Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech
~misfit~[_3_] ~misfit~[_3_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 96
Default Vintage speaker repair advice wanted...

I realise that this post and question is a little outside of the remit of
this group but I'm at a loss as to where else to find this information.

I recently bought a pair of Wharfedale Dovedale III speakers from ~1970 or
so. I'd read reports on-line (including the original 'Gramophone' review
that is no longer available) which praised these for their faithful
reproduction of most of the frequency spectrum but in particular their
'deep, clean bass'. I have a pair of Goodmans Magnum SL speakers that are
similar design (3-way acoustic suspension) and vintage and, after replacing
the x-over capacitors they sound pretty good. I was hoping for a similar
result with the Dovedales which were their (British) competition at the
time.

They had been in storage for a decade before I took possession of them (from
a deceased estate) so, before parting with my money I asked for them to be
connected to an amp and played so I could test that all drivers were working
(as I'd heard of people who'd had their tweeters fail). The only source
available was a lo-fi CD / radio player so I only turned up the volume
enough to hear (through my trusty cardboard tube) that all six drivers
worked. I parted with my money and bought them home.

Alas, on getting them home I discovered that the 'rubber' surrounds of the
12.5" woofers had gone hard - they felt almost like bakelite! Of course they
produced no bass and I didn't dare 'drive' them for fear of damaging the
cones. After some frantic Googling I found that at least one other person
had also had this happen (but no follow-up on how, or if it was fixed). I
then spent quite a bit of time contacting various suppliers of replacement
driver surrounds but am unable to find anything for these. Being 12.5" I
can't just try a generic surround either as nothing fits. I got a couple of
quotes to have them repaired but they're way out of my rather limited
budget.

It seems that these really well-built drivers were previously used in other
Wharfedale cabinets, also acoustic suspension, but fitted with doped cloth
surrounds - and that quite a few of these speakers are still going strong.
It's only the rubber-surround ones that have failed....

So I'm trying to find out how to make my own doped cloth surrounds to
replace the (now cracked and broken) 0.5mm thick hardened 'rubber'. I'm an
invalid on welfare so I have time, just not much money. The only
instructions I've found on the web that come close are for making
'siliconed' cloth surrounds. However apparently no glue will stick them to
paper cones other than silicone - which is a once-only job as the only way
to remove it from paper cones (if the desired result isn't achieved first
try) destroys the cones.

As I'd like to preserve these lovely old speakers I'd like to have a shot at
making something similar to the stuff that used to be used for 'doped cloth'
speaker surrounds - the problem is I don't know what cloth or indeed 'dope'
to use! I can just try to use something I consider might be suitable (maybe
cotton and 'rubber cement' or similar - but how to shape and dry it?) but it
sure would be great if anyone can give me guidance or information as to what
used to be used. I'd love to have pointers on how to do it as well but I'll
settle for *any* information I can get rather than trying to re-invent the
wheel.

Help please? Thanks in advance for any useful input. I've had them nearly
six months now while I tried to find answers and I'd really like to try to
bring them back to life. (The highs and mids sound great for speakers of
this vintage!)
--
/Shaun.

"Humans will have advanced a long, long, way when religious belief has a
cozy little classification in the DSM."
David Melville (in r.a.s.f1)
[Sent from my OrbitalT ocular implant interface.]


  #2   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech
Peter Larsen[_3_] Peter Larsen[_3_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,295
Default Vintage speaker repair advice wanted...

~misfit~ wrote:
...
It seems that these really well-built drivers were previously used in
other Wharfedale cabinets, also acoustic suspension, but fitted with
doped cloth surrounds - and that quite a few of these speakers are
still going strong. It's only the rubber-surround ones that have
failed....


This does not make sense, rubber and foam are different, rubber surrounds as
used by KEF and B&W last very well, I am listening to my 1976 KEF Codas
right now.

So I'm trying to find out how to make my own doped cloth surrounds to
replace the (now cracked and broken) 0.5mm thick hardened 'rubber'.
I'm an invalid on welfare so I have time, just not much money. The
only instructions I've found on the web that come close are for making
'siliconed' cloth surrounds. However apparently no glue will stick
them to paper cones other than silicone - which is a once-only job as
the only way to remove it from paper cones (if the desired result
isn't achieved first try) destroys the cones.


Give them aftermarket foam surrounds, they are easily available in a size
that is likely to fit. Or neoprene rubber if available. Corrugated cloth
surrounds last better than anything else, but it is possible that whatever
they were made with is forbidden now. Foam has some nice acoustic properties
in terms of attenuating reflections from the membrane edge.

Loudspeaker membranes and surrounds must always be protected from direct
sunlight.

Kind regards

Peter Larsen


  #3   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech
~misfit~[_3_] ~misfit~[_3_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 96
Default Vintage speaker repair advice wanted...

Somewhere on teh intarwebs Peter Larsen wrote:
~misfit~ wrote:
..
It seems that these really well-built drivers were previously used in
other Wharfedale cabinets, also acoustic suspension, but fitted with
doped cloth surrounds - and that quite a few of these speakers are
still going strong. It's only the rubber-surround ones that have
failed....



Sorry about the lateness of my reply, I stopped checking here regularly.

This does not make sense, rubber and foam are different, rubber
surrounds as used by KEF and B&W last very well, I am listening to my
1976 KEF Codas right now.


I also have some early 70s Goodmans Mezzo SLs that have 'rubber' surrounds
that are still sounding better than most modern 2-way speakers under five
grand - and my Wharfedale Denton 2s are of a similar era and also have
'rubber', which is still supple (although the glue with which the surrounds
were attached to the cast ali baskets has let go).

You say that it doesn't make sense, and point out to me the obvious - that
rubber and foam are different. However, whether you think it makes sense or
not it's what's happened. From the only other reference I was able to find
on teh webz about the phenomena (also with Dovedale IIIs) it seems the
particular 'rubber' used (it was one of Wharfedale's first uses of 'rubber')
is prone to going hard if the drivers aren't used for a long period of time.

So, sorry that you don't comprehend it but, I'm afraid it's the truth.

So I'm trying to find out how to make my own doped cloth surrounds to
replace the (now cracked and broken) 0.5mm thick hardened 'rubber'.
I'm an invalid on welfare so I have time, just not much money. The
only instructions I've found on the web that come close are for
making 'siliconed' cloth surrounds. However apparently no glue will
stick them to paper cones other than silicone - which is a once-only
job as the only way to remove it from paper cones (if the desired
result isn't achieved first try) destroys the cones.


Give them aftermarket foam surrounds, they are easily available in a
size that is likely to fit.


Did you skim-read? (Ahh, your name suggests that English may not be your
first language - but you write well enough so you *should* be able to read
it too.) I know my post was long (and you snipped most of it) but that was
to try to stop generic "get new replacement surrounds" type answers. The
drivers are 12.5" and, despite me searching all and every supplier of
after-market surrounds - and emailing quite a few of the bigger ones with
the various dimensions needed - there is *nothing* avaible anywhere on the
planet that I can find that will fit.

Or neoprene rubber if available.


Yeah, that would be awesome! Where can I get it to fit?

Corrugated cloth surrounds last better than anything else, but it is
possible that whatever they were made with is forbidden now. Foam has
some nice acoustic properties in terms of attenuating reflections
from the membrane edge.


Yep, this ain't my first rodeo.

Loudspeaker membranes and surrounds must always be protected from
direct sunlight.


Thanks, another thing I learned eons ago.

Seriously, if you couldn't help after properly reading the post cough then
it might have been best to not reply yes? I know this group is almost dead
and a bit of traffic might keep it off life-support but really? It's not
just traffic that is important it's also the quality of the advice given.

Best,
--
/Shaun.

"Humans will have advanced a long, long, way when religious belief has a
cozy little classification in the DSM."
David Melville (in r.a.s.f1)
[Sent from my OrbitalT ocular implant interface.]


  #4   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech
David L. Martel[_3_] David L. Martel[_3_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3
Default Vintage speaker repair advice wanted...

Shaun,

It might help to describe the surrounds. Angled or flat?
Surround OD? Surround ID? Cone OD? Have you e--mailed Wharfedale?

Dave M.


  #5   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech
Peter Larsen[_3_] Peter Larsen[_3_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,295
Default Vintage speaker repair advice wanted...

~misfit~ wrote:

Did you skim-read?


Hey, this is usenet.

(Ahh, your name suggests that English may not be
your first language - but you write well enough so you *should* be
able to read it too.) I know my post was long (and you snipped most
of it) but that was to try to stop generic "get new replacement
surrounds" type answers. The drivers are 12.5"


Yerup, this is usenet, most important information omitted in first post.

Seriously, if you couldn't help after properly reading the post
cough then it might have been best to not reply yes?


Do you seriously think that your writing style increases the chance that
other people here care to help you?

Kind regards

Peter Larsen






  #6   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech
~misfit~[_3_] ~misfit~[_3_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 96
Default Vintage speaker repair advice wanted...

Somewhere on teh intarwebs David L. Martel wrote:
Shaun,

It might help to describe the surrounds.


Ok.

Angled or flat? - Flat


Surround OD? - 30cm


Surround ID? - 23.5cm


Cone OD? - 25cm


The 'roll' is inverted. These are the bolted-together square ceramic magnet
type with a cast alloy frame. They're back-mounted with a thick green felt
'gasket' around the edge. Beautiful drivers actually, hand-assembled and you
can see the various builders initials (along with "7/69") written on the
back of the cone.

They look so good - so well-made and purposeful, that it'd be great to see
them - in an open baffle perhaps (although I doubt they'd be suited - and I
have the rest of the drivers in perfect condition...)

I could put some pics up somewhere if you want and know of a hosting site
that's not a PITA to register?

Have you e--mailed Wharfedale?


Yes, ages ago and I didn't get a reply. Although that said I only had their
main sales addy but was hoping that perhaps they'd give me the right one.
Instead it seems the email was simply ignored - put in the 'too hard - not
enough reward' bin.

I have the email addy for APM's restorer (I fixed up a pair of their
speakers a few years back) and I asked his advice (mainly as he's employed
in England as a restorer of older drivers) but he couldn't help.

Dave M.


Thanks for the reply Dave. I haven't checked here in a while as there didn't
appear to be much interest in my initial post so the project's on the
back-burner until either i find out more or get desperate enough to atempt
/something/.

I'm fairly sure that, if I want to restore these drivers to their former
glory (and I do) I'll have to make surrounds. (I'm on the poverty line, an
invalid on an [ever-decreasing] government benefit in New Zealand.)
--
/Shaun.

"Humans will have advanced a long, long, way when religious belief has a
cozy little classification in the DSM."
David Melville (in r.a.s.f1)
[Sent from my OrbitalT ocular implant interface.]


  #7   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech
~misfit~[_3_] ~misfit~[_3_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 96
Default Vintage speaker repair advice wanted...

Somewhere on teh intarwebs Peter Larsen wrote:
~misfit~ wrote:

Did you skim-read?


Hey, this is usenet.


Congrats on knowing where you are!

(Ahh, your name suggests that English may not be
your first language - but you write well enough so you *should* be
able to read it too.) I know my post was long (and you snipped most
of it) but that was to try to stop generic "get new replacement
surrounds" type answers. The drivers are 12.5"


Yerup, this is usenet, most important information omitted in first
post.


I stated in my OP that they were 12.5" drivers - twice in fact.

Seriously, if you couldn't help after properly reading the post
cough then it might have been best to not reply yes?


Do you seriously think that your writing style increases the chance
that other people here care to help you?


You'll have to excuse me for being rather annoyed at your off-hand
blindingly obvious but ill-informed reply. In a group with a name such as
this I'd hoped for something a little more professional.
--
/Shaun.

"Humans will have advanced a long, long, way when religious belief has a
cozy little classification in the DSM."
David Melville (in r.a.s.f1)
[Sent from my OrbitalT ocular implant interface.]


  #8   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech
DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5
Default Vintage speaker repair advice wanted...

On Mon, 22 Jul 2013 00:26:27 +1200, "~misfit~"
wrote:

Alas, on getting them home I discovered that the 'rubber' surrounds of the
12.5" woofers had gone hard



There is no such animal.

You measure the speaker size by measuring the bolt circle diameter, not
the outside rim of the speaker.
  #9   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech
~misfit~[_3_] ~misfit~[_3_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 96
Default Vintage speaker repair advice wanted...

Somewhere on teh intarwebs DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno wrote:
On Mon, 22 Jul 2013 00:26:27 +1200, "~misfit~"
wrote:

Alas, on getting them home I discovered that the 'rubber' surrounds
of the
12.5" woofers had gone hard



There is no such animal.

You measure the speaker size by measuring the bolt circle diameter,
not the outside rim of the speaker.


I called them 12.5" drivers as that's what Wharfedale call them (as well as
contemporary reviews of the speakers). Also they need about 1/2" bigger
holes to mount them than three (so-called) 12" drivers I have here.

However I agree - and get very annoyed at the way drivers are 'sized' by
hole-to-hole - or chassis size. IMHO a cone-type speakers quoted size should
be the diameter of the cone - the same way a tweeter is sized by the
diameter of the diaphragm. Either that or the size of the hole required to
mount them.

So, just for you, they're 25cm drivers. That's the outside diameter of the
cones. Now, can you help me with sourcing (or making) surrounds for them?

Oh, wait a minute. WTF do you mean by the "bolt circle diameter"? Do you
mean the mounting holes? Because, if you do I've just measured these and
they're *exactly* 12.5" from the centre of one bolt-hole to the centre of
the opposite one. I guess that could be referred to as the "bolt circle
diameter".

(Although *why* anyone would want to use that measurement as a driver size
instead of the cone diameter is beyond me. It's asking for manufacturers to
'cheat' by having a really wide flange and spacing the holes all the way to
the edge.)
--
/Shaun.

"Humans will have advanced a long, long, way when religious belief has a
cozy little classification in the DSM."
David Melville (in r.a.s.f1)
[Sent from my OrbitalT ocular implant interface.]


  #10   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech
gregz gregz is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 131
Default Vintage speaker repair advice wanted...

"~misfit~" wrote:
Somewhere on teh intarwebs DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno wrote:
On Mon, 22 Jul 2013 00:26:27 +1200, "~misfit~"
wrote:

Alas, on getting them home I discovered that the 'rubber' surrounds
of the
12.5" woofers had gone hard



There is no such animal.

You measure the speaker size by measuring the bolt circle diameter,
not the outside rim of the speaker.


I called them 12.5" drivers as that's what Wharfedale call them (as well as
contemporary reviews of the speakers). Also they need about 1/2" bigger
holes to mount them than three (so-called) 12" drivers I have here.

However I agree - and get very annoyed at the way drivers are 'sized' by
hole-to-hole - or chassis size. IMHO a cone-type speakers quoted size should
be the diameter of the cone - the same way a tweeter is sized by the
diameter of the diaphragm. Either that or the size of the hole required to
mount them.

So, just for you, they're 25cm drivers. That's the outside diameter of the
cones. Now, can you help me with sourcing (or making) surrounds for them?

Oh, wait a minute. WTF do you mean by the "bolt circle diameter"? Do you
mean the mounting holes? Because, if you do I've just measured these and
they're *exactly* 12.5" from the centre of one bolt-hole to the centre of
the opposite one. I guess that could be referred to as the "bolt circle
diameter".

(Although *why* anyone would want to use that measurement as a driver size
instead of the cone diameter is beyond me. It's asking for manufacturers to
'cheat' by having a really wide flange and spacing the holes all the way to
the edge.)


Because that is the size you want to bolt into existing holes. That's the
way I have always gone by.

Greg


  #11   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech
~misfit~[_3_] ~misfit~[_3_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 96
Default Vintage speaker repair advice wanted...

Somewhere on teh intarwebs gregz wrote:
"~misfit~" wrote:
Somewhere on teh intarwebs DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno wrote:
On Mon, 22 Jul 2013 00:26:27 +1200, "~misfit~"
wrote:

Alas, on getting them home I discovered that the 'rubber' surrounds
of the
12.5" woofers had gone hard


There is no such animal.

You measure the speaker size by measuring the bolt circle diameter,
not the outside rim of the speaker.


I called them 12.5" drivers as that's what Wharfedale call them (as
well as contemporary reviews of the speakers). Also they need about
1/2" bigger holes to mount them than three (so-called) 12" drivers I
have here.

However I agree - and get very annoyed at the way drivers are
'sized' by hole-to-hole - or chassis size. IMHO a cone-type speakers
quoted size should be the diameter of the cone - the same way a
tweeter is sized by the diameter of the diaphragm. Either that or
the size of the hole required to mount them.

So, just for you, they're 25cm drivers. That's the outside diameter
of the cones. Now, can you help me with sourcing (or making)
surrounds for them?

Oh, wait a minute. WTF do you mean by the "bolt circle diameter"? Do
you mean the mounting holes? Because, if you do I've just measured
these and they're *exactly* 12.5" from the centre of one bolt-hole
to the centre of the opposite one. I guess that could be referred to
as the "bolt circle diameter".

(Although *why* anyone would want to use that measurement as a
driver size instead of the cone diameter is beyond me. It's asking
for manufacturers to 'cheat' by having a really wide flange and
spacing the holes all the way to the edge.)


Because that is the size you want to bolt into existing holes. That's
the way I have always gone by.


I understand why they're measured that way for system builders but by far
the majority of speaker-owning and buying people never unbolt a woofer in
their lives. It irks me when a "10" woofer" can have a cone that is smaller
than 7" in diameter. shrug
--
/Shaun.

"Humans will have advanced a long, long, way when religious belief has a
cozy little classification in the DSM."
David Melville (in r.a.s.f1)
[Sent from my OrbitalT ocular implant interface.]


  #12   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech
Trevor Trevor is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,820
Default Vintage speaker repair advice wanted...


"~misfit~" wrote in message
...
Somewhere on teh intarwebs DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno wrote:
On Mon, 22 Jul 2013 00:26:27 +1200, "~misfit~"
wrote:
Alas, on getting them home I discovered that the 'rubber' surrounds
of the 12.5" woofers had gone hard


There is no such animal.

You measure the speaker size by measuring the bolt circle diameter,
not the outside rim of the speaker.


Oh, wait a minute. WTF do you mean by the "bolt circle diameter"? Do you
mean the mounting holes? Because, if you do I've just measured these and
they're *exactly* 12.5" from the centre of one bolt-hole to the centre of
the opposite one. I guess that could be referred to as the "bolt circle
diameter".

(Although *why* anyone would want to use that measurement as a driver size
instead of the cone diameter is beyond me.


It's just historical, and important if you want a drop in replacement, but
your measurement does prove the lie to the claim "There is no such animal",
and why it is difficult to obtain replacement surrounds.


It's asking for manufacturers to 'cheat' by having a really wide flange and
spacing the holes all the way to the edge.)


For comparison and TS measurement purposes active cone area is used instead,
so not a problem.

Trevor.


  #13   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech
~misfit~[_3_] ~misfit~[_3_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 96
Default Vintage speaker repair advice wanted...

Somewhere on teh intarwebs Trevor wrote:
"~misfit~" wrote in message
...
Somewhere on teh intarwebs DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno wrote:
On Mon, 22 Jul 2013 00:26:27 +1200, "~misfit~"
wrote:
Alas, on getting them home I discovered that the 'rubber' surrounds
of the 12.5" woofers had gone hard

There is no such animal.

You measure the speaker size by measuring the bolt circle diameter,
not the outside rim of the speaker.


Oh, wait a minute. WTF do you mean by the "bolt circle diameter"? Do
you mean the mounting holes? Because, if you do I've just measured
these and they're *exactly* 12.5" from the centre of one bolt-hole
to the centre of the opposite one. I guess that could be referred to
as the "bolt circle diameter".

(Although *why* anyone would want to use that measurement as a
driver size instead of the cone diameter is beyond me.


It's just historical, and important if you want a drop in
replacement, but your measurement does prove the lie to the claim
"There is no such animal", and why it is difficult to obtain
replacement surrounds.


Indeed.

It's asking for manufacturers to 'cheat' by having a really wide
flange and spacing the holes all the way to the edge.)


For comparison and TS measurement purposes active cone area is used
instead, so not a problem.


Yep, I've made a few boxes (and have the software to prove it - these days)
so know all about TS params. However, as I alluded to in my other post -
I've seen "10 inch" drivers (for instance) with cones that vary by around
two inches in diameter. As most speaker-buyers will never need to know what
size a replacement driver will need to be it could potentially be very
misleading.

I mean, if your average punter is looking to buy speakers and it's a toss-up
between two different brands, both 3-way with a "10 inch" woofer (which vary
by the afore-mentioned 2" or thereabouts) said punter might not know that in
fact one woofer has 30% more cone area than the other. After all they're
both 10" right?

Cheers,
--
/Shaun.

"Humans will have advanced a long, long, way when religious belief has a
cozy little classification in the DSM."
David Melville (in r.a.s.f1)
[Sent from my OrbitalT ocular implant interface.]


  #14   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech
Trevor Trevor is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,820
Default Vintage speaker repair advice wanted...


"~misfit~" wrote in message
...

Yep, I've made a few boxes (and have the software to prove it - these
days) so know all about TS params. However, as I alluded to in my other
post - I've seen "10 inch" drivers (for instance) with cones that vary by
around two inches in diameter. As most speaker-buyers will never need to
know what size a replacement driver will need to be it could potentially
be very misleading.

I mean, if your average punter is looking to buy speakers and it's a
toss-up between two different brands, both 3-way with a "10 inch" woofer
(which vary by the afore-mentioned 2" or thereabouts) said punter might
not know that in fact one woofer has 30% more cone area than the other.
After all they're both 10" right?


Frankly it's irrelevant. You can buy a box with a 10" driver for $100 or one
with an 8" driver for $10,000. No-one in their right mind would think the
$100 box is better because it has a bigger driver.

Trevor.


  #15   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech
~misfit~[_3_] ~misfit~[_3_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 96
Default Vintage speaker repair advice wanted...

Somewhere on teh intarwebs Trevor wrote:
"~misfit~" wrote in message
...

Yep, I've made a few boxes (and have the software to prove it - these
days) so know all about TS params. However, as I alluded to in my
other post - I've seen "10 inch" drivers (for instance) with cones
that vary by around two inches in diameter. As most speaker-buyers
will never need to know what size a replacement driver will need to
be it could potentially be very misleading.

I mean, if your average punter is looking to buy speakers and it's a
toss-up between two different brands, both 3-way with a "10 inch"
woofer (which vary by the afore-mentioned 2" or thereabouts) said
punter might not know that in fact one woofer has 30% more cone area
than the other. After all they're both 10" right?


Frankly it's irrelevant. You can buy a box with a 10" driver for $100
or one with an 8" driver for $10,000. No-one in their right mind
would think the $100 box is better because it has a bigger driver.


So you'd be happy to buy cars defined by their wheel base (rather than what
that wheel base contains) then huh?

Okay.
--
/Shaun.

"Humans will have advanced a long, long, way when religious belief has a
cozy little classification in the DSM."
David Melville (in r.a.s.f1)
[Sent from my OrbitalT ocular implant interface.]




  #16   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech
Trevor Trevor is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,820
Default Vintage speaker repair advice wanted...


"~misfit~" wrote in message
...
Somewhere on teh intarwebs Trevor wrote:
"~misfit~" wrote in message
...

Yep, I've made a few boxes (and have the software to prove it - these
days) so know all about TS params. However, as I alluded to in my
other post - I've seen "10 inch" drivers (for instance) with cones
that vary by around two inches in diameter. As most speaker-buyers
will never need to know what size a replacement driver will need to
be it could potentially be very misleading.

I mean, if your average punter is looking to buy speakers and it's a
toss-up between two different brands, both 3-way with a "10 inch"
woofer (which vary by the afore-mentioned 2" or thereabouts) said
punter might not know that in fact one woofer has 30% more cone area
than the other. After all they're both 10" right?


Frankly it's irrelevant. You can buy a box with a 10" driver for $100
or one with an 8" driver for $10,000. No-one in their right mind
would think the $100 box is better because it has a bigger driver.


So you'd be happy to buy cars defined by their wheel base (rather than
what that wheel base contains) then huh?


How the hell did you get that? Pretty much the opposite of what I just said
above!
Just like speakers, car quality/performance/price has *NO* direct
relationship with size. However a 6'6" person might well take into
consideration leg room, and two identical wheelbase cars may still differ
greatly in front or rear legroom.
I guess you failed logical reasoning at school, and certainly never made the
debate club :-)

Trevor.



  #17   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech
~misfit~[_3_] ~misfit~[_3_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 96
Default Vintage speaker repair advice wanted...

Somewhere on teh intarwebs Trevor wrote:
"~misfit~" wrote in message
...
Somewhere on teh intarwebs Trevor wrote:
"~misfit~" wrote in message
...

Yep, I've made a few boxes (and have the software to prove it -
these days) so know all about TS params. However, as I alluded to
in my other post - I've seen "10 inch" drivers (for instance) with
cones that vary by around two inches in diameter. As most
speaker-buyers will never need to know what size a replacement
driver will need to be it could potentially be very misleading.

I mean, if your average punter is looking to buy speakers and it's
a toss-up between two different brands, both 3-way with a "10 inch"
woofer (which vary by the afore-mentioned 2" or thereabouts) said
punter might not know that in fact one woofer has 30% more cone
area than the other. After all they're both 10" right?

Frankly it's irrelevant. You can buy a box with a 10" driver for
$100 or one with an 8" driver for $10,000. No-one in their right
mind would think the $100 box is better because it has a bigger
driver.


So you'd be happy to buy cars defined by their wheel base (rather
than what that wheel base contains) then huh?


How the hell did you get that? Pretty much the opposite of what I
just said above!
Just like speakers, car quality/performance/price has *NO* direct
relationship with size. However a 6'6" person might well take into
consideration leg room, and two identical wheelbase cars may still
differ greatly in front or rear legroom.
I guess you failed logical reasoning at school, and certainly never
made the debate club :-)


I certainly never did - although I have no trouble with logic.

I have much better things to do with my life than spend precious time that
I'l never get back defending an off-the-cuff remark to someone who obviously
lives to argue. shrug

Enjoy your life of conflict. My grasp of logic tells me I've wasted enough
time on this tangent.
--
/Shaun.

"Humans will have advanced a long, long, way when religious belief has a
cozy little classification in the DSM."
David Melville (in r.a.s.f1)
[Sent from my OrbitalT ocular implant interface.]


  #18   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech
Trevor Trevor is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,820
Default Vintage speaker repair advice wanted...


"~misfit~" wrote in message
...
Somewhere on teh intarwebs Trevor wrote:
"~misfit~" wrote in message
...
Somewhere on teh intarwebs Trevor wrote:
"~misfit~" wrote in message
...

Yep, I've made a few boxes (and have the software to prove it -
these days) so know all about TS params. However, as I alluded to
in my other post - I've seen "10 inch" drivers (for instance) with
cones that vary by around two inches in diameter. As most
speaker-buyers will never need to know what size a replacement
driver will need to be it could potentially be very misleading.

I mean, if your average punter is looking to buy speakers and it's
a toss-up between two different brands, both 3-way with a "10 inch"
woofer (which vary by the afore-mentioned 2" or thereabouts) said
punter might not know that in fact one woofer has 30% more cone
area than the other. After all they're both 10" right?

Frankly it's irrelevant. You can buy a box with a 10" driver for
$100 or one with an 8" driver for $10,000. No-one in their right
mind would think the $100 box is better because it has a bigger
driver.

So you'd be happy to buy cars defined by their wheel base (rather
than what that wheel base contains) then huh?


How the hell did you get that? Pretty much the opposite of what I
just said above!
Just like speakers, car quality/performance/price has *NO* direct
relationship with size. However a 6'6" person might well take into
consideration leg room, and two identical wheelbase cars may still
differ greatly in front or rear legroom.
I guess you failed logical reasoning at school, and certainly never
made the debate club :-)


I certainly never did - although I have no trouble with logic.

I have much better things to do with my life than spend precious time that
I'l never get back defending an off-the-cuff remark to someone who
obviously lives to argue. shrug


And yet YOU were the one to reply with an obviously incorrect statement for
reasons unknown to anyone else but you.


Enjoy your life of conflict. My grasp of logic tells me I've wasted enough
time on this tangent.


So why continue it?

Trevor.


Reply
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Vintage driver repair advice wanted. ~misfit~[_3_] High End Audio 5 July 19th 13 03:41 AM
WANTED:JBL D1005 SPEAKER 1951 VINTAGE Robert Ramirez Marketplace 0 October 24th 03 02:18 AM
WANTED:JBL D1005 SPEAKER 1951 VINTAGE Robert Ramirez Marketplace 0 October 24th 03 02:18 AM
WANTED: JBL D1005 , 2000 SPEAKER 1951 VINTAGE Robert Ramirez Marketplace 0 October 24th 03 12:33 AM
WANTED: JBL D1005 , 2000 SPEAKER 1951 VINTAGE Robert Ramirez Marketplace 0 October 24th 03 12:33 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:33 PM.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AudioBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Audio and hi-fi"