Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#81
Posted to rec.audio.car
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.car
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.car
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.car
|
|||
|
|||
polk 6x9
i dont know if 'they'' contracted.. i meant.
|
#85
Posted to rec.audio.car
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.car
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.car
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.car
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.car
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.car
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.car
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.car
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.car
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.car
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.car
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.car
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.car
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.car
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.car
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.car
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.car
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.car
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.car
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.car
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.car
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.car
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.car
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.car
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.car
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.car
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.car
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.car
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.car
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.car
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.car
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.car
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.car
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.car
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.car
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.car
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
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 |