Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #81   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.car
Matt Ion Matt Ion is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 420
Default polk 6x9

MOSFET wrote:

Perhaps Matt can chime in with a better working definition of what we are
talking about.


Actually, I agree with your "logic": if the oval design was all that
much better, you'd see it in use a lot more. The fact that it's used in
a relatively small percentage of car audio designs, an even smaller
portion of home/semi-pro/audiophile designs, and is practically unheard
of in professional audio systems, suggests that those who design and
build these things have significant issues with the design.

Whether it's for SQ reasons, engineering reasons, budgetary reasons, or
otherwise, those who actually produce the speakers obviously don't see a
major benefit to the oval style, or we'd see a lot more of them. This
doesn't necessarily suggest that it's a BAD design... only that it's not
particularly advantageous. I expect every manufacturer has their own
reasons why they feel that's so.
  #82   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.car
Jethro[_4_] Jethro[_4_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1
Default polk 6x9


bob wald is teh totally awesomest. ever. that's all i have to say.
you go bob, edjumacate the rest of car audio world with your almighty
wisdom!


--
Jethro

pre-occupied with 1985
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jethro's Profile: 18662
View this thread: http://www.caraudioforum.com/vbb3/sh...d.php?t=279397
CarAudioForum.com - Usenet Gateway w/over TWO million posts online!


--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

  #83   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.car
bob wald bob wald is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 384
Default polk 6x9

matt..i bought afew of those bronze colored jvc speakers.after i
installed a 5.25 jvc, the best speaker i have ever heard. outa the
smaller speakers. i dont know if the contracted those out to be made but
they were great..i think rf or some1 got the makers of the jvc to make
thier speakers now.
guess they paid them more.
the first 5.25 at 70rms i ever saw.
very few of those out there....
after i heard those bronze speakers i bought afew more jvc bronze 6x9s
asap.
before they were gone.i'm looking at them on my dresser.
i have found at onlinecarstereo some 6x9s by audiobahn, 200rms,
$49.....with great specs.

  #84   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.car
bob wald bob wald is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 384
Default polk 6x9

i dont know if 'they'' contracted.. i meant.

  #85   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.car
MOSFET MOSFET is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 810
Default polk 6x9

You know, I've actually been thinking about this issue the last few days and
I want to re-affirm what I said earlier that there would be MUCH more 6X9's
used in home speakers if SQ was no different than round cones.

Here's the SIMPLE logic (notice I do not use the words "common sense" or
"gut feeling") why this is true:

A) NO ONE can dispute that home speakers have been getting narrower. Now,
for the time being, let's ignore the reason why they are getting narrower,
but they are. In fact, there are many, many home speaker makers today that
put their bass drivers on the sides of the speaker in order to keep it as
narrow as possible. It seems to me, if there were no drawback to speaker
widths, large speakers would STILL be mounted on the front and speakers
would go back to being wide. It seems to me you would want to try and align
your driver array within a speaker as close as possible AND on the same axis
for good point-source imiging.

BUT, AGAIN, home speaker makers seem MUCH more interessted in making
speakers as narrow as possible. This goes for most speaker makers. I don't
think anyone here would dispute me on this fact (that large home speakers
are getting narrower).

B) If there were no drawbacks to oval speakers, think how narrow a home
speaker could be built yet still retaining good bass response AND improved
imaging as all the drivers would be in the same alignment.

John, you keep wanting to minimize this argument by showing a handful of
speakers that do use ovals. But taken on the whole, there are FAR more
round speaker cobes thab oval.

THERE MUST BE A REASON OTHERWISE WE WOULD SEE THE 6X9 (or any oval shape)
EVERYWHERE.

Clearly, ovals DO indeed have drawbacks round speakers do not have. The
industry makes the BEST argument for this ascertion.

MOSFET




  #86   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.car
bob wald bob wald is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 384
Default polk 6x9

mosfet you a boob ok. get over it..you might be half right..but so.
we're not impressed with you superior knowledge of car audio.
if 6x9s were so bad. dont you think they wouldof just put 6.5 round in
that space?
dont you think its harder to make a 6x9 that 6,5 speaker?
mosfet write polk/infinity n tell them your thoughts on this.lol
they might learn you sumthing.
let it go......

  #87   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.car
bob wald bob wald is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 384
Default polk 6x9

oh and as far as your question about seeing 6x9s in home speakers.. not
if its cheaper to make 6.5s n 6s.
they wouldnt make 6x9s for the home....
i know youll never figure that out.thought i'd help the mentally
challenged...lol


  #88   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.car
Matt Ion Matt Ion is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 420
Default polk 6x9

John Durbin wrote:

I really do recommend you guys pick up a book or two on loudspeakers...
your understanding & enjoyment of this hobby of car audio will only get
better when you appreciate more of the science of acoustics & how
drivers work and interact etc.


Thanks, I have several such books from my training as an audio engineer.
20 years in studio and live sound reinforcement and I have never,
ever, not ever seen an oval driver used in professional systems. Aside
from esoteric things like electrostatic and ribbon drivers, I have never
seen any other form of non-round driver that made it beyond a single
model line (there have been the odd attempts at introducing square
drivers in studio monitors, but they've always vanished rather quickly).

If the music you're listening to isn't being created on round speakers,
I'd like to know how it's supposed to be so much better played back on
non-round speakers.
  #89   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.car
Matt Ion Matt Ion is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 420
Default polk 6x9

BTW, John, do you also have any books on the benefits of million-strand,
oxygen-free, 00-gauge, chicken-blood-infused,
silicone-and-pig-snot-jacketed interconnect cables? I'm not above
spending $10,000 per foot, if I can find them in the right color (I find
blue cables tend to have more "airiness" than the red ones).
  #90   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.car
Matt Ion Matt Ion is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 420
Default polk 6x9

John Durbin wrote:
Care to quote titles? Seemes like if you had read any specifically on
loudspeaker design, we wouldn't have gotten this far down the road...


What would be the point? I doubt you've ever heard of any of them, or
we wouldn't have gotten this far down the road.

As for the last question you pose, please... if you really do work in
studios you know very well that there's little or no correlation to the
equipment used for mixing vs. what is used for playback outside the
studio. If that was true, many of us would be enjoying our 4" full range
speakers, right?


Why, do you know of some studios that use 4" full range speakers for
their main mixes?


  #91   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.car
Matt Ion Matt Ion is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 420
Default polk 6x9

John Durbin wrote:
I'm starting to think you're fuller of crap than a Christmas goose...
you won't answer any direct questions, and counter with questions you
think I can't/won't answer. That's pathetic, even by RAC's recent
standards. The big boys from a few years ago would have chewed you up &
left you for dead by now.


I notice you keep referring to this magical speaker book of yours as
well, but have yet to name it. Pot, meet kettle.


*plonk*
  #92   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.car
MOSFET MOSFET is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 810
Default polk 6x9


"John Durbin" wrote in message
...
I am sure there is a reason, or reasons more likely... you could start
with the prevailing attitude here that oval cone drivers have some
inherent flaw. If you're trying to sell people speakers based on them
sounding great, do you start with a driver that most people beleive is
inferior? Or do you take the safe path and put a pair of 5.25's around a



Good point, however, my suspicion is that oval speakers would have found
their way into home speakers a LONG time ago and is the case with
everything, these drivers would become more and more refined and
sophiticated. Sure, if I was desinging a speaker RIGHT NOW THIS MINUTE the
safe bet would be to use a pair of 5.25" as opposed to a 6X9. But that's
simply because THERE LACKS A MARKET for very high-end ovals.

And going back to my original argument, why does the market lack high-end
ovals? Because years ago engineers recognized the drawbacks inherent in the
oval cone design (see Matt's posts regarding specific reasons why the oval
is inferior to round cones).

MOSFET

But if the oval speaker had been used for years in the home I would expect
to see high-quality drivers to use in my imaginery speaker system.


  #93   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.car
MOSFET MOSFET is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 810
Default polk 6x9


I really do recommend you guys pick up a book or two on loudspeakers...
your understanding & enjoyment of this hobby of car audio will only get
better when you appreciate more of the science of acoustics & how
drivers work and interact etc


Here here. You are absolutely correct in that a more thourough
understanding of this would help bolster my argument, or even change my
mind. One of the reasons I love RAC is because of all the stuff I learn
here and there is NO SUCH THING as too much knowledge. Nor is there anyone
who "knows it all".....well, maybe Bob.

MOSFET


  #94   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.car
MOSFET MOSFET is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 810
Default polk 6x9

I also have some $5,000 Shakti stones I could sell you as well.

"Matt Ion" wrote in message
news:FZyLi.260018$fJ5.190440@pd7urf1no...
BTW, John, do you also have any books on the benefits of million-strand,
oxygen-free, 00-gauge, chicken-blood-infused,
silicone-and-pig-snot-jacketed interconnect cables? I'm not above
spending $10,000 per foot, if I can find them in the right color (I find
blue cables tend to have more "airiness" than the red ones).



  #95   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.car
Matt Ion Matt Ion is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 420
Default polk 6x9

I. Care wrote:

So my thoughts are, that based on Polk's own web site, and the fact they
arguably make very good oval speakers, their own ovals are not good
enough for Home audio and they are not good enough to be their flagship
mobile speaker. Here is Polk's white paper describing their
construction:

http://www.polkaudio.com/downloads/w...ers/sr6500.pdf


They obviously don't have John's books on speaker design!


  #96   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.car
MOSFET MOSFET is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 810
Default polk 6x9

.. The big boys from a few years ago would have chewed you up &
left you for dead by now.


Though we have had our share of healthy disagreements over the years, Matt
is one of the most knowledgble and helpful members of this group. For my
part, I would accept and trust ANY piece of advice he might give me.

On the other hand, these personal attacks and insults reflect much more on
YOUR character, John, than Matt's and DO NOT belong in RAC. Try sticking to
the topic and keeping the personall insults OUT!

MOSFET


  #97   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.car
Matt Ion Matt Ion is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 420
Default polk 6x9

John Durbin wrote:
I am sure the typical distortions of the oval drivers of those days were
enough to push them towards round cone designs. If they had the design
tools & manufacturing processes currently available that might not have
happened or might not have happened as thoroughly. Today an engineer can
use FEA tools to predict & control cone flexing, surface distortions,
etc. The cone can be injected with varying thicknesses as needed to
support the design, shapes can be created that allow the designer to
dictate dispersion patterns in the midrange frequencies, etc. Lots of
different ways to address what you guys are talking about.


Which was precisely my original assertion: yes, good-sounding oval
speakers CAN be made, but there are too many design, engineering, and
therefore related cost issues to make it worthwhile in most designs.
  #98   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.car
Matt Ion Matt Ion is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 420
Default polk 6x9

John Durbin wrote:
No, it wasn't. Go back and read your posts... the one that said they
could be made was me. You were busy riding MOSFET's bandwagon that they
sucked bcause nobody uses them.


You mean where I said:
"Whether it's for SQ reasons, engineering reasons, budgetary reasons, or
otherwise, those who actually produce the speakers obviously don't see a
major benefit to the oval style, or we'd see a lot more of them. This
doesn't necessarily suggest that it's a BAD design... only that it's not
particularly advantageous. I expect every manufacturer has their own
reasons why they feel that's so."

It costs no more to do the FEA for an oval design than a round one.
Tooling may or may not be more depending on type & size etc.


You just admitted that there are greater engineering concerns, including
the ones I've been claiming all along, and outlined several methods that
might be used to counteract that.

Now you're contradicting yourself as well as everyone else.

And you still haven't listed any of your marvelous speaker-design books
despite accusing me of doing the same thing.

Would you like some condiments for your other foot?


JD

Matt Ion wrote:

John Durbin wrote:

I am sure the typical distortions of the oval drivers of those days
were enough to push them towards round cone designs. If they had the
design tools & manufacturing processes currently available that might
not have happened or might not have happened as thoroughly. Today an
engineer can use FEA tools to predict & control cone flexing, surface
distortions, etc. The cone can be injected with varying thicknesses
as needed to support the design, shapes can be created that allow the
designer to dictate dispersion patterns in the midrange frequencies,
etc. Lots of different ways to address what you guys are talking about.



Which was precisely my original assertion: yes, good-sounding oval
speakers CAN be made, but there are too many design, engineering, and
therefore related cost issues to make it worthwhile in most designs.


  #99   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.car
MOSFET MOSFET is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 810
Default polk 6x9

.. And, I don't see where it's a personal attack to say
that the lack of any sort of factual content to both of your posts would
have been fodder for Eddie, Dan Wiggins, many others that actually know
a lot about this subject & that were regulars back in the day.


No John, I'm reffering to this:

"I'm starting to think you're fuller of crap than a Christmas goose..."

AND

"The big boys from a few years ago would have chewed you up & left you for
dead by now"

This is a RIDICULOUS assertion as Matt's been around forever AND IS one of
the "big boys" in my book. Who are YOU talking about? Dan Kreft? Mark
Zarella? Ian B.?

RAC is what it is and is always changing in who participates and who does
not. I've been on this group for going on 15 years now and Matt is as
knowledgable as anyone I CAN REMEMBER.

Again, just stick to the topic at hand and leave the personnal attacks OUT.
The "BIG BOYS", who you so revere, would agree with me.

MOSFET


  #100   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.car
MOSFET MOSFET is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 810
Default polk 6x9

John, I will agree that I have not devised a scientific experiment to prove
my assertion. So you got me there.

But, for the umpteenth time, simple logic would dictate that if your
intention was to design the most narrow home speaker possible, yet have all
drivers on the same plane, the oval speaker would be the IDEAL choice for a
bass/midbass driver. We would see ovals EVERYWHERE. Yet we don't. Why
not?

Matt and I have explained why they are not everywhere and it has to do with
the inherrent problems with the oval design. The evidence seems
incontrevertable. If you do not believe Matt or myself, the INDUSTY makes
the most compelling argument AGAINST ovals in home speakers. Case closed.

MOSFET

"John Durbin" wrote in message
...
So, Kicker's square cone doesn't move up and down in as linear a fashion
as a round Pyle woofer, just because the round one is "inherently"
better? Do you think the corners move further than the short sides?
Wouldn't that mean the edges had to bend while it was playing?

Guys, you really need to stop relying quoting common sense, your gut,
firsthand experience (uunless it happened while you were doing laser
interferometer other kinds of distortion analysis of speakers at the
time) or what you've hear or read on forums. There is science that can
and does provide proof of this argument. It's a good thing for you both
that Eddie Runner isn't reading this thread or he'd have buried you all
in text book formulas & lengthy summaries of your ignorance.

Do you really think you are somehow able to visualize in your head what
is happening in a solid object when it is driven by an attached voice
coil? Why are you so rabidly convinced that the oval shape cannot be
rigid? You shout questions about this all in CAPS but your scenario is
in your head, not in real life.

The short sides of the 6x9 cone go up and down exactly the same distance
and at exactly the same frequency as the long sides, provided the cone
itself is not flexing. And, I can guarantee you that the science to make
sure they do not flex is very real and very available and widely used in
designing speakers today. In order for the scenario you sketch to
actually happen, the material of the cone would have to be moving
towards & away from the voice coil. That isn't what happens of course;
the coil drives the entire suspended mass up and down the same distance.
Why else do you think the surround is the same width all the way around?
This is loudspeaker design 101...

I would suggest some reading to help you see the facts behind your old
wive's tale outlook on this: High Performance Loudspeakers, by Martin
Collums is a good start. Vance Dickason's Loudspeaker Cookbook another
good one.

JD

MOSFET wrote:

I agree with Matt that this issue really boils down to common sense. A

cone
in the exact same shape as the voice coil will move up and down in a

more
linear fashion than a 6X9, especialy if you are talking about a
high-excursion bass speaker cone.

And on the flipside of that, if a 6X9" speaker is playing a much, much
higher frequenies (as I've already mentioned in this thread) I can

imagine a
scenario where the 6" distance has gone up and has started it's way back
down while the 9" distance is still going up. Of course we are talking
minutes differences and a high frequncy (where the cone is moving

quickly up
and down) for this to occur. BUT IF THIS SCENARIO CAN OCCUR, HOW COULD

THAT
NOT CREATE SONIC ARTIFACTS?

If you can explain to me why this scenario would never, ever happen, I

might
be willing to concede that oval's are just as good as round speakers.

Come on, if what I described were true, HOW COULD THAT NOT efffect the

sound
in subtle ways (loss of focus, muddied soundstage and imaging)?

Do I have first hand experiece with this? Well, I've used a lot of

6X9's in
my day but they have ALWAYS been for rear-fill in a car. I have never
criticaly listened to home speakers with oval drivers. So I'm going to

be
careful here and not state as absolute fact something I have never heard
with my own ears.

But my gut tells me that round speakers are superior because they match

the
shape of the voice coil (there is a symetry and logic to this). Oval
speakers DO NOT and therefore have a set of problems round speakers do

not
have.

Look, my mind is open. I am no EE or engineer of any type, just a

hobyist.
If you can tell me why these issues would not come into play in a home
speaker comprised of ovals, I'm all ears.

MOSFET

"John Durbin" wrote in message
...

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.

It may come across as nitpicking but when you express any opinion around
here - particularly in the form of an absolute - and then use heavily
flawed statements of fact to bolster it, you're probably going to draw a
rebuttal (if anyone's paying attention that knows better, anyway).

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.

I'm NOT trying to say the 6x9 is necessarily better, don't get me wrong.
But if it isn't, it'll more likely be because the design of a particular
example was compromised somewhere along the way for reasons of cost,
manufacturability, stupid input from sales or marketing, poor
engineering work, or any of the other myriad of reasons that often
handicap the final product than because the oval shape made it
impossible to execute properly.

JD

MOSFET wrote:


You know, John, as is ALWAYS the case in the GRAND TRADION OF RAC,
NITPICKING if you use absolutes in this group will ALMOST ALWAYS (see


how I

caught myself there) lead to someone who has an example that rebutts

it.

I SHOULD NOT have said "NO" speaker makers use the oval speaker in

their
designs. You got me. I reviewed my past posts and, INDEED, I did say


that.

So yes, I am guilty of being inconsistant. Shoot me. My bad.

I can HONESTLY say that when I wrote that I was thinking about the


industry

IN GENERAL though I did not say it. I actually REMEMBER some home


speakers

that did use ovals.

BUT, when you compare number of round cone speakers out there vs.

number

of

oval cone speakers out there (in the home speaker market), the oval


speaker

comprises such an incredibly small percentage of the market that I felt
saying the industry "did not use them" was justified.

MOSFET


"John Durbin" wrote in message
.. .


You were trying to use your perceived absence of oval speakers in

"high
end" home speakers to bolster your case that they don't work as well

as
round ones. I gave you two specific examples of expensive home

speakers

from the past that did use oval speakers. I didn't say everyone used

them, just rebutted your claim that nobody does. Now you want to

change
your argument to say MOST instead of NOBODY... I would say that proves
my point.

As to quoting what you found in one Best Buy store as some sort of
reference for what exists in the world of home speakers, give me a


break.

Here's a few current examples:

http://www.koiaudio.com/Main/SD63HK_3.html





http://reviews.cnet.com/surround-spe...-30790670.html

http://yhst-9301186439366.stores.yah...25hisisus.html

http://blog.audiovideointeriors.com/907burmced/

Here's one with an oval passive radiator, which is also fairly common:

http://www.stereophile.com/floorloudspeakers/1105thiel/

More oval woofers:

http://www.hedmag.com/Product-Review...m-No-Place.asp


JD


MOSFET wrote:



Look, I'm sure you're right and that THERE ARE home speakers that

utilize


oval speakers. But look at MOST of the speakers out there that use

pistonic


priciples to produce sound (i.e. cones), the cones are round to match

the


voice coil, which is ALSO round.

To me it's common sense. OF COURSE you want a cone that matches the

shape


of the voice coil for PERFECT pistonic linierity.

I was at Best Buy yesterday and the VERY MOST EXPENSIVE ($2,000)


speaker

they sold was a tower Vienna Accousitcs speaker that was 4" wide!!!!!
Tweeter difraction IS VERY REAL and the top speaker makers of this


world

KNOW THIS.

BTW, I didn't see any oval speakers at Best Buy and Magnolia Hi-Fi

the

last


time I was there which was within the last couple months (these are

two
large retail chains that carry what would be considered low to mid


range

speaker brands). What I DID FIND were tower speakers that nearly


always

tended to be narrow and deep in an attempt to reduce diffraction.

My only point is that oval speakers would be ALL OVER THE PLACE when

it
comes to home speakers if there were no sonic drawbacks to them (or

at

least


compared to their round bretheren). As you mentioned, these

drawbacks
become more pronounced the higher in frequency you go. But you

generally


don't even see ovals being used as bass drivers in home speakers.

YOU

JUST


DON'T SEE THEM.

Now I don't know where you shop that you see all these home speakers
utilizing oval speakers. I am actually curious what that smells

like.

Do


you have a brand or model in mind that I can find to see this? I AM


NOT

trying to challenge you or calling you a liar, I am TRULY curious.

As

I

said before, on the surface, ovals would be IDEAL in designing the

most
narrow speaker you can yet still wanting good bass response.

Again, the fact that MOST home speaker makers NEVER use ovals speaks
volumes. I'm sure there is always an exception, but again, just

using
common sense, you want a cone whose shape matches the voice coil for


the

BEST linear pistonic movement.

MOSFET

"John Durbin" wrote in message
...



That's simply not true... there have been plenty of home speakers

that
used oval cone drivers. Some of the Tandberg teak cabinet models

have
them, and I remember a fairly high-end system from Jantzen

(spelling?)
that had electrostatics up top and a white oval woofer in the lower
section. That one was someone ahead of its time in that they were
slender towers similar to what people are using for front surrounds
these days, in an era where a floorstanding speaker was more lilely

to
be 18" wide and equally deep. At any rate, the shape of the oval


woofer

made it a lot easier to get more bass from the system without having


to

make it a wider cabinet, just as you theorized below. You may not be
familiar with any home speakers with oval components but they


absolutely

exist. I'm sure some basic research on the web would find dozens

more
examples.

Frankly, provided the piston is adequately rigid it doesn't matter

all
that much what shape it is, up to a point. Certainly lower

frequencies
are not affected at all provided the moving element acts in purely
pistonic mode with no gross deflections. Also less symmetrical cones


can

be easier to eliminate standing wave distortions on the cone

surface,
which can improve accuracy. The technology to control those kinds of
things during driver design through use of tools like finite element
analysis is light-years ahead of where it was when oval drivers were


the

mainstay of automotive applications.

You should not use a typical automotive 6x9 as the basis for making
these extrapolated statements. They are generally designed for


improved

efficiency & exaggerated midbass output as those are useful in the
average 6x9 application. A component 6.5" driver could have the same
attributes if the designer wanted but would be at an efficiency
disadvantage vs. the 6x9 due to less swept area. You can make that

up
with excursion of course but usually that has its own implications

in
terms of other non-linear distortions & also added cost. At any

rate,
the point is the shape of the cone itself isn't inherently good or


bad,

it's more what you do with that shape as part of the overall driver

design.



As to the flush-mounted tweeter on a large flat baffle, a


well-executed

design in that form factor can perform very well if the baffle

effect

is

taken into account when designing the drivers, crossovers etc. You


would

have to spend a bunch of money for a slender tower design that will
outperform my JBL L150A's in any appreciable way.

JD

MOSFET wrote:



I felt I should add one point. I mentioned several times that home

speaker



makers do not use the 6x9" size. This is significant and it

demontrates


that those who design home speakers know the 6X9" has drawbacks

that
compromise sound quality. Why?

Because most mid to high-end home speakers tend to be very narrow

(as

narrow



AS POSSIBLE) in an attempt to reduce difraction effects of the


tweeter

(it



muddies your trebble, effects imaging, staging, ect). Some speaker

makers



try to get around this by building small pods around the tweeter,

OR

putting



the tweeter all by itself on the top of the speaker, OR just


extending

the



tweeter out a certain distance. What you WANT to try and avoid at


all

costs



is a tweeter mounted flush to a large baffle (something,


unfortunately,

that



was NOT put into practice until the 80's as speakers from the 60's


and

70's



seem to do EXACTLY that).

The point here is that if 6X9's were just as good at sound quality

as

round



speakers, THEY WOULD ALL USE 6x9's as this would create a narrower

speaker



with better bass response (in other words, you would have the

benefit

of


a



tower speaker (let's say) only 6" wide, yet you would have the bass

making



potential of an 8" speaker). They would jump at the chance to

accomplish



this if they could. But, again, they don't do it for the reasons


I've

already mentioned. What MANY home speaker manufacturers do is keep


the

width VERY small (some 4" and less for tower speakers) yet they are

quite



deep (12 inches or MORE) to accomodate bass drivers mounted on the

sides


of



the speakers (you can get away with this because bass tends to be
omnidiriectional).

Anyway, I wanted to clarify my point about home speakers and the
SIGNIFICANCE of the fact they tend to ONLY use round cones. They


would

ALMOST CERTAINLY use the 6X9" if the sound wasn't compromised.

MOSFET
wrote in message
oglegroups.com...




On Sep 10, 8:11 pm, (bob wald) wrote:




ok , just about every connection.

So i was skimming through the posts and noticed that someone had
mentioned that 6.5's are better sounding quality than 6x9's. I

would
like to know why this is. As i was thinking about installing some
6x9's in a friends car with boxes to help out with bass and


midrange.














  #101   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.car
Matt Ion Matt Ion is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 420
Default polk 6x9

MOSFET wrote:
. And, I don't see where it's a personal attack to say
that the lack of any sort of factual content to both of your posts would
have been fodder for Eddie, Dan Wiggins, many others that actually know
a lot about this subject & that were regulars back in the day.


No John, I'm reffering to this:

"I'm starting to think you're fuller of crap than a Christmas goose..."

AND

"The big boys from a few years ago would have chewed you up & left you for
dead by now"

This is a RIDICULOUS assertion as Matt's been around forever AND IS one of
the "big boys" in my book. Who are YOU talking about? Dan Kreft? Mark
Zarella? Ian B.?

RAC is what it is and is always changing in who participates and who does
not. I've been on this group for going on 15 years now and Matt is as
knowledgable as anyone I CAN REMEMBER.

Again, just stick to the topic at hand and leave the personnal attacks OUT.
The "BIG BOYS", who you so revere, would agree with me.


Heh, thanks for the backup... I've actually been around here for 15+
years as well (used to participate via a FidoNet gateway, back in the day).
  #102   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.car
Matt Ion Matt Ion is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 420
Default polk 6x9

MOSFET wrote:
John, I will agree that I have not devised a scientific experiment to prove
my assertion. So you got me there.

But, for the umpteenth time, simple logic would dictate that if your
intention was to design the most narrow home speaker possible, yet have all
drivers on the same plane, the oval speaker would be the IDEAL choice for a
bass/midbass driver. We would see ovals EVERYWHERE. Yet we don't. Why
not?

Matt and I have explained why they are not everywhere and it has to do with
the inherrent problems with the oval design. The evidence seems
incontrevertable. If you do not believe Matt or myself, the INDUSTY makes
the most compelling argument AGAINST ovals in home speakers. Case closed.


You'd think we'd see Deloreans all over the place too - such
sharp-looking cars, and those great flux capacitors - but we don't.
Wonder why that is?
  #103   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.car
Mariachi Mariachi is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 174
Default polk 6x9

I'm not talking about anything on the quality of the 6x9's. But
without my 6x9's, my car stereo sounds like ****. I have Polk dB 6.5"
in the front and they sound great, but they don't produce much mid
bass or bass for that matter. My ss tarantulas 6x9s cover whatever my
Polks don't for a more grander sound.

  #104   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.car
Eddie Runner Eddie Runner is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 48
Default polk 6x9

MOSFET wrote:



Do you see any 6x9's on home speakers? No.


I remember some speakers made by KEF, thought to be a high end company
by most folks, that used 6x9 inch drivers with the intent to break up
the natural resonance of a round speaker.

there could be arguments pro and con for round or odd sized drivers.

Eddie Runner
  #105   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.car
Eddie Runner Eddie Runner is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 48
Default polk 6x9

MOSFET wrote:
Look, I'm sure you're right and that THERE ARE home speakers that utilize
oval speakers. But look at MOST of the speakers out there that use pistonic
priciples to produce sound (i.e. cones), the cones are round to match the
voice coil, which is ALSO round.


Naw, they use round cones because thats what they can get from CHINA the
cheapest!

Durbin makes a good argument that there have been some manufacturers
that experimented with OVAL drivers for a reason, there are PROS and
CONS to ANY cone shape.

It isnt because the VC is round.

I would think the biggest advantage to a round cone is its uniform
strength. An oval cone would not have the same strength at all point
around its cone as the round cone would.

But a round cone would have some FIXED resonance points, where the oval
cone would have TWO resonant points (one for width A and one for width
B) and there for not a larger single resonant point as the round cone.
(in not talking about FS, Im talking about only the cone)..

Its kinda the same type of reasoning where they tell you NEVER build a
square box, a square box will have a single resonance, where a box with
three different side length have three different and much smaller
resonances.

I can get more into this if you like.

Eddie Runner






  #106   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.car
Eddie Runner Eddie Runner is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 48
Default polk 6x9

MOSFET wrote:

BTW, I didn't see any oval speakers at Best Buy and Magnolia Hi-Fi the last
time I was there which was within the last couple months (these are two
large retail chains that carry what would be considered low to mid range
speaker brands). What I DID FIND were tower speakers that nearly always
tended to be narrow and deep in an attempt to reduce diffraction.


Last time I was lookin for home speakers I was dismayed in the crappy
choices out there these days.

Not only speakers, but places to buy em! In the 70s and early 80s there
was a stereo store on nearly every corner, nowdays I have a hard time
finding a place that has what I consider HIGH END speakers...

I consider Best Buy, and such LOW END

Eddie Runner
  #107   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.car
Eddie Runner Eddie Runner is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 48
Default polk 6x9

I. Care wrote:

What I find interesting is that even POLK doesn't appear to use oval
speakers in their home audio line. If, as you say, they were so
advantageous they would be all over the place especially POLK?


POLK generally uses (for manufacturing) what they can get at a low
price, I wouldnt consider them HIGH END.

Eddie
  #108   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.car
Eddie Runner Eddie Runner is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 48
Default polk 6x9

MOSFET wrote:

I can imagine a
scenario where the 6" distance has gone up and has started it's way back
down while the 9" distance is still going up.


ARE YOU NUTS!?
That wont (CANT) happen!

the 6 inch part will rise and fall the EXACT same rate and distance the
9 inch part will move. THEY WILL RISE AND FALL AT THE SAME TIME, NOT
ONE BEFORE THE OTHER...

Eddie Runner

  #109   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.car
Eddie Runner Eddie Runner is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 48
Default polk 6x9

Matt Ion wrote:

All good points, except for this. As I noted before, the fact that the
cone is a different shape than the voice coil is irrelevant.


RIGHT!

The
problem is that the surround will be stressed differently around the
perimeter of a non-circular cone, which in turn will affect the shape of
the cone itself, to introduce artifacts. The effect can be mitigated by
good surround design and construction, but the TENDENCY of it to happen
is just simply inherent to the design.


Its not that big a deal if the surround isnt crap.

Keep in mind the RISE and FALL is the same for the surround all the way
around, some here may think the 9 inch side of the 6x9 move HIGHER than
the 6 inch side...

Not true so the surround wont matter much.

Your close though to the real problem which is cone strength, the 6 inch
side will e smaller and possibly more rigid than the larger 9 inch side,
which to some is a problem, but to others may see it as an advantage ..

Eddie
  #110   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.car
Mariachi Mariachi is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 174
Default polk 6x9

On Oct 8, 4:29 pm, Eddie Runner wrote:
MOSFET wrote:
BTW, I didn't see any oval speakers at Best Buy and Magnolia Hi-Fi the last
time I was there which was within the last couple months (these are two
large retail chains that carry what would be considered low to mid range
speaker brands). What I DID FIND were tower speakers that nearly always
tended to be narrow and deep in an attempt to reduce diffraction.


Last time I was lookin for home speakers I was dismayed in the crappy
choices out there these days.

Not only speakers, but places to buy em! In the 70s and early 80s there
was a stereo store on nearly every corner, nowdays I have a hard time
finding a place that has what I consider HIGH END speakers...

I consider Best Buy, and such LOW END

Eddie Runner


Yeah I know what you mean. Pretty much the only place to get high-end
speakers is to order them off the internet. You can't really sample
anything off the internet though.



  #111   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.car
Matt Ion Matt Ion is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 420
Default polk 6x9

Eddie Runner wrote:

But a round cone would have some FIXED resonance points, where the oval
cone would have TWO resonant points (one for width A and one for width
B) and there for not a larger single resonant point as the round cone.
(in not talking about FS, Im talking about only the cone)..

Its kinda the same type of reasoning where they tell you NEVER build a
square box, a square box will have a single resonance, where a box with
three different side length have three different and much smaller
resonances.


Good points, too - hadn't thought of that.
  #112   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.car
Mariachi Mariachi is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 174
Default polk 6x9

On Oct 8, 4:40 pm, Eddie Runner wrote:
Matt Ion wrote:
All good points, except for this. As I noted before, the fact that the
cone is a different shape than the voice coil is irrelevant.


RIGHT!

The
problem is that the surround will be stressed differently around the
perimeter of a non-circular cone, which in turn will affect the shape of
the cone itself, to introduce artifacts. The effect can be mitigated by
good surround design and construction, but the TENDENCY of it to happen
is just simply inherent to the design.


Its not that big a deal if the surround isnt crap.

Keep in mind the RISE and FALL is the same for the surround all the way
around, some here may think the 9 inch side of the 6x9 move HIGHER than
the 6 inch side...

Not true so the surround wont matter much.

Your close though to the real problem which is cone strength, the 6 inch
side will e smaller and possibly more rigid than the larger 9 inch side,
which to some is a problem, but to others may see it as an advantage ..

Eddie


So, you are saying that a 5-sided subwoofer surround (a pentagon)
would have 5 different resonant frequencies, but a round subwoofer
surround would have 1 resonant frequency? The round surround would
obviously resonate more at its resonant frequency, but the pentagon
surround would resonate less at one of its resonating frequencies.
But a pentagon is a lot different from an oval because it is more
symmetrical around the center... so would it really have 5 resonant
frequencies?

  #113   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.car
Christopher \Torroid\ Ott Christopher \Torroid\ Ott is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 81
Default polk 6x9

"Eddie Runner" wrote in message
. net...
MOSFET wrote:

I can imagine a
scenario where the 6" distance has gone up and has started it's way back
down while the 9" distance is still going up.


ARE YOU NUTS!?
That wont (CANT) happen!

the 6 inch part will rise and fall the EXACT same rate and distance the 9
inch part will move. THEY WILL RISE AND FALL AT THE SAME TIME, NOT ONE
BEFORE THE OTHER...

Eddie Runner



I think he's referring to the cone flexing at different rates due to the
additional mass over the long ends. Depending on the stiffness of the cone,
surround and even elevation (air density) this certainly can happen.
Measurable? Probably... Audible? Doubtful...

This can be demonstrated by holding a wooden yardstick or a similar long
thin flexible item (in the middle) parallel to the ground and moving it up
and down. As you speed up, you will notice the ends are no longer moving in
unison with the middle, there is a delay in following the middle section. As
you speed up more, (depending on the stiffness of the yardstick) it's often
possible to get the ends 180degrees out of phase with the middle, ie: you
move the middle up and the ends go down.

This effect would be very minimal on a oval speaker because unlike the
yardstick above, the whole cone is supported by the surround on top, and the
voice coil on the bottom. The cone is much more rigid, likely throwing the
resonant frequency of the cone (and the tendency to "fold" onto itself like
a taco shell) well out of the mechanical range of the speaker.

Even if there was a problem in the "old" days, 3D modeling software and FEA
have put an end to it.

Chris


  #114   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.car
Eddie Runner Eddie Runner is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 48
Default polk 6x9

Matt Ion wrote:

Thanks, I have several such books from my training as an audio engineer.


Whats your favorite speaker books?

20 years in studio and live sound reinforcement and I have never, ever,
not ever seen an oval driver used in professional systems. Aside from
esoteric things like electrostatic and ribbon drivers, I have never seen
any other form of non-round driver that made it beyond a single model
line


I cant think of any pro drivers that use oval drivers, but then that
doesn't make an oval driver inherently BAD does it?

In the car audio world, its hard to beat a 6x9 for a full range speaker.
5 1/4 and 6.5 just doesn't have the bass and total output a 6x9 has..

Eddie Runner
  #115   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.car
Eddie Runner Eddie Runner is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 48
Default polk 6x9

Matt Ion wrote:
John Durbin wrote:


Why, do you know of some studios that use 4" full range speakers for
their main mixes?


Alot of PROS use the Yamaha NS-10s, what are they 5 inch???

Eddie Runner


  #116   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.car
Eddie Runner Eddie Runner is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 48
Default polk 6x9

Matt Ion wrote:
John Durbin wrote:


I notice you keep referring to this magical speaker book of yours as
well, but have yet to name it. Pot, meet kettle.



I wanna hear about the speaker books also!

Last time I made someone pull out the books I think I hurt his feelings...

Eddie Runner
  #117   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.car
Eddie Runner Eddie Runner is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 48
Default polk 6x9


have been fodder for Eddie, Dan Wiggins, many others that actually know
a lot about this subject & that were regulars back in the day.


"The big boys from a few years ago would have chewed you up & left you for
dead by now"


Im not dead yet !!!

Eddie RUnner
  #118   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.car
Matt Ion Matt Ion is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 420
Default polk 6x9

Eddie Runner wrote:

I cant think of any pro drivers that use oval drivers, but then that
doesn't make an oval driver inherently BAD does it?


No, but as has already been discussed to death, it doesn't imply any
inherent benefit to them, either.

In the car audio world, its hard to beat a 6x9 for a full range speaker.
5 1/4 and 6.5 just doesn't have the bass and total output a 6x9 has..


That's really their only "benefit" - more bass from a narrower space...
but really, if you have the space, an 8" round will give you a larger
cone area and thus more bass/output than a 6x9.
  #119   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.car
Eddie Runner Eddie Runner is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 48
Default polk 6x9

The cone flex your talking about ARE the resonances (or cause the
resonances) that I am talking about.

Eddie Runner

Christopher "Torroid" Ott wrote:

I think he's referring to the cone flexing at different rates due to the
additional mass over the long ends. Depending on the stiffness of the cone,
surround and even elevation (air density) this certainly can happen.
Measurable? Probably... Audible? Doubtful...

This can be demonstrated by holding a wooden yardstick or a similar long
thin flexible item (in the middle) parallel to the ground and moving it up
and down. As you speed up, you will notice the ends are no longer moving in
unison with the middle, there is a delay in following the middle section. As
you speed up more, (depending on the stiffness of the yardstick) it's often
possible to get the ends 180degrees out of phase with the middle, ie: you
move the middle up and the ends go down.

This effect would be very minimal on a oval speaker because unlike the
yardstick above, the whole cone is supported by the surround on top, and the
voice coil on the bottom. The cone is much more rigid, likely throwing the
resonant frequency of the cone (and the tendency to "fold" onto itself like
a taco shell) well out of the mechanical range of the speaker.

Even if there was a problem in the "old" days, 3D modeling software and FEA
have put an end to it.

Chris


  #120   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.car
Matt Ion Matt Ion is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 420
Default polk 6x9

Eddie Runner wrote:

I would like you to REALLY compare a full range 6x9 to a full range 8
for instance Memphis makes 6x9s and an 8 inch with a tweeter..
( I have these in stock in my store right now.)

I would be willing to bet you in a blind folded test, most folks would
choose the 6x9.


And here you start falling into the same rut as JD - I'm bringing up
generalities, you're trying to refute them with specific, even esoteric
individual examples. What's the point?

I could mention the old adage that "there's no replacement for
displacement" when it comes to the relative output car engines... this
line of argument would then point out that, say, an old Lotus Turbo
Esprit with its little 2.2-liter 4-cylinder plant, leave a 7-liter V-8
diesel-powered Ford truck in the dust.

Yes, there are always the exceptions to the rule (or generalization)...
that doesn't invalidate the generalization.

I think the problem here comes from design though, the Memphis 6x9 is
made to play the best it can where the Memphis 8 has a heavier
cone.(although possibly close to the same cone area as the 6x9)


And there you go. Compare a different 8" to a different 6x9" and you
get different results again. What's the point?


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
WTB: Polk MW6500 6.5" woofer for Polk Audio Monitor 7 Badassie Marketplace 0 November 25th 06 11:06 AM
Polk RM6750 5.1 Set Dave Audio Opinions 0 April 7th 05 06:46 PM
JBL or Polk Steve Audio Opinions 1 March 9th 05 07:25 PM
WTB: Polk SDA SRS 1.2 speakers Myanchick2 Marketplace 0 January 22nd 04 03:25 AM
F/T: Polk PSW-450 home sub ..... D/FW Dave C Marketplace 0 January 12th 04 10:44 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:11 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"