Cone Area Relation Chart

[audioholic 5,000+ posts]

I'm just going off of Fi's specs. 1240cm^2 for the four 10's and 1210cm^2 for the 18.

OP: Sd isn't just a flat thing that you can measure by looking at the radius of a woofer, cone angle comes into play as well. And if you're going to do the whole pi(r^2) thing, take 3" off of each normal-sized woofer's diameter since you have the mounting ring an surround on each side to consider when looking for a somewhat accurate idea of the cone size.

Or just look around for normal sd measurements on different size woofers.

Cone angle, sometimes referred to as cone depth, does not alter cone area of a speaker. A massively deep speaker with an OD of 12" has no more effective radiating surface than does a flat coned 12. You can ignore cone angle completely, and basically just look at cone diameter to compare different drivers. The only thing using the simple method of calculating Pi*r^2 will miss is the surround and how it affects the radiating surface area.

 

[Suicide Bobb 5,000+ posts]

Cone angle, sometimes referred to as cone depth, does not alter cone area of a speaker. A massively deep speaker with an OD of 12" has no more effective radiating surface than does a flat coned 12. You can ignore cone angle completely, and basically just look at cone diameter to compare different drivers. The only thing using the simple method of calculating Pi*r^2 will miss is the surround and how it affects the radiating surface area.

There you are, you wise ass nga! Was waiting for your arrival and *hopefully* approval...

 

[audioholic 5,000+ posts]

There you are, you wise ass nga! Was waiting for your arrival and *hopefully* approval...

Like I said above, I generally just use Pi*r^2 to compare speaker sizes. That method is accurate enough for 99% of the situations. But if your chart makes it easier for other people to understand, yes I definitely approve. Having the odd shaped cones' area was a nice touch as well.

 

[Suicide Bobb 5,000+ posts]

Like I said above, I generally just use Pi*r^2 to compare speaker sizes. That method is accurate enough for 99% of the situations. But if your chart makes it easier for other people to understand, yes I definitely approve. Having the odd shaped cones' area was a nice touch as well.

Well that's the method I used as well, and it works!

The Pentagon one was a beezy to figure out. Had to use my algebra and trigonometry skills (or lack thereof) together to figure out the apothem and side length. Oh, and Google //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/smile.gif.1ebc41e1811405b213edfc4622c41e27.gif

Think of this thread as a cheat sheet of sorts. You already know the formula, but it may be more practical to just peruse the cheat sheet instead //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/smile.gif.1ebc41e1811405b213edfc4622c41e27.gif

 

[RAM_Designs 5,000+ posts]

My chart compares ACTUAL cone area

How is this again?

If I measured your way, I would be required to put every single sub ever made in existence, separately, on this chart. I'm sorry bruh, but I don't have the time for that lol

Considering that nearly every woofer is close to being a half inch larger than it's listen size(ie: 12.5" for a 12" sub), it's really pretty easy to do.

 

[RAM_Designs 5,000+ posts]

Cone angle, sometimes referred to as cone depth, does not alter cone area of a speaker. A massively deep speaker with an OD of 12" has no more effective radiating surface than does a flat coned 12. You can ignore cone angle completely, and basically just look at cone diameter to compare different drivers. The only thing using the simple method of calculating Pi*r^2 will miss is the surround and how it affects the radiating surface area.

Weird, for some reason I had it in my head that it did matter. I'll edit my poast.

 

[helotaxi 5,000+ posts]

If you want it to actually mean anything, right now it doesn't, yo u have to account for th surround and the fact that a 12" sub may only have a 10" cone. The smaller the speakers the bigger the difference the surround makes. The basic math based on nominal speaker size is easy but also pointless since it really doesn't give you a meaningful answer. A better chart would be to actually look through a bunch of manuals that list Sd for various drivers and build a chart from that. It would actually mean something and provide a valid comparison between sizes.

 

[Suicide Bobb 5,000+ posts]

If you want it to actually mean anything, right now it doesn't, yo u have to account for th surround and the fact that a 12" sub may only have a 10" cone. The smaller the speakers the bigger the difference the surround makes. The basic math based on nominal speaker size is easy but also pointless since it really doesn't give you a meaningful answer. A better chart would be to actually look through a bunch of manuals that list Sd for various drivers and build a chart from that. It would actually mean something and provide a valid comparison between sizes.

and...take years to compose. The list I provided, for the last time, is not exact! It never was meant to be. It's only meant to give people a general idea of how cone A compared to cone B. This is not for competitors, those looking for xxx.xdb, etc. It's just a guide to help people decide on a setup or generalize a comparison. If you want to grab 100 drivers of each size and average out their respective actual cone area, then I'll redo it with those numbers. But even still, that's just as far off as my comparison, because if someone with an Earthquake DBX-12 and Orion NT-12 look for numbers, it will still fall short because of the large difference in their cone areas.

I would love to make a list concerning every make and model of speaker ever made, but I just don't have the time. Someone would have to pay me a whole lot of money to do that!

 

[RAM_Designs 5,000+ posts]

Going by listed sd, four 10's is still almost exactly = to an 18" sub, not a 21" sub. I'll give you another example besides the Fi one I did before. Mach 5 IXL's: 266cm^2 for the 10", 1029cm^2 for the 18". Four 10's would be 1064cm^2, which is within ~3.5% of the 18" figure.

 

[Suicide Bobb 5,000+ posts]

Going by listed sd, four 10's is still almost exactly = to an 18" sub, not a 21" sub. I'll give you another example besides the Fi one I did before. Mach 5 IXL's: 266cm^2 for the 10", 1029cm^2 for the 18". Four 10's would be 1064cm^2, which is within ~3.5% of the 18" figure.

That is because your are doing what HeloTaxi said and accounting for the surround. That means that their 10" is likely more like a 8", and their 18" is more like a 16".

 

[RAM_Designs 5,000+ posts]

That is because your are doing what HeloTaxi said and accounting for the surround. That means that their 10" is likely more like a 8", and their 18" is more like a 16".

So you don't want to do it the right way and use accurate, real life specs instead of guessing and using your own method that doesn't come up with the same answer? Just going off of the sd provided by Fi for the SSD, a lot of your conversions are not really right, and some just can't be made. Like a pair of 12's is closer in sd to a single 15 than a single 18. Three 10's is not that close to a single 18.

It's too easy to just use the stated sd for a given line of speakers and use that to make comparisons.

 

[BlactimusCrime 10+ year member]

why dont people understand this is NOT MEANT TO BE ACCURATE, JUST A ROUGH ESTIMATE FOR NEWBS OR LAZY PEOPLE. there are too many subs that vary too much to make an extremely accurate comparison. this does the job for most people for a general idea.

If you care that much, then find the subs you want to compare, gather youre info and get out your calculator.

Good job Bobb, keep it up.

 

[helotaxi 5,000+ posts]

And RAM-Designs proves my point exactly. You can still make generalizations. If you look at the Sd of a handful of different 8s for example they are all going to be pretty close. There might be some outliers on either side but just looking at the Sd of a single driver of average design will give you the information that you need. Until you bother to do that, your chart is pointless and misleading. I hope that the mods DO NOT STICKY it.

 

[RAM_Designs 5,000+ posts]

why dont people understand this is NOT MEANT TO BE ACCURATE

Then why do something that isn't meant to be accurate? And like I have stated, some are quite off. Next thing you know noobs will be say that three 10's = the same cone area as a single 18.

 

[RAM_Designs 5,000+ posts]

there are too many subs that vary too much to make an extremely accurate comparison.

Within the same speaker line, the same generalizations that I stated can be made. IE: four 10's = one 18. Three 10's is pretty close to a pair of 12's. Three 12's is about 10-15% more sd than a single 18...etc.