Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="sundownz" data-source="post: 6731346" data-attributes="member: 549523">The Z v.2 is basically what you are looking for.1) Around 70 grams less moving mass in the 15&quot; size than the Nightshade v.12) Around half the inductance of the NS v.1 due to half the wire layers AND double shorting rings (not to mention more linear inductance over stroke)3) Softer suspension than NS v.1 to get moving a bit easier and to keep FS down after reduced MMS4) In order to &quot;make up&quot; for the reduced coil winding thermally a much more advanced air cooling system was implement for the voice coil -- thermal power handling is practically unchanged from the NS v.15) The motor force factor was kept nearly identical to the NS v.1 as well despite less coil layers.Maximum mechanical power handling is down a bit due to the softer spider... but the NS v.1 stock suspension was good for 3000+ watts &quot;daily&quot; so to speaker so there really is no need on a driver rated for 1500 RMS -- plus the suspension on the Z v.2 has a progressively stiffening curve towards the end of linear stroke to act like a safety net on the softer suspension.If you model the NS v.1 15&quot; vs the Z v.2 15&quot; in the same 3 cube box @ 35 Hz the curves are nearly identical but the Z v.2 will be a bit louder at a given power input level -- I have tested this in real life so it&#039;s not theoretical.In theory you could keep doing what I did... keep reducing mass and keep softening suspension in unison so FS doesn&#039;t go through the roof and end up with a really efficient woofer -- but if you kept the motor strong at the same time you would progressively lose low-end output. I tried to balance it as best as possible in the Z v.2 model design.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="sundownz, post: 6731346, member: 549523"] The Z v.2 is basically what you are looking for. 1) Around 70 grams less moving mass in the 15" size than the Nightshade v.1 2) Around half the inductance of the NS v.1 due to half the wire layers AND double shorting rings (not to mention more linear inductance over stroke) 3) Softer suspension than NS v.1 to get moving a bit easier and to keep FS down after reduced MMS 4) In order to "make up" for the reduced coil winding thermally a much more advanced air cooling system was implement for the voice coil -- thermal power handling is practically unchanged from the NS v.1 5) The motor force factor was kept nearly identical to the NS v.1 as well despite less coil layers. Maximum mechanical power handling is down a bit due to the softer spider... but the NS v.1 stock suspension was good for 3000+ watts "daily" so to speaker so there really is no need on a driver rated for 1500 RMS -- plus the suspension on the Z v.2 has a progressively stiffening curve towards the end of linear stroke to act like a safety net on the softer suspension. If you model the NS v.1 15" vs the Z v.2 15" in the same 3 cube box @ 35 Hz the curves are nearly identical but the Z v.2 will be a bit louder at a given power input level -- I have tested this in real life so it's not theoretical. In theory you could keep doing what I did... keep reducing mass and keep softening suspension in unison so FS doesn't go through the roof and end up with a really efficient woofer -- but if you kept the motor strong at the same time you would progressively lose low-end output. I tried to balance it as best as possible in the Z v.2 model design. [/QUOTE]

Verification