potential between a 10" and 18", and then calculate the difference in excursion it would require to make up for the cone area difference, so I will agree that the difference in cone area versus excursion required may not cancel each other out (probably dont), but this points out yet another way that mass differences between cone sizes is not the significant factor that common sense may tell us it is.</p><p></p><p>I understand about coil rock. In fact, I still remember the radical design by Memphis, the LVS, that stacked 3 frames end to end to allow for widely spaced spiders to help decrease coil rock. Guess what, it didnt catch on. Because coil rock is not a significant portion of the distortion a speaker creates. As I think I said earlier in this thread, BL distortion (caused bu the loss of BL motor force as the coil leaves the gap) accounts for 70-80% of speaker-side distortion with traditional motor designs. But that is beside the point that, again, if cones truly warped like that camera-modified video suggested, the coil would simply short out. That is NOT normal speaker operation.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="audioholic, post: 7367887, member: 549629"] Between you denoting a difference between your 'stereo' and your stereo 'equipment', but not saying what the difference is... and your arbitrary example of some 1000 watt sub with a 1500 watt amp hooked to it to somehow prove "75%" is a universal threshold... Ive lost sight of what this portion of your replies is getting at. Every cone material type has its advantages and disadvantages. Metal cones advantage main advantage is rigidity. They aren't light (generally speaking), and they have poor damping compared to other materials like paper and carbon fiber. Paper cones advantages are good damping qualities (generally speaking) and light weight. Paper cones disadvantage is rigidity. This is all basic speaker cone 101 info. Im not saying that to be crass, but again Im starting to wonder where this portion of the discussion is leading. Now box size is the reason there are fewer "SQ" 18's than there are 10's? I thought your stance was because of higher moving mass? There are fewer 15"+ sized SQ oriented drivers than smaller sizes because fewer SQ guys feel the need for 18's subs than do SPL guys. Marketing and profit are the reason you dont see many SQ oriented 18's. Lets approach your moving mass theory from another direction. Say you were right and moving mass did play a significant role in SQ potential of a subwoofer. So common sense tells us a 10 has lower mass, therefore lower "moving mass", and thus [I]must[/I] be more accurate. That is your stance, correct? The problem is more mass does not necessarily mean more [I]inertia[/I]. Yes, the 18 will have more mass, but its greater displacement will also mean it wont need to move as far/fast (less excursion) to reach the same output level as the 10" would require. Less excursion means less BL loss (less BL distortion), AND it means that larger mass of the 18 isn't moving as fast as the 10". Im far too lazy to calculate the difference in displacement potential between a 10" and 18", and then calculate the difference in excursion it would require to make up for the cone area difference, so I will agree that the difference in cone area versus excursion required may not cancel each other out (probably dont), but this points out yet another way that mass differences between cone sizes is not the significant factor that common sense may tell us it is. I understand about coil rock. In fact, I still remember the radical design by Memphis, the LVS, that stacked 3 frames end to end to allow for widely spaced spiders to help decrease coil rock. Guess what, it didnt catch on. Because coil rock is not a significant portion of the distortion a speaker creates. As I think I said earlier in this thread, BL distortion (caused bu the loss of BL motor force as the coil leaves the gap) accounts for 70-80% of speaker-side distortion with traditional motor designs. But that is beside the point that, again, if cones truly warped like that camera-modified video suggested, the coil would simply short out. That is NOT normal speaker operation. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forum
Car Audio Equipment
Subwoofers
12" vs 15"
Top
Menu
Home
Refresh