have you seen this beast?

[denim 5,000+ posts]

i need a new trampalen

 

[bigcarbigsound 10+ year member]

What does the FLAT driver do over a cone. Other than reduce your surface area.

I know a square driver has more surface area, that isn't what I asked. I asked what the theory of a flat driver over a cone was.

 

[audiolife 5,000+ posts]

actually think its a ridgidity thing rather than a area thing.

 

[hoss 5,000+ posts]

cone is more rigid than a flat surface, and a cone has more surface area than a flat surface(although it is minimal). mostly, a flat cone is purely for looks and to be different.

however... in this case i am pretty sure they went with a flat cone due to the lack of a conical cone of that size being produced, and the fact that there wouldneed to be 4 triple joints meaning that the cone would have some funky tolls on it and would be expensive to produce.

p.s.--- whats a trampalen //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/banghead.gif.8606515f668c74f6de0281deb475b6fd.gif

 

[BassAce 10+ year member]

I would think the reason why they went with a flat cone would be because, wouldn't it be easier to attach more than one voice coil former to the cone. If they went with a standard cone design attaching more than one former, would obviously make it difficult.

I remember hearing one time from one of those home audio makers(in an ad, I was reading sound & vision magazine if that helps), I can't remember if it was Paradigm, Definitive technologies, or what, but anyways they stated that a flat cone would yield a higher compression than a standard cone design, doesn't make sense to me.

 

[audiolife 5,000+ posts]

cone is more rigid than a flat surface, and a cone has more surface area than a flat surface(although it is minimal). mostly, a flat cone is purely for looks and to be different.
however... in this case i am pretty sure they went with a flat cone due to the lack of a conical cone of that size being produced, and the fact that there wouldneed to be 4 triple joints meaning that the cone would have some funky tolls on it and would be expensive to produce.

p.s.--- whats a trampalen //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/banghead.gif.8606515f668c74f6de0281deb475b6fd.gif

depends on what the material is and how thick/heavy it is. alot of woofers from ppi to ed used flats before

 

[hoss 5,000+ posts]

yup. and the ED woofers met with disasterous results. and i dont remember much about the PPI's, other than seeing one once before before i knew anything.

and as for the materials, well thats a no brainer, it works that way with everything. but geometrically speaking, a cylindrically shaped cone is MUCH stronger than a flat cone of the same material/thickness. of course you could use a stronger material and thicker material to strengthen the flat cone, but youre MMS flys through the roof.

i guess the easiest way of wrapping it up is that for the same given material and thicknes, flat cones blow //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/smile.gif.1ebc41e1811405b213edfc4622c41e27.gif

 

[NDMstang65 10+ year member]

I would think the reason why they went with a flat cone would be because, wouldn't it be easier to attach more than one voice coil former to the cone. If they went with a standard cone design attaching more than one former, would obviously make it difficult.

Would be easier to glue, however it is not stronger...nothing for the glue to really bond to..and that is where some of the problems with the flat design have come in...

But we do not want to go there

 

[supa_c 5,000+ posts]

Lets just let it be like NDMstang 65 pointed out.

 

[Nukedsodapop 5,000+ posts]

p.s.--- whats a trampalen //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/banghead.gif.8606515f668c74f6de0281deb475b6fd.gif

sounds German? //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/fyi.gif.9f1f679348da7204ce960cfc74bca8e0.gif//content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/wow.gif.23d729408e9177caa2a0ed6a2ba6588e.gif

 

[audiolife 5,000+ posts]

those ppi's went way over 175 alot of times granted it was over 80 hz but its what put elma on the map. would be hard to take material like that and make a cone anyway unless you fused it together.. but that would just be another stress point to break

 

[aphinney 10+ year member]

i'm drunk and i don't care haha

 

[audioholic 5,000+ posts]

cone is more rigid than a flat surface, and a cone has more surface area than a flat surface(although it is minimal).

Actual surface area of the 'cone', be it cone shaped or flat, is irrelevant. A few manufacturers tried to dupe unknowing consumers a few years ago with 'deeper cones for more surface area'. Its complete BS, like NDMstang alluded to, its only the area of the radiating surface that matters. The footprint of the sub's cone if you will. A 12" sub with a flat cone will have the same radiating surface area as a sub that had a cone a mile deep, assuming same size surround etc.

and i dont remember much about the PPI's, other than seeing one once before before i knew anything.

http://www.sounddomain.com/memberpage/544405/3

There's a couple pics of one of my ppi pro flat piston 12's next to my xxx 15's, if you're interested.

Alma used special pro 10's that weren't available to the average consumer.

Unlike most of today's subs, the ppi pro's were build scaled. As in, the different sized subs used different motor's, like the W7 does today. The pro 12's were nice, but the 15's were the real monster's. I almost bought the 15's, but back then the 12's were very expensive, and the 15's were double that price.