Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="hispls" data-source="post: 8651009" data-attributes="member: 614752">You can make a fair case for the 10&quot; spider frames over the 8&quot; landing 12 spokes for the sake of lower mechanical noise at useful power levels but again, at what point do you stop?&nbsp;&nbsp; What do you gain?&nbsp;&nbsp; Say we can get another 25% x-mech out of some new fancy frame and special cone and spider, what does that translate into real-world?&nbsp; .7dB?&nbsp;&nbsp; Inaudible and likely you&#039;ll lose that or more in efficiency losses trying to get there.&nbsp; Can we even realistically go bigger than a 10&quot; spider on 10&quot; and 12&quot; drivers?&nbsp; Are you really running out of throw on Ti frame 15&#039;s and 18s?&nbsp; I&#039;d say if you are you&#039;re doing something very wrong with your box or you&#039;re overpowering them to the point where they&#039;ll fail thermally just as fast.&nbsp; My old TC2000 15s played on a Stetsom 7K and they&#039;d hang with 20hz in my box.&nbsp; What more do you need?&nbsp; If you do need more is a conventional loudspeaker even the way to get there?&nbsp;&nbsp; I&#039;d say some super excursion 10s and 12s may be of value in the market for the sake of people who want small space efficiency be damned, but it&#039;ll still just turn into an inefficient meme driver that&#039;s only good for youtube &quot;flex&quot; videos, and for that you have options NOW.&nbsp; The Earthquake Hole X, SMD woofer, RE XXX come to mind.&nbsp;&nbsp; Long/large coils are inefficient as are big surrounds which also rob you of effective piston area.I don&#039;t think anybody with rubber surrounds did what Thor&#039;s Hammer was doing to his.&nbsp; I&#039;m sure no material would hold up much better.&nbsp; I used to see that in person in this region and what he did was gross abuse and I think the surrounds weren&#039;t the only thing he was breaking regularly.Don&#039;t get me wrong, I really liked those TC surrounds too and would use them for preference on a musical driver, so why does nobody else in the industry use them?&nbsp; Must be some compelling reason and it can&#039;t be cost because it can&#039;t be more than a dollar per unit difference.Anyway, I&#039;m still not convinced that any of that fancy stuff really translates to audible performance gains apart from under near-failure extreme conditions and then likely minimal and always at the cost of efficiency.&nbsp; Now should they use something new/different/unusual for materials just for the sake of looking like something special?&nbsp; Perhaps, and that may be a poor marketing choice to not use some fancy materials to build the perceived value.&nbsp; For me, having been around the block a few times and talking to people in the industry, if they spent an extra 5$ for parts just for the sake of looking special it adds zero value for me.&nbsp; I&#039;m going to weigh out what they&#039;re worth based on my ears, the meter, and how well the stuff holds up real-world.&nbsp;&nbsp; The stuff you can&#039;t see (motor and steel grade and actual electromagnetic performance) is what is really going to make or break a loudspeaker in my book.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="hispls, post: 8651009, member: 614752"] You can make a fair case for the 10" spider frames over the 8" landing 12 spokes for the sake of lower mechanical noise at useful power levels but again, at what point do you stop? What do you gain? Say we can get another 25% x-mech out of some new fancy frame and special cone and spider, what does that translate into real-world? .7dB? Inaudible and likely you'll lose that or more in efficiency losses trying to get there. Can we even realistically go bigger than a 10" spider on 10" and 12" drivers? Are you really running out of throw on Ti frame 15's and 18s? I'd say if you are you're doing something very wrong with your box or you're overpowering them to the point where they'll fail thermally just as fast. My old TC2000 15s played on a Stetsom 7K and they'd hang with 20hz in my box. What more do you need? If you do need more is a conventional loudspeaker even the way to get there? I'd say some super excursion 10s and 12s may be of value in the market for the sake of people who want small space efficiency be damned, but it'll still just turn into an inefficient meme driver that's only good for youtube "flex" videos, and for that you have options NOW. The Earthquake Hole X, SMD woofer, RE XXX come to mind. Long/large coils are inefficient as are big surrounds which also rob you of effective piston area. I don't think anybody with rubber surrounds did what Thor's Hammer was doing to his. I'm sure no material would hold up much better. I used to see that in person in this region and what he did was gross abuse and I think the surrounds weren't the only thing he was breaking regularly. Don't get me wrong, I really liked those TC surrounds too and would use them for preference on a musical driver, so why does nobody else in the industry use them? Must be some compelling reason and it can't be cost because it can't be more than a dollar per unit difference. Anyway, I'm still not convinced that any of that fancy stuff really translates to audible performance gains apart from under near-failure extreme conditions and then likely minimal and always at the cost of efficiency. Now should they use something new/different/unusual for materials just for the sake of looking like something special? Perhaps, and that may be a poor marketing choice to not use some fancy materials to build the perceived value. For me, having been around the block a few times and talking to people in the industry, if they spent an extra 5$ for parts just for the sake of looking special it adds zero value for me. I'm going to weigh out what they're worth based on my ears, the meter, and how well the stuff holds up real-world. The stuff you can't see (motor and steel grade and actual electromagnetic performance) is what is really going to make or break a loudspeaker in my book. [/QUOTE]

Verification