polk 6x9
John Durbin wrote:
Fine, except that it does still not prove your original primary point
that the round driver is inherently better. My point is that as in most
things audio, it's how you execute the design that makes most of the
difference. Not that there aren't totally useless approaches to audio
that result in some mutant products, there probably are... but oval
speakers fall outside that category & have been proven to work just fine
when used intelligently.
I'd think that once you put aside all the nitpicking and obscure
examples, common sense would dictate that a circular cone is inherently
going to make for a less problematic design than an elliptical one.
Obviously a well-designed and well-built oval speaker will outperform
and "out-quality" a poorly designed and built round one... but all else
being equal, a round speaker will be preferable to an oval one for the
basic fact of simpler (and thus less costly) design and engineering.
Which takes us back to the original question of whether oval speakers
are inherently bad, more specifically 6x9 vs. 6.5 inch drivers. I
maintain that neither you or anyone else here has produced any
legitimate case for that so far. In fact, the one person that did have
anything factual or useful to contribute produced some evidence in favor
of the typically higher sensitivity for the larger cone driver.
Not higher SENSITIVITY, necessary. Higher BASS OUTPUT from the simple
fact of having a larger cone surface, yes... at least when comparing,
say, a 6x9 to a 6.5" round. But compare to an 8" round and that
advantage is gone, as the 8" has a larger surface area again than the 6x9.
What that boils down to is, larger cone = greater bass. It's not like a
6x9 will give you more bass out of the same mounting space as a 6.5 -
it's a LARGER SPEAKER.
|