Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Vintage driver repair advice wanted. | High End Audio | |||
WANTED:JBL D1005 SPEAKER 1951 VINTAGE | Marketplace | |||
WANTED:JBL D1005 SPEAKER 1951 VINTAGE | Marketplace | |||
WANTED: JBL D1005 , 2000 SPEAKER 1951 VINTAGE | Marketplace | |||
WANTED: JBL D1005 , 2000 SPEAKER 1951 VINTAGE | Marketplace |