Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="audioholic" data-source="post: 935340" data-attributes="member: 549629">The design lends itseld to output (more cone area) at the expense of SQ (heavier design due to stiffening ribs to keep the square.. well square //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/biggrin.gif.d71a5d36fcbab170f2364c9f2e3946cb.gif). I also suspect the corners (needing ribbed surrounds, the uneven stress throughout the cone surface, etc) are at least partly the cause for not seeing a square driver &#039;keeping up with the jones&#039; in the excursion wars that are so prevailent right now. Whatever the case, there is no arguing that the round cone shape is a naturally stronger than the square shape (in terms of general shapes, not necessarily specific speakers) therefore less mass can be used for the same strength... ie less moving mass for the same strength in round coned subs versus square cones subs. This is not to take away from the square design, but to point out it&#039;s design is meant for a purpose: more efficient use of cone area. I see no other real benefit of designing with a square cone versus a round one.That&#039;s where I derive the theory of output at the expense of SQ. That isn&#039;t to say a square sub can&#039;t be made to sound good (given the proper installation, environment, etc). But all designers know a complete design is their best accumulation of compromises. The square shape&#039;s benefit is efficiency of cone area, but there are downsides too. Someone could equally argue round subs don&#039;t use cone area efficiently, that wouldn&#039;t be someone making the arguement that round subs cannot get loud.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="audioholic, post: 935340, member: 549629"] The design lends itseld to output (more cone area) at the expense of SQ (heavier design due to stiffening ribs to keep the square.. well square [IMG]//content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/biggrin.gif.d71a5d36fcbab170f2364c9f2e3946cb.gif[/IMG]). I also suspect the corners (needing ribbed surrounds, the uneven stress throughout the cone surface, etc) are at least partly the cause for not seeing a square driver 'keeping up with the jones' in the excursion wars that are so prevailent right now. Whatever the case, there is no arguing that the round cone shape is a naturally stronger than the square shape (in terms of general shapes, not necessarily specific speakers) therefore less mass can be used for the same strength... ie less moving mass for the same strength in round coned subs versus square cones subs. This is not to take away from the square design, but to point out it's design is meant for a purpose: more efficient use of cone area. I see no other real benefit of designing with a square cone versus a round one. That's where I derive the theory of output at the expense of SQ. That isn't to say a square sub can't be made to sound good (given the proper installation, environment, etc). But all designers know a complete design is their best accumulation of compromises. The square shape's benefit is efficiency of cone area, but there are downsides too. Someone could equally argue round subs don't use cone area efficiently, that wouldn't be someone making the arguement that round subs cannot get loud. [/QUOTE]

Verification