New AA SMD Woofer

[snoopdan 5,000+ posts]

I bet nobody would hate Steve Meade if he didnt have a website......

Steve Meade has a website?

 

[Brian Owens 10+ year member]

He has a website?

 

[snoopdan 5,000+ posts]

He has a website?

I know, im as shocked as you are //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/eek.gif.771b7a90cf45cabdc554ff1121c21c4a.gif

 

[Mc_Hammer 10+ year member]

zomg!!!

 

[ngsm13 5,000+ posts]

Myah!!!!

nG

 

[TurdFergueson2 5,000+ posts]

Bottom line is this..........

If they do the deed and are priced right, put me down for 2. Dudes around my way wouldn't know Meade from the guy at the gas station begging for change. All they know is what the flea market sells.

 

[Mc_Hammer 10+ year member]

there was mention of a 22" sub in here... did that come from anyone who would actually know or did someone just fabricate that?

if they were tooling a 22" version of that basket it would be teh seckz

 

[snoopdan 5,000+ posts]

I think I should just make my own subs, and buy a bunch of the 32" audiobahn frames, chrome it... and put Atomic APXX motors on them. Now that would be just glutoney at its finest.

 

[Mc_Hammer 10+ year member]

I think I should just make my own subs, and buy a bunch of the 32" audiobahn frames, chrome it... and put Atomic APXX motors on them. Now that would be just glutoney at its finest.

sign me up for 10

 

[snoopdan 5,000+ posts]

sign me up for 10

If I could find at least one blown audiobahn 32"....id probably try it //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/laugh.gif.48439b2acf2cfca21620f01e7f77d1e4.gif

 

[Mc_Hammer 10+ year member]

honestly... i prolly would too, just to have one

it would be hard to salvage the cone tho

 

[snoopdan 5,000+ posts]

honestly... i prolly would too, just to have one
it would be hard to salvage the cone tho

nah the alumnium part would be ok to fix. But buying another 32" surround would be a real bitch.

 

[NDMstang65 10+ year member]

An ideal system will be within +/- 1 dB for an equal amplitude input signal across all frequencies within, at the very least, the audible bandwidth. As the amplitude increases (which, again, will be the same amplitude at all frequencies), then the pressure at all frequencies should still be within +/- 1 dB. Keep in mind that we aren't only talking about axial response, but power response is critical as well, particularly when crossing from one driver to another.
This does not mean that all sounds in all recordings will be +/- 1 dB. They will vary as the original performance did.

Note that I am using the term linearity in the traditional audio context, ie. referring to harmonic and inter-modulation distortion. There is a fairly strong function between low HD, IMD and flat response. More minor affects are seen in cone and surround geometry and material, as well as thermal compression.

Ok that's fine, But what part of "Linearity Motor Technology" is 100% indicative of a flat response curve? So with that being said take an accelerometer, put it on a Linear Motor System equipped sub-woofer. See how 'linear' it really is. Do you listen to how linear a BL curve sounds and presents itself? Or do you listen to the sound that the moving assembly reproduces through switching electrical energy of the magnetic assembly?

Because it is the displacement of air...that creates the sound correct? Or are you talking in 100% regards to the addage of "Ok, it has a ruler flat BL "Curve" so therefore it must be linear in response throughout a given spectrum." ?

I'm not totally sure in which way you are looking at this. The LMS technology does indeed have a flat BL curve. However, with the suspension setup, cone geometry and how the gap is set up...begs me to ask the question of just how linear is the moving assembly through a given entire stroke through a broad band white noise signal?

It simply boils down to are you listening to the woofer paper that says it has a flat BL curve, and assuming that it yields a 100% Linear and +/- 1dB response?

If so you can't do that, it does not work like that. If somebody has an LMS driver i'll show it to you as I have the accelerometers to show the alleged cone assembly..is not that 'linear' (taking the word for face value meaning 100% in a line), and does lead to cone break up and distortion, and does sway back and forth. (which you supposedly can not hear right since it is very linear and linearity is a direct correlation of zero distortion and zero peaks and zero valleys?)

Again, put yourself in an anechoic chamber. I pluck a string right in front of you with a guitar and capture the acoustical energy going past your ears that you process with a microphone array. I then put a speaker that is 100% linear with respect to a BL curve in nature from 0-20Khz and replay the track (LMS for example), that does have a 'flat' response and is described as sounding 'dead'. I then put a speaker that is not 100% linear motor however it has a 100% "flat" (+/- 3dB) response from 0-20kHz. Which one is going to sound more realistic? The one that completely ignores the actual resonance of the body of the instrument and plays it 100% flat due to the BL curve that it has and it is designed to have. Or the one who takes note of hey I've got a resonance of the body of the instrument here that was 2.8dBa @ 124Hz..I need to play that.

The second of the two is the most accurate of the original recording; Just because something has a "Linear Motor" does not mean that it has a flat response...or an exact response of the original recording. If there is a peak there and it does not have the motor to emphasize the peak, then what's going to happen? Its simply not going to be there correct?

Or am I mistaken?

Edit: You simply do not listen to flat BL curves in a car because flat bl does not equal flat response...or any environment. You do not listen to "flat" response curves..anywhere for that matter. Nothing is flat, no matter what environment you put it in, unless you equalize it...enclosure modes..cone break up modes...reflections...we can go at this for days if you wish //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/smile.gif.1ebc41e1811405b213edfc4622c41e27.gif.

So with that said, unless you are at the concert...your not going to get a recording any more accurate then being there.

Im not seeing how this SQ conversation is being applied to the original thread posting of a potentially non linear, high excursion, large coil and surface area subwoofer //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/laugh.gif.48439b2acf2cfca21620f01e7f77d1e4.gif

... but go on, its all in fun //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/smile.gif.1ebc41e1811405b213edfc4622c41e27.gif

Yep //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/smile.gif.1ebc41e1811405b213edfc4622c41e27.gif Neil and I simply do not agree on the subject. We've known that for many years now.

 

[Mc_Hammer 10+ year member]

nah the alumnium part would be ok to fix. But buying another 32" surround would be a real bitch.

i forgot the cone was aluminum... thought it was paper

well i guess if you were carefull enough you could cut the surround off without damging it...

 

[snoopdan 5,000+ posts]

i forgot the cone was aluminum... thought it was paper

well i guess if you were carefull enough you could cut the surround off without damging it...

Maybe..... I did find some cyanoacrylate debonder at Hobby Lobby the other day that works GREAT... and like costs $3 .... I removed a spider assembly from the basket of one of my subs the other day without it even ripping apart. Then CA glued it back down....then removed it again with the debonder.....then glued it back down. Then removed it again with the debonder with no issues.

ok ok ok, I know. Off topic again //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/laugh.gif.48439b2acf2cfca21620f01e7f77d1e4.gif