Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#121
![]()
Posted to rec.audio.car
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Matt Ion wrote:
Eddie Runner wrote: 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? Im speaking in general in this case also. most 6x9s out there will sound better than most full range 8s out there (made for car audio). Im not choosing 2 strange samples!!! try it with ANY (although 8 inch full range are kinda rare in the car stereo market).. My point is my experience says the 6x9 would be perceived as better by most listeners, and your just guessing (incorrectly IMO that the 8 is better). Yes, there are always the exceptions to the rule (or generalization)... that doesn't invalidate the generalization. Again, im not talking about some bizzare exception, Im talking about real speakers in my store at this moment. As apposed to speakers that only exist in your mind that you have probably never actually compared or listened to. And there you go. Compare a different 8" to a different 6x9" and you get different results again. What's the point? ALL the full range 8 inchers made for car audio use are about the same, this is not an unusual instance Im using just to prove you wrong, try it with ANY you like. For folks that know me, I prefer folks to really TRY IT than just TALK ABOUT IT... Folks can IMAGINE ANYTHING, Im talking about real world products with measurable hear able differences, and as usuall I would be prepared to back up what I am talking about with real tests. Eddie Runner |
#122
![]()
Posted to rec.audio.car
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Eddie Runner" wrote in message
news ![]() The cone flex your talking about ARE the resonances (or cause the resonances) that I am talking about. Eddie Runner Which is what you said "wont (CANT) happen!" right? No biggie, that's just what he was referring to - the flex of the cone. And the answer is that it does flex and fold, and to some extent parts could be moving in different directions, but unless the cone is molded out of Jello it's not a problem. The stiffness of the various components will damp this at usable frequencies. Chris |
#123
![]()
Posted to rec.audio.car
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Christopher "Torroid" Ott wrote:
"Eddie Runner" wrote in message news ![]() The cone flex your talking about ARE the resonances (or cause the resonances) that I am talking about. Eddie Runner Which is what you said "wont (CANT) happen!" right? No biggie, that's just what he was referring to - the flex of the cone. And the answer is that it does flex and fold, and to some extent parts could be moving in different directions, but unless the cone is molded out of Jello it's not a problem. The stiffness of the various components will damp this at usable frequencies. Chris CHRIS!!! Thats NOT what I said, Don't be quoting me as saying something I didnt say. Yes I said those words, but the meaning is not as you say. CAN YOU READ? A copy of what I said and why I said it is enclosed below. If you think one side of the speaker is going UP while the other side of the speaker is going DOWN. I love to argue about electronics, and especially acoustics, but its no fun for me if the opponent (you) cant even read... Whats the point of me typeing this stuff if you cant read or interpret it with an ounce of sense. Yes, in the strictest sense, there are MANY vibrations and many resonances, there are flexes and all kinds of little forces going on, (and I see your point) but I dont think thats what Mosfet or I was talking about in the quote you misquoted... ;-) Eddie Runner 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 |
#124
![]()
Posted to rec.audio.car
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Eddie Runner Wrote: Matt Ion wrote: Eddie Runner wrote: 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. Are you sure of that Matt? I believe you are speaking in a theoretical sense instead of what you really know. 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. 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) The heavier cone may be to try to make the 8 play lower but of course with a loss of mids and loss of sensitivity which are HEAR-ABLE. Eddie RunnerCome on Eddie, are you really implying that because an 8" has more cone area, it will be less sensitive and roll off sooner? You've been around long enough to know better than that. The sensitivity increase caused by the increased cone area will more than compensate for any lost sensitivity due to increased cone mass. If we followed your logic, we would have no need for large displacement drivers... just run 6-inchers because they're more sensitive than 12-inchers, right? As far as loss of midrange, cone mass really has very little to do with that -- inductance is really what's critical here, not cone mass. -- 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 |
#125
![]()
Posted to rec.audio.car
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Eddie Runner Wrote: Jethro wrote: Come on Eddie, are you really implying that because an 8" has more cone area, it will be less sensitive and roll off sooner? You've been around long enough to know better than that. No, thats not what I meant, perhaps I should have made myself more clear on that point. After re-reading it I can see where there might be some confusion. I think if you read back in the thread a little before I made the statement in question, you might see we were assuming the cone area on the 6x9 might be close to the same as on the 8, I think thats the reason someone compared the two. What I meant was the cone on the 8 is heavier, not because of cone area difference, but because the designers of the 8 ADDED WEIGHT to give it a lower FS (a better bass driver). IMO and Experience, it seems (to me) that a 6x9 is made to just play! Where the full range 8s I have seen have had a larger emphasis on the woofer part. In other words, most 6x9s are just 6x9s with no real emphasis on bass in particular, and the full range car 8s have a beefier cone and beefier surround and are just not as sensitive as the 6x9s. (generally speaking)... And BTW, you may or may not be familiar with the fact that simply adding weight to a speaker cone lets it play lower. But less sensitive of course (which isnt always pointed out by speaker manufacturers). Some good examples are 6 inch coax that sound great and 6 inch bass drivers that are WAY less sensitive. Eddie Runner Sorry you missunderstood me.But you are just assuming that the designer's intentions are to make an 8" play lower than a 6x9 (through added mass, which in turn lowers efficiency). In the specific instance you mention, however, the 8" Memphis has a Sens. rating of 93 dB, whereas the 6x9 of the same line has a Sens. rating of 92 dB... kind of blows your theory, now doesn't it (those numbers are inflated, obviously). So it seems to me the designers had pretty much the same goals in mind with either size, but the extra cone area of the 8" driver allows it to get a little louder with the same input. -- 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 |
#126
![]()
Posted to rec.audio.car
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Eddie Runner Wrote: Jethro wrote: In the specific instance you mention, however, the 8" Memphis has a Sens. rating of 93 dB, whereas the 6x9 of the same line has a Sens. rating of 92 dB... kind of blows your theory, now doesn't it (those numbers are inflated, obviously). So it seems to me the designers had pretty much the same goals in mind with either size, but the extra cone area of the 8" driver allows it to get a little louder with the same input. Well, I never put much faith in manufacture ratings. Does your source specify how they come to these sensitivity ratings? Do you know the exact models your referring to? If I get a chance tomorrow, I will use my LMS computer to run a sweep of the 6x9 and 8 inch round and compare them, I can post the results. should be fun. EddieThat info is from the Memphis website... MSYNC8: http://tinyurl.com/2egmxr MC92: http://tinyurl.com/2avvgn Doesn't really matter how it's measured or calculated, as long as the same method is used for each speaker (which you would expect with them both being from the same company). If you look at the links, you'll notice that 8" uses a 20 oz. magnet whereas the 6x9 uses a 13 oz. magnet. ;-) -- 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 |
#127
![]()
Posted to rec.audio.car
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Jethro wrote:
Come on Eddie, are you really implying that because an 8" has more cone area, it will be less sensitive and roll off sooner? You've been around long enough to know better than that. No, thats not what I meant, perhaps I should have made myself more clear on that point. After re-reading it I can see where there might be some confusion. I think if you read back in the thread a little before I made the statement in question, you might see we were assuming the cone area on the 6x9 might be close to the same as on the 8, I think thats the reason someone compared the two. What I meant was the cone on the 8 is heavier, not because of cone area difference, but because the designers of the 8 ADDED WEIGHT to give it a lower FS (a better bass driver). IMO and Experience, it seems (to me) that a 6x9 is made to just play! Where the full range 8s I have seen have had a larger emphasis on the woofer part. In other words, most 6x9s are just 6x9s with no real emphasis on bass in particular, and the full range car 8s have a beefier cone and beefier surround and are just not as sensitive as the 6x9s. (generally speaking)... And BTW, you may or may not be familiar with the fact that simply adding weight to a speaker cone lets it play lower. But less sensitive of course (which isnt always pointed out by speaker manufacturers). Some good examples are 6 inch coax that sound great and 6 inch bass drivers that are WAY less sensitive. Eddie Runner Sorry you missunderstood me. |
#128
![]()
Posted to rec.audio.car
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Jethro wrote:
In the specific instance you mention, however, the 8" Memphis has a Sens. rating of 93 dB, whereas the 6x9 of the same line has a Sens. rating of 92 dB... kind of blows your theory, now doesn't it (those numbers are inflated, obviously). So it seems to me the designers had pretty much the same goals in mind with either size, but the extra cone area of the 8" driver allows it to get a little louder with the same input. Well, I never put much faith in manufacture ratings. Does your source specify how they come to these sensitivity ratings? Do you know the exact models your referring to? If I get a chance tomorrow, I will use my LMS computer to run a sweep of the 6x9 and 8 inch round and compare them, I can post the results. should be fun. Eddie |
#129
![]()
Posted to rec.audio.car
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Jethro" wrote in message
... Eddie Runner Wrote: Jethro wrote: Come on Eddie, are you really implying that because an 8" has more cone area, it will be less sensitive and roll off sooner? You've been around long enough to know better than that. No, thats not what I meant, perhaps I should have made myself more clear on that point. After re-reading it I can see where there might be some confusion. I think if you read back in the thread a little before I made the statement in question, you might see we were assuming the cone area on the 6x9 might be close to the same as on the 8, I think thats the reason someone compared the two. What I meant was the cone on the 8 is heavier, not because of cone area difference, but because the designers of the 8 ADDED WEIGHT to give it a lower FS (a better bass driver). IMO and Experience, it seems (to me) that a 6x9 is made to just play! Where the full range 8s I have seen have had a larger emphasis on the woofer part. In other words, most 6x9s are just 6x9s with no real emphasis on bass in particular, and the full range car 8s have a beefier cone and beefier surround and are just not as sensitive as the 6x9s. (generally speaking)... And BTW, you may or may not be familiar with the fact that simply adding weight to a speaker cone lets it play lower. But less sensitive of course (which isnt always pointed out by speaker manufacturers). Some good examples are 6 inch coax that sound great and 6 inch bass drivers that are WAY less sensitive. Eddie Runner Sorry you missunderstood me.But you are just assuming that the designer's intentions are to make an 8" play lower than a 6x9 (through added mass, which in turn lowers efficiency). In the specific instance you mention, however, the 8" Memphis has a Sens. rating of 93 dB, whereas the 6x9 of the same line has a Sens. rating of 92 dB... kind of blows your theory, now doesn't it (those numbers are inflated, obviously). So it seems to me the designers had pretty much the same goals in mind with either size, but the extra cone area of the 8" driver allows it to get a little louder with the same input. So it may help to actually quantify the surface areas, ignoring other factors such as the depth of the speaker cone and magnet size for the time being. First calculate the surface area of the 6x9... Area of a oval/ellipse = Pi * (longer radius) * (shorter radius) longer radius of 6x9 speaker = 9 inches / 2 = 4.5 inches shorter radius of 6x9 speaker = 6 inches / 2 = 3 inches Area = Pi * (4.5 inches) * (3 inches) [Pi will be used to 4 decimal places] = 3.1416 * 4.5 inches * 3 inches = 42.4116 = 42.4 inches^2, therefore, the surface area of a 6x9 speaker is approximately 42 square inches. Then calculate the surface area of the 8... Area of circle = Pi * radius * radius radius of an 8 inch speaker = 8 / 2 = 4 inches [Pi will be used to 4 decimal places] Area = 3.1414 * 4 inches * 4 inches = 50.2656 inches^2, therefore, the surface area of an 8 inch speaker is approximately 50 square inches. Check my calculations for formula or computational errors, of course, since I only used simple algebraic formulas rather than more intricate calculus-based formulas. Does about 8 square inches difference in cone surface area have any significant meaning in car audio speaker theory? |
#130
![]()
Posted to rec.audio.car
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Oct 2, 8:59 pm, "MOSFET" wrote:
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.? ....kxp42, the bat (~..~), Steven Scharf.... -- The Lizard |
#131
![]()
Posted to rec.audio.car
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Oct 3, 10:36 pm, John Durbin wrote:
I don't recall either of you being around when this group was in its prime & the ignorant children had not yet chased away all of the trained professionals. Ever wonder what Jay B Haider is up to? I wasn't sure if he was on this group to discuss car audio or flaunt his love affair with fruity french cars. JD and come on, the Christmas goose rip is a keeper They've no sense of humor, the lot of 'em. -- The Lizard |
#132
![]()
Posted to rec.audio.car
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Oct 2, 9:16 pm, "MOSFET" wrote:
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. "Appeal to authority" is a logical fallacy, not an actual argument. If the entire industry went and jumped off a bridge, would you join them? There are no "inherent" problems with oval designs that don't also exist in circular designs. The choice of oval vs round is completely arbitrary outside of space considerations. I think you've been advised several times to go read the loudspeaker design cookbook. I would pay particular attention to the section about diaphragm geometry before continuing this nonsense. -- The Lizard |
#133
![]()
Posted to rec.audio.car
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
John Durbin wrote:
I had quoted Martin Collums' High Performance Loudspeakers and Vance Dickason's Loudspeaker Cookbook early on in the discussion, but I guess maybe these guys missed it - twice in Matt's case - cause they kept asking for titles. I threw in the Audio Cyclopedia the second time around. Not you but someone else mentioned books also, I was trying to get him to name titles (Im a book fanatic) just to (a) see if he really can read. (b) see if there might be some books I dont already have or know about. You mentioned Collums - reading gives someone a good foundation. You mentioned Dickason - IMO some conflicting info, and most of it is based on jaes papers, alot in this book is kinda confusing for most folks, but it has become one of the most talked about speaker books in the last decade (maybe one of the only speaker books in the last decade) and you mentioned the Audio Cyclopedia, one of my very very favorite books, I love it, there is so much stuff in there it amazes me every time I open it. I have three copies, one is old, I have used it so much the hard covers have fallen off and been taped back on several times, the old one has stuff in it about ancient tape technology, hearing aid technology and of course much on speakers from the old days, interesting that alot has not changed... I have a newer version (or in better shape at least), and I have a much newer one that is Handbook for Sound Engineers - The NEW audio cyclopedia... Fun stuff! Eddie Runner |
#134
![]()
Posted to rec.audio.car
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
In article , Eddie Runner wrote:
John Durbin wrote: I had quoted Martin Collums' High Performance Loudspeakers and Vance Dickason's Loudspeaker Cookbook early on in the discussion, but I guess maybe these guys missed it - twice in Matt's case - cause they kept asking for titles. I threw in the Audio Cyclopedia the second time around. Not you but someone else mentioned books also, I was trying to get him to name titles (Im a book fanatic) just to (a) see if he really can read. (b) see if there might be some books I dont already have or know about. You mentioned Collums - reading gives someone a good foundation. You mentioned Dickason - IMO some conflicting info, and most of it is based on jaes papers, alot in this book is kinda confusing for most folks, but it has become one of the most talked about speaker books in the last decade (maybe one of the only speaker books in the last decade) and you mentioned the Audio Cyclopedia, one of my very very favorite books, I love it, there is so much stuff in there it amazes me every time I open it. I have three copies, one is old, I have used it so much the hard covers have fallen off and been taped back on several times, the old one has stuff in it about ancient tape technology, hearing aid technology and of course much on speakers from the old days, interesting that alot has not changed... I have a newer version (or in better shape at least), and I have a much newer one that is Handbook for Sound Engineers - The NEW audio cyclopedia... Fun stuff! Eddie Runner The best thing is about 20 years of Speaker Builder magazine. There was also the first speaker building articles in The Audio Amateur before Speaker Builder. Came out as a side edition. Before SB, I keept reading the Sam's book on HiFi. It talked about speaker boxes, without the TS parameter system. Probably from the 60's. greg |
#135
![]()
Posted to rec.audio.car
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
G wrote:
The best thing is about 20 years of Speaker Builder magazine. There was also the first speaker building articles in The Audio Amateur before Speaker Builder. Came out as a side edition. Before SB, I keept reading the Sam's book on HiFi. It talked about speaker boxes, without the TS parameter system. Probably from the 60's. greg Are they still printing speaker builder? I havent seen it in a few years. Probably one of the best mags I ever subscribed to. Eddie |
#137
![]()
Posted to rec.audio.car
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Yes, I agree with everything you said and not being an engineer I don't
understand fully some of the principles discussed, though Matt and others have taken the time to explain some to me. I guess much of this boils down to common sense. Though I don't understand all the various reasons WHY this is the case, common sense would dictate that a round speaker that matched the round voice coil would produce the most linear pistonic movement as I have already mentioned. Though some of my explanations may have been off the mark a bit, I attribute that to my lack of education regarding accoustic and electrical engineering. I'm an MBA for Pete's sake, I CAN probably tell you the best way to market a speaker... ![]() But I appreciate this thread and learning more about speaker design. MOSFET "Eddie Runner" wrote in message . net... 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 |
#138
![]()
Posted to rec.audio.car
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
MOSFET wrote:
I attribute that to my lack of education regarding accoustic and electrical engineering. I'm an MBA for Pete's sake, I CAN probably tell you the best way to market a speaker... ![]() Judging by the way most companies market car speakers nowdays, thats EASY. JUST LIE ABOUT EM!! ha ha Do they teach you that in College? Eddie Runner |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
WTB: Polk MW6500 6.5" woofer for Polk Audio Monitor 7 | Marketplace | |||
Polk RM6750 5.1 Set | Audio Opinions | |||
JBL or Polk | Audio Opinions | |||
WTB: Polk SDA SRS 1.2 speakers | Marketplace | |||
F/T: Polk PSW-450 home sub ..... D/FW | Marketplace |