what makes a woofer more...

[Chevyaudio 5,000+ posts]

xmax for one

ERRRRR Wrong try again.

 

[Diplexers 10+ year member]

Chrome=SPL

Pyramid=SQ

//content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/biggrin.gif.d71a5d36fcbab170f2364c9f2e3946cb.gif

 

[amr952 10+ year member]

Chrome=SPL
Pyramid=SQ

//content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/biggrin.gif.d71a5d36fcbab170f2364c9f2e3946cb.gif

Great answer //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/biggrin.gif.d71a5d36fcbab170f2364c9f2e3946cb.gif , I just need to save up some money for some pyramids, anyone want to buy my Rl-p, I need some more SQ from pyramid.

EDIT: The Rl-p is not for sale and the whole thing was a joke //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/laugh.gif.48439b2acf2cfca21620f01e7f77d1e4.gif :laugh:

 

[audioholic 5,000+ posts]

I would not base the output of a sub on its xmax...

In a sealed environment, speaker displacement is everything. And, cone excursion (xmax) is half of that equation. And, even in a vented system where cone excursion is minimalized, more excursion = more air displaced = more SPL output. So, in effect, your statement is wrong. I agree a speaker'c xmax rating doesn't necessarily tell us anything as to its design intent (SQ or SPL), but certainly xmax is a huge factor is figuring actual output.
edit: I think Jack pretty much touched on the t/s aspects of it all. But to set up a "SQ" substage, there's more to it than reading t/s specs. Your enclosure's alignment will easily effect the sound characteristics of the substage as much or more than the specs of the raw driver itself. There's also outside factors to consider, such as your vehicle's transfer function and how it affects your frequency response. And you need to design the sub stage in such a way that it blends properly with the midbass/front stage. etc etc...

 

[Omarvelous 10+ year member]

SO IF I WANTED A SQL WOOFER.. I WOULD HAVE TO TAKE SQ X SPL to = SQL?
//content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/crap.gif.7f4dd41e3e9b23fbd170a1ee6f65cecc.gif

NO sillly!!!

(SQ x SPL)/SP

u get S^2QPL/SP

then SQL!

LEARN grassshoppa! //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/nerd.gif.c6fa51ddf7ff75f1c0371fbc648f70ae.gif

 

[eisenhower 10+ year member]

You can't look at any one spec and make a huge judgement...Fs, Qts, BL, and inductance all factor into the equation...Le (inductance) will actually significantly decrease transient response of a driver, not Mms (moving mass) as the myth goes //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/smile.gif.1ebc41e1811405b213edfc4622c41e27.gif
There's really no substitute for modeling a driver in-box and seeing how it performs...

I thought inertia was dependant on mass?

Im sure SQ has alot to do with the general quality of parts.

 

[JimJ 5,000+ posts]

I thought inertia was dependant on mass?

It's not really the same thing...trust me, Adire has done extensive testing on this //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/smile.gif.1ebc41e1811405b213edfc4622c41e27.gif

Im sure SQ has alot to do with the general quality of parts.

Perhaps, although I'm sure you could have an excellent sounding driver that has abominable reliability. That wouldn't make it a very good driver to have...

 

[Luckyshot]

also a big factor in designing a SQ driver is cone wieght and material,stiffness/or there lack of stiffness of Surround and spider,resonant of basket,ect... though looking at the t/s para will help you get a general idea of how a speaker will perform mechanicaly,a sq driver is made up of more then just the motor structure,the impact of the cone(shape,weight,stiffness) can make of break a driver,so you need to look at the Whole

 

[JimJ 5,000+ posts]

Not really...Mms doesn't make a difference in transient response...

 

[Tirefryr 10+ year member]

[No message]

 

[Luckyshot]

not talking about Moving mass,more so about how each piece works together:

effects the sound,when we would test our drivers,these are things we would have to take into consideration...example...a loose spider with a loose surround,matched to a soft paper cone,is going to sound dramadically diffrent then a soft spider,stiff surrond on a pulp treated cone,thats all im saying //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/crazy.gif.c13912c32de98515d3142759a824dae7.gif

 

[T3mpest 10+ year member]

SQ has more to do with tuning than the actual driver

 

[Diplexers 10+ year member]

xmech=mechanical limits of the driver, which is a main factor in spl applications; even if its a couple hundred milliseconds of response. Car Fs, box design, power, and brains are the biggest factor of spl.//content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/veryhappy.gif.fec4fed33b4a1279cf10bdd45a039dae.gif

 

[Raven 10+ year member]

It's not really the same thing...trust me, Adire has done extensive testing on this //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/smile.gif.1ebc41e1811405b213edfc4622c41e27.gif

That was cool. Adire doubled the moving mass on an Extremis, then playing with the inductance, and it played MORE accurately than the normal version. It was entertaining, and saddening. =p

That's not to say moving mass won't have *any* effect on SQ or output, just look at woofers from 1930 to 1970 that no woofer today can seem to touch the efficiency of. (It's a generalization, shut up //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/biggrin.gif.d71a5d36fcbab170f2364c9f2e3946cb.gif)

 

[80INCHES 5,000+ posts]

i'm actually designing 2 subs rite now

if u guys want to see what i'm working on i;ll show u....my only problem is...to achieve a high xmax it adds mass to the cone and by the added mass the sub is becomming inefficient...i'm trying to get pass that

i'm also doing a 10, its actually modeled off the old round solobaric 10 specs but with a lower fs and more xmax and a lower bl and slightly higher power handling and more effiecint..and it will require a smaller box

80

trying something new