[Arny Krueger]

"ChrisCoaster" wrote in message


I'm thinking about a speaker line, both a bookshelf and a
floorstanding model. Standard 8-16ohm impedance, current
state of art materials, with as low-resonance a cabinet
as humanly possible. Speaker would be a sealed unit,
capable of handling anywhere from 50-200W.

Check the Paradigm catalog for suitable alternatives.

The two key differences a

1. All drivers(2 in the bookshelf and 3 for the
floor-standing) would be in the same plane.

Which same plane?

Are you talking about the plane that the speaker driver chassis are mounted
on or the plane of the acoustic centers?



2.(the big one!) - The woofer - and the midrange in the
case of the floor-standing, would have a range of travel
unprecedented for their size.

If their travel is unprecidented, then it never ever existed. At this point
drivers are available with excursions that exceed any possible practical
need at home. IOW you are asking for something that not only has never been
done, but also serves no practical purpose.



I'm proposing a 6" woofer and 1"dome tweeter for the
bookshelf, and a 7"woofer, 3"mid, and same 1"dome tweeter
for the floor model.

Why does the floor-stander need to be 3-way?

I'm talking about both woofers having at least a 1"
high-profile butyl- rubber surround that would allow
visible movement even when driven mildly.

If there is visible movement when the speaker is driven mildly, it would
appear to me that there is likely some design fault. Well designed speakers
move their cones as little as possible consistent with undistored output.

The midrange
might also be visibly moved, especially on tracks with
strong transient drums(think early-to-mid era Genesis or
just about anything from LZ).

This is a rediculous cosmetic-only requirement.

Of course an area in which I have no expertise would have
to be advanced - and that is dampening. For a speaker
like this the cones might end up ringing like a bell!

The operative phrase would appear to be "no expertise". A knowlegable person
would simply not ask for what you are demanding.

My theory is that small rigid cones with high excursion
move as much air as effectively as a huge cone with less
excursion and perhaps not as structurally stiff.

Structural stiffness as perceived by you would appear to be yet another
ill-advised cosmetic requirement.