Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="95stroked1500" data-source="post: 2751511" data-attributes="member: 569805">i was commenting back in one post to multiple trains of thoughts. so it might not pertain to just one poster.i never said the spider was the only factor. it is a very important factor that not just everyone can master to the degree that others can. i have never discredited the importance of the coil and gap geometries, the cone material, etc, each having an effect on the big picture.it was asked what to tweek where. i cannot go over that info. what i learned, was under the word that i wouldn&#039;t openly pass certain things along. sorry, i will not.all i can say is observe spider movement. see how and where it flexes under diff power levels and different tunes. apply the coating to certain regions, and note the changes in sound. is one method of finite tuning. it can be done to an assembled speaker. it is very time consuming. there is also the major changes of dropping in new soft parts with different base parameters to the suspension.yes, modeling programs are useful to get you close.we can do a lot more today with calculating and predicting than we could 10 years ago. but we still are not 100% on track where we need to be. and that is my biggest arguement.the day we produce 100% dynamic results to what was modeled, when just any ol&#039; company can produce a high end speaker because the science is dialed, speakers that are 90% efficient instead of .3% - 2%, i will have more positive attitude on using pure science and physics on acoustical reproduction.i&#039;m not trying to attack or bash anyone. so don&#039;t take it as such. i&#039;m just standing on a different side of the fence.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="95stroked1500, post: 2751511, member: 569805"] i was commenting back in one post to multiple trains of thoughts. so it might not pertain to just one poster. i never said the spider was the only factor. it is a very important factor that not just everyone can master to the degree that others can. i have never discredited the importance of the coil and gap geometries, the cone material, etc, each having an effect on the big picture. it was asked what to tweek where. i cannot go over that info. what i learned, was under the word that i wouldn't openly pass certain things along. sorry, i will not. all i can say is observe spider movement. see how and where it flexes under diff power levels and different tunes. apply the coating to certain regions, and note the changes in sound. is one method of finite tuning. it can be done to an assembled speaker. it is very time consuming. there is also the major changes of dropping in new soft parts with different base parameters to the suspension. yes, modeling programs are useful to get you close. we can do a lot more today with calculating and predicting than we could 10 years ago. but we still are not 100% on track where we need to be. and that is my biggest arguement. the day we produce 100% dynamic results to what was modeled, when just any ol' company can produce a high end speaker because the science is dialed, speakers that are 90% efficient instead of .3% - 2%, i will have more positive attitude on using pure science and physics on acoustical reproduction. i'm not trying to attack or bash anyone. so don't take it as such. i'm just standing on a different side of the fence. [/QUOTE]

Verification