for those who've used 18's?

[squeak9798 5,000+ posts]

BTW I know alot of you say its "unnoticeable" but keep in mind some audiophiles can hear significant differences between RCA cords.

And a lot of those same audiophiles can "hear" differences between amplifiers....until they are in a controlled enviornment and forced to prove it scientifically. I'm always more cautious of what "audiophiles" say........But, that's another story for another time.......

 

[audioholic 5,000+ posts]

Yeah, thats kind of the point I was getting at, if the manufactor designs it to handle the weight, than it shouldn't be a problem. Mms is important, but you shouldn't base anything solely off of it. I mean, theres a reason companies strive to produce cone materials that are rigid and light. If they were to make a cone out of cast iron, it would probally sound like a piece of shit and have horrible ineffciency.
BTW I know alot of you say its "unnoticeable" but keep in mind some audiophiles can hear significant differences between RCA cords. Car's don't even have proper imaging to start with, so my guess is there are lots of things to worry about besides cone diameter.

I suppose those of us whom are saying it will be inaudible are not audiophiles? We are, and it is. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/wink.gif.608e3ea05f1a9f98611af0861652f8fb.gif
Its been explained to you like a half dozen different ways why cone diameter plays no role in audible transient response. What else are you expecting here?

 

[BoominBeast]

Interesting you mention this test, as Ive related a similar test for this topic before:
Pick up two pebbles off the ground and place one in each hand. Shake them back and forth vigorously. Eventhough the pebbles are approximately the same size, there obviously is some slight different in weight between the two. When your arm shook them back and forth, did this difference in mass make any noticeable difference in the movement of your arm? There was a mass difference, and it did affect the speed at which you shook each arm, but it did not create any noticeable change. This is also true when comparing the few gram differences between cone sizes of speakers in relation to the amount of force they have with which to excurt on said cones. There is a mass difference, and it does affect the things you are suggesting here, but what you are missing is everyone is telling you those factors you are questioning are simply too small of a factor to need consideration (much like the actual mass difference between the two pebbles).

Lastly, why do people assume a speaker was designed with the smallest size only taken into consideration. If a manufacturer is capable of producing a motor with sufficient force to adequately control a 12" diaprhagm, why would we assume they cannot do the same for an 18" version? IMO, those who say 18's are so much sloppier than 12's are assuming the motor was designed for the perameters of a 12" cone, then they just slapped an 18" cone on it. Perhaps, and if they were smart this is true, the speaker designers designed the motor while keeping in mind it would be accomodating an 18" cone, and design it thusly. Thereby creating a speaker capable of a certain performance level given a certain MMs, and any lowering of that MMs (building smaller cone versions) would produce no audible gains.

When chosing a cone size, several factors need to be considered like space available, output desired, frequency response needed, etc etc. But, transient response based on some notion of MMs figures or cone diameter is not a consideration.

i love it when this guy goes all out with his explanations

 

[eisenhower 10+ year member]

I suppose those of us whom are saying it will be inaudible are not audiophiles? We are, and it is. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/wink.gif.608e3ea05f1a9f98611af0861652f8fb.gif
Its been explained to you like a half dozen different ways why cone diameter plays no role in audible transient response. What else are you expecting here?

I'd like to see a test where the cone diameter is changed with the same motor design. I never disagreed, Im just speculating really.

 

[ngsm13 5,000+ posts]

I'd like to see a test where the cone diameter is changed with the same motor design. I never disagreed, Im just speculating really.

Problem is you take things to literally...like you think of all things ON PAPER...and physics and science like. The REAL deal, like real world deal is...it's noticeable in and A vs. B blind folded comparison.

NG

 

[eisenhower 10+ year member]

Problem is you take things to literally...like you think of all things ON PAPER...and physics and science like. The REAL deal, like real world deal is...it's noticeable in and A vs. B blind folded comparison.
NG

So basically I should ignore dan's papers then, eh?

 

[ngsm13 5,000+ posts]

So basically I should ignore dan's papers then, eh?

No, Dan's were based upon some REAL world results and experiments. Not just some random calculated shit...

NG

 

[RCwhat 10+ year member]

No, Dan's were based upon some REAL world results and experiments. Not just some random calculated shit...
NG

hey noah, you get the SE's??? i pm'd you to check but you never replied. just wanted to make sure everything worked out ok. LMK. -jeff

 

[eisenhower 10+ year member]

No, Dan's were based upon some REAL world results and experiments. Not just some random calculated shit...
NG

Actually Dan never changed cone diameter.

 

[JimJ 5,000+ posts]

Actually Dan never changed cone diameter.

Tell me you're joking.

No, he didn't change the cone size, but he added extra mass to the cone - effectively simulating the effect of a larger cone.

 

[eisenhower 10+ year member]

No, he didn't change the cone size, but he added extra mass to the cone - effectively simulating the effect of a larger cone.

His paper is not about to cone diameter, so why use them? There are other factors that go along with cone diameter besides the Mms #.

 

[DBfan187 5,000+ posts]

http://forum.carstereos.org/showthread.php?t=56659

Dan answered these questions recently.