polk 6x9

[bob wald]

i just bought a pair. $70.
free shipping too.
figure ya only live once. might as well go high end.

[bob wald]

oops..$85 i meant..polk db690.
i choose them over kicker ks69.

[arthur[_5_]]

I went to a Circuit City this year to listen to some speakers. The
one's I wanted to hear were not working or hooked up or some dumb
excuse. Bye bye CC

Buying speakers unheard is a shade dumber than dumb.
Years ago a similar sound system could all be made to sound very much
alike if one played with the tone controls.

arthur


On Sat, 8 Sep 2007 15:41:47 -0500, (bob wald)
wrote:

>oops..$85 i meant..polk db690.
>i choose them over kicker ks69.

[bob wald]

arthur, i never heard these before but i'll chance buying from 1 of the
best speaker makers on earth.
how bad can they sound?
n ill eq them to my liking.lol
theyre marked down to $85 from $140. i think.
i'd put polk ahead of jl n others.
you never did say if you bought them.or why not.

[MOSFET]

Yah, Polk, wow. You're into the really super-duper high-end esoteric stuff
now, Bob.

Guess you'll need some tube amps and Cardas cable to go with those
"high-end" 6X9's.

6X9's?!?!?!

Well, I guess ANYTHING'S better than JVC.

MOSFET




"bob wald" > wrote in message
...
> oops..$85 i meant..polk db690.
> i choose them over kicker ks69.
>
>

[bob wald]

mosfit polks better than anything you got.lol
bet you got jl n memphis.lol

[arthur[_5_]]

My point buddy is that sound is very much a subjective thing. All the
good brands are good. I do not buy sneakers untested or speakers
unheard. As to the rest of the story, it is not really worth the
bandwith since the leasons to be learned are not predicated on the end
of the story.

cheers
arthur



On Sat, 8 Sep 2007 18:28:16 -0500, (bob wald)
wrote:

>arthur, i never heard these before but i'll chance buying from 1 of the
>best speaker makers on earth.
>how bad can they sound?
>n ill eq them to my liking.lol
>theyre marked down to $85 from $140. i think.
>i'd put polk ahead of jl n others.
> you never did say if you bought them.or why not.

[arthur[_5_]]

the point is comparing what you hear. No technical specifications can
describe how a speaker will sound ... once we get past the expected
quality issue.

Further, what an 18 year old hears and a 48 year old hears are totally
dissimilar. I assume we are not speaking of air volume movers.

Coloration is not a specification. The marketing types love their
hype.

arthur


On Sun, 09 Sep 2007 10:19:37 -0700, John Durbin >
wrote:

>Two points:
>
>1) Listening to a 6x9 in a store doesn't tell you crap about what it
>will sound like in your car
>
>2) $85 isn't a huge investment, and car audio as a hobby does tend to
>require some experimentation
>
>As much as it pains me to agree with bob, I think his position here is
>defendable.
>
>JD

[MOSFET]

> As much as it pains me to agree with bob, I think his position here is
> defendable.
>
You obviously don't know Bob, our resident troll, very well yet.

MOSFET

[MOSFET]

Yes, Bob, I do have JL for my midbass. Big secret there. But I use
Infinity tweets and bi-amp my front stage. Do you know what "bi-amping"
means, Bob? Didn't think so.

How about "seperates"? Know what those are? Or are 6X9's about as
"high-end" as you get?

I'm sorry, Bob, I just couldn't help myself when you refered to your 6x9's
as "high-end". I usually just ignore your posts.

MOSFET

"bob wald" > wrote in message
...
> mosfit polks better than anything you got.lol
> bet you got jl n memphis.lol
>
>

[bob wald]

mosfet, i guess you think 6x9s are useless.lol
i think most speakers can be used well. depends on the user.
first basic rule of installing..limit all connections as much as
possible. connections increase noise in your music. thats all i'm
teaching you..lol

[arthur[_5_]]

are you attempting to teach us the product of products and the
division of divisors laws?



On Sun, 9 Sep 2007 21:09:09 -0500, (bob wald)
wrote:
>mosfet, i guess you think 6x9s are useless.lol
> i think most speakers can be used well. depends on the user.
>first basic rule of installing..limit all connections as much as
>possible. connections increase noise in your music. thats all i'm
>teaching you..lol

[arthur[_5_]]

aw, that's not fair asking hard questions.


On Sun, 9 Sep 2007 16:22:13 -0700, "MOSFET" >
wrote:
>Infinity tweets and bi-amp my front stage. Do you know what "bi-amping"
>means, Bob? Didn't think so.
>
>How about "seperates"? Know what those are? Or are 6X9's about as
>"high-end" as you get?

[bob wald]

6x9s high end???? i thought it was brands that were high end not
sizes...lol
mosfit pplease dont waste no more of my time. ty

[bob wald]

heres another piece of advice for you. theres NEVER a need for over 4
amps in Any system.....
i usually use just 2. less connectionsss.

[MOSFET]

WRONG!

If you bi-amp your front stage (as I do, a vintage Fosgate for the mids and
a Phoenix Gold for the tweets) you will get much better dynamics and less
distortion. Think about it Bob, if you have one amp and it starts to
distort, this distortion will be heard through ALL FOUR seperates. If my
Fosgate begins to distort (though it's unlikely as it is rated at 112.5 X 2
RMS, 550 watts peak), it will NOT effect my tweeters. Get it?

ALSO, this allows me to use ONLY active X-overs instead of passive X-overs
that ALLWAYS introduce some distortion of their own, no matter how good the
pasive components are (of course active X-overs do too, but not to the same
degree).

I'm sure all of this is over your head as your advice, being the great sage
that you are, was to "limit all connections as much as possible.
connections increase noise in your music". Whoa, heavy Bob.

BTW, I use 4 amps in my system (two for the front stage, one for rear-fill
and one for the subs).

MOSFET

"bob wald" > wrote in message
...
> heres another piece of advice for you. theres NEVER a need for over 4
> amps in Any system.....
> i usually use just 2. less connectionsss.
>
>

[bob wald]

rf..lol....thats all i need to know.
i'd never use rf!!!!!!EVER.....
but i'd rate them a 8.5 outa 10.
they are alil better than i use to think they were....

[Mariachi]

On Sep 10, 12:33 pm, "MOSFET" > wrote:
> WRONG!
>
> If you bi-amp your front stage (as I do, a vintage Fosgate for the mids and
> a Phoenix Gold for the tweets) you will get much better dynamics and less
> distortion. Think about it Bob, if you have one amp and it starts to
> distort, this distortion will be heard through ALL FOUR seperates. If my
> Fosgate begins to distort (though it's unlikely as it is rated at 112.5 X 2
> RMS, 550 watts peak), it will NOT effect my tweeters. Get it?
>
> ALSO, this allows me to use ONLY active X-overs instead of passive X-overs
> that ALLWAYS introduce some distortion of their own, no matter how good the
> pasive components are (of course active X-overs do too, but not to the same
> degree).
>
> I'm sure all of this is over your head as your advice, being the great sage
> that you are, was to "limit all connections as much as possible.
> connections increase noise in your music". Whoa, heavy Bob.
>
> BTW, I use 4 amps in my system (two for the front stage, one for rear-fill
> and one for the subs).
>
> MOSFET
>
> "bob wald" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > heres another piece of advice for you. theres NEVER a need for over 4
> > amps in Any system.....
> > i usually use just 2. less connectionsss.

I thought I heard someone dissing polk audio. Polk audio is a good
brand, better than most anyways.

Using two amps separately for mids and highs is not a bad idea (for
components)... Although I don't agree of the notion that 'if one amp
distorts the other one won't' will make anything sound better... if
anything distorts (midrange bass highs) it usually sounds horrible
overall anyways. Plus how loud do you listen to your music anyways...
above 110 decibels?

And 6x9's are crap for quality... There are some decent 6x9's out
there, but if you want high-end quality you will most likely have to
go with 6.5s. Round speakers do generally sound better because of
various reasons.

[bob wald]

yes i'm aware of 6.5 speakers can sound better that 6x9s.not in all
cases.
but you give up max watts tho.
n i'll bet any of you to tell me if a system is using 6x9s verses 6 1/2
in the system from outside the car.

[bob wald]

oh another thing you'll lose around 2watts per connection...1watt if you
use the best gear on the planet.
it varies thou. as how much power you'll lose.

[Christopher \Torroid\ Ott]

"bob wald" > wrote in message
...
> oh another thing you'll lose around 2watts per connection...1watt if you
> use the best gear on the planet.
> it varies thou. as how much power you'll lose.

Are you talking about speaker connectors? Two watts per connection? You need
to move the decimal point to the left one or two places...

Chris

[bob wald]

ok , just about every connection.

[Christopher \Torroid\ Ott]

"bob wald" > wrote in message
...
> ok , just about every connection.

Huh?

[MOSFET]

I didn't mean to diss Polk. They DO make quality products. It was the 6x9
size I was dissing and the inherent problems (often a topic of conversation
in this group) associated with 6X9's (remember, the 6x9 size was created by
car makers to accomodate space, NOT audio engineers focussed on what sounds
best). It was Bob calling 6x9's "high-end" and my response that you may be
mistaking for me dissing Polk, which of course makes some great speakers.

MOSFET

"Mariachi" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> On Sep 10, 12:33 pm, "MOSFET" > wrote:
> > WRONG!
> >
> > If you bi-amp your front stage (as I do, a vintage Fosgate for the mids
and
> > a Phoenix Gold for the tweets) you will get much better dynamics and
less
> > distortion. Think about it Bob, if you have one amp and it starts to
> > distort, this distortion will be heard through ALL FOUR seperates. If
my
> > Fosgate begins to distort (though it's unlikely as it is rated at 112.5
X 2
> > RMS, 550 watts peak), it will NOT effect my tweeters. Get it?
> >
> > ALSO, this allows me to use ONLY active X-overs instead of passive
X-overs
> > that ALLWAYS introduce some distortion of their own, no matter how good
the
> > pasive components are (of course active X-overs do too, but not to the
same
> > degree).
> >
> > I'm sure all of this is over your head as your advice, being the great
sage
> > that you are, was to "limit all connections as much as possible.
> > connections increase noise in your music". Whoa, heavy Bob.
> >
> > BTW, I use 4 amps in my system (two for the front stage, one for
rear-fill
> > and one for the subs).
> >
> > MOSFET
> >
> > "bob wald" > wrote in message
> >
> > ...
> >
> > > heres another piece of advice for you. theres NEVER a need for over 4
> > > amps in Any system.....
> > > i usually use just 2. less connectionsss.
>
> I thought I heard someone dissing polk audio. Polk audio is a good
> brand, better than most anyways.
>
> Using two amps separately for mids and highs is not a bad idea (for
> components)... Although I don't agree of the notion that 'if one amp
> distorts the other one won't' will make anything sound better... if
> anything distorts (midrange bass highs) it usually sounds horrible
> overall anyways. Plus how loud do you listen to your music anyways...
> above 110 decibels?
>
> And 6x9's are crap for quality... There are some decent 6x9's out
> there, but if you want high-end quality you will most likely have to
> go with 6.5s. Round speakers do generally sound better because of
> various reasons.
>
>

[bob wald]

i never called 6x9s high end...polk is a high end company,

[arthur[_5_]]

Who is in charge of the buyer;s money and happiness?
Your marketing department?

Get your hearing tested if you are no longer a kid and then report
back here.

arthur



On Sun, 09 Sep 2007 20:11:55 -0700, John Durbin >
wrote:

>arthur,
>
>Most of what you post here seems ignorant at best... do you actually
>know anything about audio in general or car audio in particular?
>
>Sound boards with very few exceptions do NOT sound like cars. Almost
>without exception, people pick the speaker that sounded loudest to them
>in the store. Once you put that same speaker in a car, you are no longer
>comparing one speaker to another so efficiency stops being the dominant
>factor. Furthermore, the acoustic differences of the car interior vs.
>the sound board are far more drastic than the probable differences
>between speaker A and speaker B in the store. Hence my statement that
>putting them in the car to see how they sound for the nominal cost of
>$85 wasn't such a bad idea. Besides, it's not your money so who cares
>whether you approve?
>
>Now, what you MAY hear in the store are things you don't like that
>likely will also show up in the car: screechy high frequency, no
>midrange, etc. Bob's assessment that a respected audio company like Polk
>probably didn't make those kinds of elementary mistakes in their design
>is pretty reasonable. Wouldn't have hurt to have confirmed that with a
>quick audition but he seems relatively pleased with his $85 outlay
>anyway. Did you think it was productive to lecture him about what he
>should have done? Has lecturing bob about anything EVER been productive?
>Not in my experience... you mostly just feed his ego by responding.
>
>As to the difference between the 18 year old & the 48 year old, your
>assumption may be true but probably not the way you think. You were
>likely implying that hearing acuity is worse in the middle-aged but that
>is not at all a given. It depends on many things including exposure to
>loud sounds over their lifetimes, diseases, etc. But, plenty of 48 year
>olds still have reasonably good listening acuity... and maybe more to
>the point, a lot of them have vastly more experience with listening to
>audio gear than the typical 18 year old. So, you may be right that they
>hear different things although your reasons for saying so are likely wrong.
>
>Not sure why that mattered either, as there were no age issues
>introduced prior to your comment.
>
>MOSFET, I know very well who bob is & that he's a useless troll more
>often than not. I may not post often but I've been here years now & I
>still skim posts. Every dog has his day & I think this may have been his
>only keeper. That's my opinion anyway...
>
>JD
>
>arthur wrote:
>
>> the point is comparing what you hear. No technical specifications can
>> describe how a speaker will sound ... once we get past the expected
>> quality issue.
>>
>> Further, what an 18 year old hears and a 48 year old hears are totally
>> dissimilar. I assume we are not speaking of air volume movers.
>>
>> Coloration is not a specification. The marketing types love their
>> hype.
>>
>> arthur
>>
>>
>> On Sun, 09 Sep 2007 10:19:37 -0700, John Durbin >
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Two points:
>>>
>>>1) Listening to a 6x9 in a store doesn't tell you crap about what it
>>>will sound like in your car
>>>
>>>2) $85 isn't a huge investment, and car audio as a hobby does tend to
>>>require some experimentation
>>>
>>>As much as it pains me to agree with bob, I think his position here is
>>>defendable.
>>>
>>>JD

[arthur[_5_]]

"Passive Components" are actually reactive components which change
reactance, and therefore Impedence, with frequency.

Z = R + X

There is no amplification with passive filters. The advantage of
active filters is the greater control over a particular band.

This is all such a total waste of time.

arthur




On Mon, 10 Sep 2007 09:33:08 -0700, "MOSFET" >
wrote:
>
>ALSO, this allows me to use ONLY active X-overs instead of passive X-overs
>that ALLWAYS introduce some distortion of their own, no matter how good the
>pasive components are (of course active X-overs do too, but not to the same
>degree).
>
>I'm sure all of this is over your head as your advice, being the great sage
>that you are, was to "limit all connections as much as possible.
>connections increase noise in your music". Whoa, heavy Bob.
>
>BTW, I use 4 amps in my system (two for the front stage, one for rear-fill
>and one for the subs).
>
>MOSFET
>

[Mister.Lull]

On Sep 10, 11:09 pm, arthur > wrote:
> "Passive Components" are actually reactive components which change
> reactance, and therefore Impedence, with frequency.
>
> Z = R + X
>
> There is no amplification with passive filters. The advantage of
> active filters is the greater control over a particular band.
>
> This is all such a total waste of time.
>
> arthur
>
> On Mon, 10 Sep 2007 09:33:08 -0700, "MOSFET" >
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >ALSO, this allows me to use ONLY active X-overs instead of passive X-overs
> >that ALLWAYS introduce some distortion of their own, no matter how good the
> >pasive components are (of course active X-overs do too, but not to the same
> >degree).
>
> >I'm sure all of this is over your head as your advice, being the great sage
> >that you are, was to "limit all connections as much as possible.
> >connections increase noise in your music". Whoa, heavy Bob.
>
> >BTW, I use 4 amps in my system (two for the front stage, one for rear-fill
> >and one for the subs).
>
> >MOSFET- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

....Are we all so happy that the splorging is over - that we are
actually debating on one of Bob Wald's posts?! Damn. I missed you
guys too, but seriously...

}:-)

~Mister.Lull

[bob wald]

actually i find alot of good information comes out of disagreements.
i think anger/excitement can trigger memories long forgotten.

[GregS[_2_]]

In article >, wrote:
>"Passive Components" are actually reactive components which change
>reactance, and therefore Impedence, with frequency.
>
>Z = R + X
>
>There is no amplification with passive filters. The advantage of
>active filters is the greater control over a particular band.

One thing you find out real quick, is how passive crossovers can create
peaking effects, or actual amplification of the signal. A basic hig Q
scenereo. You can also use passive crossovers in the signal chain, before the
drivers.

I would say at least three main things good about active filters. The drive Z
remains constant to the drivers. Its easier to create poles. You can also
create delays to align time and phase.

>This is all such a total waste of time.
>
>arthur
>
>
>
>
>On Mon, 10 Sep 2007 09:33:08 -0700, "MOSFET" >
>wrote:
>>
>>ALSO, this allows me to use ONLY active X-overs instead of passive X-overs
>>that ALLWAYS introduce some distortion of their own, no matter how good the
>>pasive components are (of course active X-overs do too, but not to the same
>>degree).
>>
>>I'm sure all of this is over your head as your advice, being the great sage
>>that you are, was to "limit all connections as much as possible.
>>connections increase noise in your music". Whoa, heavy Bob.
>>
>>BTW, I use 4 amps in my system (two for the front stage, one for rear-fill
>>and one for the subs).
>>
>>MOSFET
>>

[MOSFET]

Yes Lull, I don't know what's worse, the splorging or the fact that we are
actually taking Bob Wald's posts seriously. ;)

I guess since the topic is back to car audio THAT is first and foremost what
matters most, even if the things said are often ridiculous.

MOSFET


"Mister.Lull" > wrote in message
ps.com...
> On Sep 10, 11:09 pm, arthur > wrote:
> > "Passive Components" are actually reactive components which change
> > reactance, and therefore Impedence, with frequency.
> >
> > Z = R + X
> >
> > There is no amplification with passive filters. The advantage of
> > active filters is the greater control over a particular band.
> >
> > This is all such a total waste of time.
> >
> > arthur
> >
> > On Mon, 10 Sep 2007 09:33:08 -0700, "MOSFET" >
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > >ALSO, this allows me to use ONLY active X-overs instead of passive
X-overs
> > >that ALLWAYS introduce some distortion of their own, no matter how good
the
> > >pasive components are (of course active X-overs do too, but not to the
same
> > >degree).
> >
> > >I'm sure all of this is over your head as your advice, being the great
sage
> > >that you are, was to "limit all connections as much as possible.
> > >connections increase noise in your music". Whoa, heavy Bob.
> >
> > >BTW, I use 4 amps in my system (two for the front stage, one for
rear-fill
> > >and one for the subs).
> >
> > >MOSFET- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> ...Are we all so happy that the splorging is over - that we are
> actually debating on one of Bob Wald's posts?! Damn. I missed you
> guys too, but seriously...
>
> }:-)
>
> ~Mister.Lull
>
>

[MOSFET]

> One thing you find out real quick, is how passive crossovers can create
> peaking effects, or actual amplification of the signal.

I can understand that as capacitors, by there very nature, store and release
current and therefore it stands to reason that in certain circumstances
(keep in mind, I am no EE) they MAY amplify a signal.

But I can't imagine this amplification being very much, or more importantly
noticable AT ALL as the caps used in passive filters are VERY small.

Howover, that being said, I would ALWAYS choose to use active filters over
passives any day of the week (if for no other reason, there is usually much
more control in setting X-over slopes and frequencies) . I use NO passive
filters in my car at all, all filtering is done by the HU (an Alpine 9853
with Bass Engine Pro which gives me a choice of 33 bands and 4 slope
options, 6, 12, 18, and 24 dB per octive) and a Coustic active filter I use
to X-over the tweets only (it is one of the few active X-overs that has an
adjustable filter in the 1000Hz-4000Hz range).

MOSFET

[bob wald]

well yall are way over my head with the talking you all are doin now.
but i know 1 thing. i learnt along time ago.. dont over think thinks..
keep it simple.
the more complicated it is. the more troubles you'll have.

[Christopher \Torroid\ Ott]

"MOSFET" > wrote in message
m...
>> One thing you find out real quick, is how passive crossovers can create
>> peaking effects, or actual amplification of the signal.
>
> I can understand that as capacitors, by there very nature, store and
> release
> current and therefore it stands to reason that in certain circumstances
> (keep in mind, I am no EE) they MAY amplify a signal.
>
> But I can't imagine this amplification being very much, or more
> importantly
> noticable AT ALL as the caps used in passive filters are VERY small.
>
> Howover, that being said, I would ALWAYS choose to use active filters over
> passives any day of the week (if for no other reason, there is usually
> much
> more control in setting X-over slopes and frequencies) . I use NO passive
> filters in my car at all, all filtering is done by the HU (an Alpine 9853
> with Bass Engine Pro which gives me a choice of 33 bands and 4 slope
> options, 6, 12, 18, and 24 dB per octive) and a Coustic active filter I
> use
> to X-over the tweets only (it is one of the few active X-overs that has an
> adjustable filter in the 1000Hz-4000Hz range).


I'm not aware of any passive crossover that will give signal gain, and I
*am* a EE. Passives attenuate and have a gain of less than one. Actives
buffer or amplify and have a gain of one or greater at the circuit level.

However that does not mean that passives aren't useful, or inferior to
active crossovers. Many people prefer the sound of a passive filter over the
active. Actives are sometimes plagued with a harsh or shrill sound in the
upper frequencies which tend to be masked a little better by passives. The
thing with audio is that it's really subjective. Two people can hear the
same sample and come up with different opinions of what sounds correct or
pleasing.

Passives are wasteful electrically, because they turn unwanted frequencies
to heat vs. actives which don't amplify the unwanted frequencies to begin
with. Actives are less likely to color the sound, which may seem great, but
is sometimes not pleasing to listen to.
The one bad thing about passives in the automotive environment is the
temperature swings really play havoc with capacitors. Electrolytics dry up
faster and change their value significantly with high temperature which can
make passives shift over time.

Basically, if you like to experiment with the crossover points than
obviously passives aren't the best choice, but I wouldn't rule them out
completely.

Chris

[Mariachi]

On Sep 11, 2:29 pm, "MOSFET" > wrote:
> > One thing you find out real quick, is how passive crossovers can create
> > peaking effects, or actual amplification of the signal.
>
> I can understand that as capacitors, by there very nature, store and release
> current and therefore it stands to reason that in certain circumstances
> (keep in mind, I am no EE) they MAY amplify a signal.
>
> But I can't imagine this amplification being very much, or more importantly
> noticable AT ALL as the caps used in passive filters are VERY small.
>
> Howover, that being said, I would ALWAYS choose to use active filters over
> passives any day of the week (if for no other reason, there is usually much
> more control in setting X-over slopes and frequencies) . I use NO passive
> filters in my car at all, all filtering is done by the HU (an Alpine 9853
> with Bass Engine Pro which gives me a choice of 33 bands and 4 slope
> options, 6, 12, 18, and 24 dB per octive) and a Coustic active filter I use
> to X-over the tweets only (it is one of the few active X-overs that has an
> adjustable filter in the 1000Hz-4000Hz range).
>
> MOSFET

Yes capacitors store electric charge in DC circuits, but in AC
circuits, not really. Here is a couple general rules about capacitors

1. Oppose a change in voltage
2. DC reactance is infinity. (@ frequency = 0)
3. Higher the frequency, the lower the capacitor's reactance and the
higher the capacitor's conductance (this is why you have octave slopes
with passive crossovers, because of the inverse trend between
frequency and reactance, resistance.)
4. The electric field between the capacitor's "plates" represents the
charge stored on the "plates".

Since an audio output signal is always alternating above and below
zero volts, the capacitor has no real chance of building up any
significant charge. Even if a crossover capacitor does somehow get
fully charged, the charge stored on it is so minute that you wouldn't
even notice. Crossover capacitors have a very low capacitance (very
low storage for charge), because they usually cutoff at very high
frequencies. The more capacitance you have (more ability to store
charge), the lower the reactance is at a certain frequency. Let's say
that the crossover capacitor has a high capacitance and it releases
charge... it will not amplify the signal, but it would instead provide
a DC bias. Transistors amplify, capacitors don't. Something to talk
about...

[MOSFET]

Believe me, I trust you Torroid. I was just responding to another post that
asserted that passives, in certain circumstances, can boost the signal
slightly.

I was just pointing out that capacitors, by their nature, can discharge
current and THEREFORE it stands to reason that a signal may be boosted EVER
SO SLIGHTLY (and attenuated as well), again, I WOULD NOT except it to be
audible.

MOSFET
"Christopher "Torroid" Ott" <spamtrap at ottelectronics dot com> wrote in
message ...
> "MOSFET" > wrote in message
> m...
> >> One thing you find out real quick, is how passive crossovers can create
> >> peaking effects, or actual amplification of the signal.
> >
> > I can understand that as capacitors, by there very nature, store and
> > release
> > current and therefore it stands to reason that in certain circumstances
> > (keep in mind, I am no EE) they MAY amplify a signal.
> >
> > But I can't imagine this amplification being very much, or more
> > importantly
> > noticable AT ALL as the caps used in passive filters are VERY small.
> >
> > Howover, that being said, I would ALWAYS choose to use active filters
over
> > passives any day of the week (if for no other reason, there is usually
> > much
> > more control in setting X-over slopes and frequencies) . I use NO
passive
> > filters in my car at all, all filtering is done by the HU (an Alpine
9853
> > with Bass Engine Pro which gives me a choice of 33 bands and 4 slope
> > options, 6, 12, 18, and 24 dB per octive) and a Coustic active filter I
> > use
> > to X-over the tweets only (it is one of the few active X-overs that has
an
> > adjustable filter in the 1000Hz-4000Hz range).
>
>
> I'm not aware of any passive crossover that will give signal gain, and I
> *am* a EE. Passives attenuate and have a gain of less than one. Actives
> buffer or amplify and have a gain of one or greater at the circuit level.
>
> However that does not mean that passives aren't useful, or inferior to
> active crossovers. Many people prefer the sound of a passive filter over
the
> active. Actives are sometimes plagued with a harsh or shrill sound in the
> upper frequencies which tend to be masked a little better by passives. The
> thing with audio is that it's really subjective. Two people can hear the
> same sample and come up with different opinions of what sounds correct or
> pleasing.
>
> Passives are wasteful electrically, because they turn unwanted frequencies
> to heat vs. actives which don't amplify the unwanted frequencies to begin
> with. Actives are less likely to color the sound, which may seem great,
but
> is sometimes not pleasing to listen to.
> The one bad thing about passives in the automotive environment is the
> temperature swings really play havoc with capacitors. Electrolytics dry up
> faster and change their value significantly with high temperature which
can
> make passives shift over time.
>
> Basically, if you like to experiment with the crossover points than
> obviously passives aren't the best choice, but I wouldn't rule them out
> completely.
>
> Chris
>
>
>
>

[MOSFET]

Since an audio output signal is always alternating above and below
> zero volts, the capacitor has no real chance of building up any
> significant charge.

Exactly. As I said in the previous post, I would not expect it to be
audible.

MOSFET

[arthur[_5_]]

No. You have a DC mental image of how a capacitor operates.

There are 2 passive reactive devices for AC: capacitors and inductors.
Reactance is the name given to the resistance, measured in Ohms, of an
AC signal.

Place a resistance in a circuit and it must attenuate the signal by
converting some of the power to heat. Impedence is resistance with a
PhD.

I thought you would rather know the facts.

arthur


On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 19:02:29 -0700, "MOSFET" >
wrote:
>I was just pointing out that capacitors, by their nature, can discharge
>current and THEREFORE it stands to reason that a signal may be boosted EVER
>SO SLIGHTLY (and attenuated as well), again, I WOULD NOT except it to be
>audible.
>

[arthur[_5_]]

DC is not audible.



On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 19:04:25 -0700, "MOSFET" >
wrote:
>
>Exactly. As I said in the previous post, I would not expect it to be
>audible.
>
>MOSFET
>

[Christopher \Torroid\ Ott]

"MOSFET" > wrote in message
m...
> Believe me, I trust you Torroid. I was just responding to another post
> that
> asserted that passives, in certain circumstances, can boost the signal
> slightly.
>
> I was just pointing out that capacitors, by their nature, can discharge
> current and THEREFORE it stands to reason that a signal may be boosted
> EVER
> SO SLIGHTLY (and attenuated as well), again, I WOULD NOT except it to be
> audible.
>
> MOSFET
> "Christopher "Torroid" Ott" <spamtrap at ottelectronics dot com> wrote in
> message ...
>> "MOSFET" > wrote in message
>> m...
>> >> One thing you find out real quick, is how passive crossovers can
>> >> create
>> >> peaking effects, or actual amplification of the signal.
>> >
>> > I can understand that as capacitors, by there very nature, store and
>> > release
>> > current and therefore it stands to reason that in certain circumstances
>> > (keep in mind, I am no EE) they MAY amplify a signal.
>> >
>> > But I can't imagine this amplification being very much, or more
>> > importantly
>> > noticable AT ALL as the caps used in passive filters are VERY small.
>> >
>> > Howover, that being said, I would ALWAYS choose to use active filters
> over
>> > passives any day of the week (if for no other reason, there is usually
>> > much
>> > more control in setting X-over slopes and frequencies) . I use NO
> passive
>> > filters in my car at all, all filtering is done by the HU (an Alpine
> 9853
>> > with Bass Engine Pro which gives me a choice of 33 bands and 4 slope
>> > options, 6, 12, 18, and 24 dB per octive) and a Coustic active filter I
>> > use
>> > to X-over the tweets only (it is one of the few active X-overs that has
> an
>> > adjustable filter in the 1000Hz-4000Hz range).
>>
>>
>> I'm not aware of any passive crossover that will give signal gain, and I
>> *am* a EE. Passives attenuate and have a gain of less than one. Actives
>> buffer or amplify and have a gain of one or greater at the circuit level.
>>
>> However that does not mean that passives aren't useful, or inferior to
>> active crossovers. Many people prefer the sound of a passive filter over
> the
>> active. Actives are sometimes plagued with a harsh or shrill sound in the
>> upper frequencies which tend to be masked a little better by passives.
>> The
>> thing with audio is that it's really subjective. Two people can hear the
>> same sample and come up with different opinions of what sounds correct or
>> pleasing.
>>
>> Passives are wasteful electrically, because they turn unwanted
>> frequencies
>> to heat vs. actives which don't amplify the unwanted frequencies to begin
>> with. Actives are less likely to color the sound, which may seem great,
> but
>> is sometimes not pleasing to listen to.
>> The one bad thing about passives in the automotive environment is the
>> temperature swings really play havoc with capacitors. Electrolytics dry
>> up
>> faster and change their value significantly with high temperature which
> can
>> make passives shift over time.
>>
>> Basically, if you like to experiment with the crossover points than
>> obviously passives aren't the best choice, but I wouldn't rule them out
>> completely.


It's cool Nick ;-) Just pointing out that even though it may seem reasonable
that the filter caps can store and boost a signal, they don't really work
like that.

Chris

[MOSFET]

Thank you, I DO always want to understand this better and I appreciate
people like you taking the time to explain it to non-EE's like myself.

Thanks again,

Nick

"arthur" > wrote in message
...
> No. You have a DC mental image of how a capacitor operates.
>
> There are 2 passive reactive devices for AC: capacitors and inductors.
> Reactance is the name given to the resistance, measured in Ohms, of an
> AC signal.
>
> Place a resistance in a circuit and it must attenuate the signal by
> converting some of the power to heat. Impedence is resistance with a
> PhD.
>
> I thought you would rather know the facts.
>
> arthur
>
>
> On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 19:02:29 -0700, "MOSFET" >
> wrote:
> >I was just pointing out that capacitors, by their nature, can discharge
> >current and THEREFORE it stands to reason that a signal may be boosted
EVER
> >SO SLIGHTLY (and attenuated as well), again, I WOULD NOT except it to be
> >audible.
> >
>

[MOSFET]

> DC is not audible.
>
Well sure it is, for a SPLIT second and then the cone remains stationary
(out or in depending on the voltage, positive or negative). ;)

MOSFET

[MOSFET]

> DC is not audible.
>
It would probably sound like one loud THUMP, and then silence. So THAT'S
audible.

MOSFET

[MOSFET]

> the more complicated it is. the more troubles you'll have.
>
Geez, Bob, that's true and ALWAYS good advice.

Man, you're on a roll, keep it up and I might stop calling you a troll.....
;)

(you're wondering "is that a compliment or not:?")

MOSFET

[arthur[_5_]]

Too easy. The hard part is that reactance ( the X of Z = R + X )
changes as the AC frequency. So the effect is one can attenuate some
frequencies more or less than others ( the how of crossovers ). This
can fool the non electonics person into thinking that some frequencies
are enhanced at the expense of others. And now you know. ;)

arthur

ps Z = R + X is an understatement of the complexity but we all know
that we don't have to know that jazz since we have really smart
computers to do the hard stuff.


On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 10:42:37 -0700, "MOSFET" >
wrote:
>Thank you, I DO always want to understand this better and I appreciate
>people like you taking the time to explain it to non-EE's like myself.
>
>Thanks again,
>
>Nick

[arthur[_5_]]

touche



On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 10:49:06 -0700, "MOSFET" >
wrote:

>> DC is not audible.
>>
>It would probably sound like one loud THUMP, and then silence. So THAT'S
>audible.
>
>MOSFET
>

[MOSFET]

Don't ya hate the "nit-pickers". I've been nitpicked so many times I COULD
NOT resist. ;)

MOSFET

"arthur" > wrote in message
...
> touche
>
>
>
> On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 10:49:06 -0700, "MOSFET" >
> wrote:
>
> >> DC is not audible.
> >>
> >It would probably sound like one loud THUMP, and then silence. So THAT'S
> >audible.
> >
> >MOSFET
> >
>

[Christopher \Torroid\ Ott]

"MOSFET" > wrote in message
...
> Don't ya hate the "nit-pickers". I've been nitpicked so many times I
> COULD
> NOT resist. ;)
>
> MOSFET
>
> "arthur" > wrote in message
> ...
>> touche
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 10:49:06 -0700, "MOSFET" >
>> wrote:
>>
>> >> DC is not audible.
>> >>
>> >It would probably sound like one loud THUMP, and then silence. So
>> >THAT'S
>> >audible.
>> >
>> >MOSFET

Actually, the thump would be caused by the change in signal from its old
voltage to its new one (ie: the transition from 0v to 12v). This would not
be DC, but a momentary AC riding a DC level.

How's that for nitpicking? :-p

Chris

[arthur[_5_]]

also, not musical, since the rise time would be close to zero and thus
a square wave which is far from musical for "normal" types.




On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 21:08:18 -0700, "Christopher \"Torroid\" Ott"
<spamtrap at ottelectronics dot com> wrote:

>Actually, the thump would be caused by the change in signal from its old
>voltage to its new one (ie: the transition from 0v to 12v). This would not
>be DC, but a momentary AC riding a DC level.
>
>How's that for nitpicking? :-p
>
>Chris
>

[Mariachi]

On Sep 13, 1:20 am, arthur > wrote:
> also, not musical, since the rise time would be close to zero and thus
> a square wave which is far from musical for "normal" types.
>
> On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 21:08:18 -0700, "Christopher \"Torroid\" Ott"
> <spamtrap at ottelectronics dot com> wrote:
>
> >Actually, the thump would be caused by the change in signal from its old
> >voltage to its new one (ie: the transition from 0v to 12v). This would not
> >be DC, but a momentary AC riding a DC level.
>
> >How's that for nitpicking? :-p
>
> >Chris

you might hear a mechanical sound in the speaker though if the change
in voltage is big enough

[arthur[_5_]]

Yes I thought of that later. The coloration and almost infinite
possible harmonics. A speaker is not a square wave device.

Hey, its for fun, remember?




On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 05:09:55 -0700, Mariachi >
wrote:
>
>you might hear a mechanical sound in the speaker though if the change
>in voltage is big enough

[Mariachi]

On Sep 13, 12:53 pm, arthur > wrote:
> Yes I thought of that later. The coloration and almost infinite
> possible harmonics. A speaker is not a square wave device.
>
> Hey, its for fun, remember?
>
> On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 05:09:55 -0700, Mariachi >
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >you might hear a mechanical sound in the speaker though if the change
> >in voltage is big enough

An ideal speaker could play a square wave w/ the infinite harmonics
that make up the square, as long as the square wave oscillates around
zero volts... say 5 volts to -5 volts with a frequency greater than 20
Hz.

But in the real world... there is no such thing as ideal.

Actually, a speaker can play a square wave to some extent, although it
may not play all the frequencies because of crosstalk. I hooked my
ghetto sony speakers to an AC generator with the square wave option
enabled, and you could actually hear some tones coming out of the
speaker. I thought it was interesting

[MOSFET]

> Actually, the thump would be caused by the change in signal from its old
> voltage to its new one (ie: the transition from 0v to 12v). This would not
> be DC, but a momentary AC riding a DC level.
>
> How's that for nitpicking? :-p
>
> Chris

WOW. You win "nit-picking" prize!!! Nice work, though I don't quite
understand what you are saying (but, of course, that can often be a key
nit-picking strategy).
>
Nick

>
>

[arthur[_5_]]

http://www.answers.com/topic/square-wave?cat=technology

again, the DC vs AC mentality as though they are the only wave forms.

arthur





On Sat, 15 Sep 2007 14:14:45 -0700, I. Care >
wrote:

>Let's get really nit-picky. A state change from 0vDC to 12vDC is a
>level shift. AC is "Electric current that reverses direction
>periodically, usually many times per second." In this case there is no
>reverse of direction, it goes from a steady 0vDC to steady 12vDC until
>you remove the signal so there is no periodicity.
>

[bob wald]

discount car stereos .com
has all the subs n sub amps...2000rms+
lanzar. under afew hundred dollars.
WOW!

[bob wald]

car discount stereos .com

[[email protected]]

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.

[MOSFET]

This is an-ongoing debate we've been having here at RAC for years now. It
goes a little like this:

First, keep in mind 6x9's were developed by car-makers in order to maximize
space in the rear-shelf. Do you see any 6x9's on home speakers? No. And
here's the reason (although the big debate is whether the following reason
is audible) why:

As you probably know, speakers work by sending alternating current through a
voice coil. This voice coil sits in a magnetic field (this is the larger
magnet located behind every speaker) and when alternating current is applied
it moves up and down, like an electric motor going forward and reverse over
and over really fast. The voice coil is connected to the cone, and it is
this in and out movement of the cone that vibrates the air and produces
sound (a little accousitc principles 101).

So think about a voice coil, it is round. Now think about a 6x9" cone, it
is not. So when the voice coil moves, it will have moved the shorter
distance of cone (the 6") VERY SLIGHTLY ahead of the 9" distance. Of
course, we're talking VERY minute differences.

In fact, when playing a higher frequency (where the voice coil is moving
VERY fast up and down) it's possible to imagine that the 6" part of the cone
has moved up and is ALREADY beggining to move down WHILE THE 9" DISTANCE IS
STILL MOVING UP. Again, these are extremelly small differences and
obviously the stiffness of the cone come into play. The trouble with cone
stiffnes, though, is that my making a stiffer cone to avoid this problem,
you also tend to make a HEAVIER cone which comes with it's own set of
problems (lack of efficency for one).

But that is basically what the debate is about and the big question is
whether this problem in design produces audible effects (like distortion,
cancellation, ect.). In a car, where you have much larger noise problems
AND a poor accoustical space, my guess is it is probably not audible.

However, in a home speaker, it very likely would make the speaker a little
less steller than a typical 8" or 6" round speaker when you are talking
strictly about sound quality. Again, I go back to my first point that home
speaker makers DO NOT use 6x9 or any other shape except round to match the
voice coil for perfect linierity of movement. The 6x9 or 3x10 or all those
weird shapes were made by CAR MAKERS to maximize space, NOT accoutical
engineers focussed on what sounds best. And clearly, what will sound best
is a cone that moves perfectly linierly up and down.

MOSFET


> wrote in message
ups.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.
>
>

[Mariachi]

On Sep 20, 11:41 am, "MOSFET" > wrote:
> This is an-ongoing debate we've been having here at RAC for years now. It
> goes a little like this:
>
> First, keep in mind 6x9's were developed by car-makers in order to maximize
> space in the rear-shelf. Do you see any 6x9's on home speakers? No. And
> here's the reason (although the big debate is whether the following reason
> is audible) why:
>
> As you probably know, speakers work by sending alternating current through a
> voice coil. This voice coil sits in a magnetic field (this is the larger
> magnet located behind every speaker) and when alternating current is applied
> it moves up and down, like an electric motor going forward and reverse over
> and over really fast. The voice coil is connected to the cone, and it is
> this in and out movement of the cone that vibrates the air and produces
> sound (a little accousitc principles 101).
>
> So think about a voice coil, it is round. Now think about a 6x9" cone, it
> is not. So when the voice coil moves, it will have moved the shorter
> distance of cone (the 6") VERY SLIGHTLY ahead of the 9" distance. Of
> course, we're talking VERY minute differences.
>
> In fact, when playing a higher frequency (where the voice coil is moving
> VERY fast up and down) it's possible to imagine that the 6" part of the cone
> has moved up and is ALREADY beggining to move down WHILE THE 9" DISTANCE IS
> STILL MOVING UP. Again, these are extremelly small differences and
> obviously the stiffness of the cone come into play. The trouble with cone
> stiffnes, though, is that my making a stiffer cone to avoid this problem,
> you also tend to make a HEAVIER cone which comes with it's own set of
> problems (lack of efficency for one).
>
> But that is basically what the debate is about and the big question is
> whether this problem in design produces audible effects (like distortion,
> cancellation, ect.). In a car, where you have much larger noise problems
> AND a poor accoustical space, my guess is it is probably not audible.
>
> However, in a home speaker, it very likely would make the speaker a little
> less steller than a typical 8" or 6" round speaker when you are talking
> strictly about sound quality. Again, I go back to my first point that home
> speaker makers DO NOT use 6x9 or any other shape except round to match the
> voice coil for perfect linierity of movement. The 6x9 or 3x10 or all those
> weird shapes were made by CAR MAKERS to maximize space, NOT accoutical
> engineers focussed on what sounds best. And clearly, what will sound best
> is a cone that moves perfectly linierly up and down.
>
> MOSFET
>
> > wrote in message
>
> ups.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.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Yes, I agree... the 6x9 speaker is a poor design for a speaker. But
if a 6x9 is bad, how much worse a 3x10? I personally don't get why
anyone would make a 3x10. It's retarded if you ask me

[bob wald]

''hub'' 6.5 might sound a tiny bit better over all. but not noticable in
a car situration. n it can be tuned to sound better than a 6.5 if the
6.5 isnt at 100%. but these beginners in car audio dont/cant tell you
the whole story.
plus you have your radio reception to factor in.
plus 20 other things.
if you see a great deal on a 6x9. grab it.

[Kirby]

My '77 Chev half-ton had one of those bad boys.. and only one.. in the very
top of the dash. it's for the farm-boys who just wanted some radio to listen
to while they were headin out to the ol' grain elevators.

one speaker no matter what shape.. is better than none.

[MOSFET]

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
ups.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.
>
>

[MOSFET]

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
> > ups.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.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
>
>

[Christopher \Torroid\ Ott]

Linear pistonic movement?

I get that every time I have Taco Bell. Cleans the ol' tubes right out.

Chris :-p


"MOSFET" > wrote in message
m...
> 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
>> > ups.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.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>
>

[MOSFET]

LOL

Yes, I think I need to take a linear pistonic movement right now. GET OUT
OF MY WAY!!!!


"Christopher "Torroid" Ott" <spamtrap at ottelectronics dot com> wrote in
message ...
> Linear pistonic movement?
>
> I get that every time I have Taco Bell. Cleans the ol' tubes right out.
>
> Chris :-p
>
>
> "MOSFET" > wrote in message
> m...
> > 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
> >> > ups.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.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>
>

[Mariachi]

Oval speakers does not necessarily use diffraction if the sound waves
do not pass through a slit after the speaker. But you can say that an
oval speaker would spread the sound out more in one direction and less
in the other. In other words, an oval speaker would automatically
focus the sound more in one direction than the other, no slit needed.

Diffraction is when any type of wave passes through a slit or multiple
slits. But using diffraction usually ends up in more destructive
interference of the sound waves, which is probably bad.

[Matt Ion]

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 don't think it's as much matching the shape of the VC, as if it were,
the manufacturers would just use oval VC formers. The other part of the
problem is, your basic cone surround (the flexible bit that attaches the
top of the cone to the rim of the basket) will not flex evenly around an
odd-shaped cone, which in turn can distort the cone itself, leading to
all sorts of sonic weirdness.

But in any case, besides the point that ALMOST NO home speaker
manufacturers use the oval design, absolutely NO sound-reinforcement
speakers have ever used an oval design either.

In short, they are a design anomaly almost exclusively limited to the
car-audio realm. That alone has to tell you that they are far from an
ideal design.

[MOSFET]

.. The other part of the
> problem is, your basic cone surround (the flexible bit that attaches the
> top of the cone to the rim of the basket) will not flex evenly around an
> odd-shaped cone,

I hadn't thought of that. It appears there are MULTIPLE sonic drawbacks in
using oval speakers. CLEARLY, if you are out to build THE BEST SOUNDING
speaker system you can, oval is not the way to go. Good point, Matt

Nick

[MOSFET]

> Oval speakers does not necessarily use diffraction if the sound waves
> do not pass through a slit after the speaker.

???????

Mariachi, take a look at this thread and the posts regarding this issue. It
has NOTHING to do with what you are talking about (frankly, I'm not even
sure what you are talking about). I associate slits and diffraction with
something to do with light, not sound. I am talking about something
completly different. In fact, difraction MAY not be an entirely accurate
way to describe this tweeter phenomena. What I AM talking about is a
problem with tweeters flush mounted to large baffles. Then, when these
tweeters play their high frequencies, the sound tends to interact with the
baffle creating subtle unwanted sonic artifacts. The resulting sound will
be muddied and you will lose good imaging (the ability to "see" each
instrument in space) and staging (again, the ability to imagine a 3D space
with a height, width and depth when listening to music).

But we welcome your pressence, I'm not trying to diss or embarras you, it's
just your post has little to do with what we were discussing.

MOSFET

[Mariachi]

On Sep 22, 11:25 pm, "MOSFET" > wrote:
> > Oval speakers does not necessarily use diffraction if the sound waves
> > do not pass through a slit after the speaker.
>
> ???????
>
> Mariachi, take a look at this thread and the posts regarding this issue. It
> has NOTHING to do with what you are talking about (frankly, I'm not even
> sure what you are talking about). I associate slits and diffraction with
> something to do with light, not sound. I am talking about something
> completly different. In fact, difraction MAY not be an entirely accurate
> way to describe this tweeter phenomena. What I AM talking about is a
> problem with tweeters flush mounted to large baffles. Then, when these
> tweeters play their high frequencies, the sound tends to interact with the
> baffle creating subtle unwanted sonic artifacts. The resulting sound will
> be muddied and you will lose good imaging (the ability to "see" each
> instrument in space) and staging (again, the ability to imagine a 3D space
> with a height, width and depth when listening to music).
>
> But we welcome your pressence, I'm not trying to diss or embarras you, it's
> just your post has little to do with what we were discussing.
>
> MOSFET

My bad, I was just confused what you meant by diffraction. Since I
know all about diffraction in physics and modern physics, I was just
wanted to point out what it was and what it wasn't...

Talking about Polk speakers... here's some very expensive Polk 6.75"
components
Polk Audio Signature Reference SR6500
http://www.crutchfield.com/S-o18uXmYTQ2r/cgi-bin/ProdView.asp?I=107SR6500&wm=su

[MOSFET]

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-speaker-systems/hsu-research-vt-12/4505-7868_7-30790670.html
>
> http://yhst-9301186439366.stores.yahoo.net/zv325hisisus.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-Reviews/Speakers/Bass-From-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
> ups.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.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >
> >
>

[Matt Ion]

John Durbin wrote:
> 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.

I'd think that once you put aside all the nitpicking and obscure
examples, common sense would dictate that a circular cone is inherently
going to make for a less problematic design than an elliptical one.
Obviously a well-designed and well-built oval speaker will outperform
and "out-quality" a poorly designed and built round one... but all else
being equal, a round speaker will be preferable to an oval one for the
basic fact of simpler (and thus less costly) design and engineering.

>
> 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.

Not higher SENSITIVITY, necessary. Higher BASS OUTPUT from the simple
fact of having a larger cone surface, yes... at least when comparing,
say, a 6x9 to a 6.5" round. But compare to an 8" round and that
advantage is gone, as the 8" has a larger surface area again than the 6x9.

What that boils down to is, larger cone = greater bass. It's not like a
6x9 will give you more bass out of the same mounting space as a 6.5 -
it's a LARGER SPEAKER.

[MOSFET]

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-speaker-systems/hsu-research-vt-12/4505-7868_7-30790670.html
> >
> >>http://yhst-9301186439366.stores.yahoo.net/zv325hisisus.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-Reviews/Speakers/Bass-From-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
> ups.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.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>
> >
> >
>
>

[Matt Ion]

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.

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. 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.

> 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-speaker-systems/hsu-research-vt-12/4505-7868_7-30790670.html
>>>> http://yhst-9301186439366.stores.yahoo.net/zv325hisisus.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-Reviews/Speakers/Bass-From-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
>>>>>>> ups.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.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>
>>
>
>

[MOSFET]

> 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. 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.

Interesting pointm, Matt. I believe you've mentioned this before but I
forgot about this particular phenomena with oval cones. I can certainly see
your argument is a sound one (no pun intended).

MOSFET

>
> > 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-speaker-systems/hsu-research-vt-12/4505-7868_7-30790670.html
> >>>> http://yhst-9301186439366.stores.yahoo.net/zv325hisisus.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-Reviews/Speakers/Bass-From-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
> >>>>>>> ups.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.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>
> >>
> >
> >

[bob wald]

this is the stupidest decussion i ever saw.
look if it sounds good it works...the end.
if polk makes it its good......infinity too.
2 of the elite speaker makers on earth.

[Matt Ion]

bob wald wrote:
> this is the stupidest decussion i ever saw.
> look if it sounds good it works...the end.
> if polk makes it its good......infinity too.
> 2 of the elite speaker makers on earth.

What about JVC???

[Matt Ion]

MOSFET 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. 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.
>
> Interesting pointm, Matt. I believe you've mentioned this before but I
> forgot about this particular phenomena with oval cones. I can certainly see
> your argument is a sound one (no pun intended).

Really, it just comes back to common sense. Imagine the speaker without
a surround, just the cone attached to the voice coil. You could make
the cone just about any shape you want without really affecting the
sound - square, octagonal, cut out like Big Bird's head. Granted, there
will be some detrimental effect if it's significantly unbalanced
(inertia is a bitch), but as long as it's a symmetrical, centered shape,
the voice coil really won't see the difference just because the cone is
a different shape.

A cheap, under-designed surround, however, will not stretch the same at
all points on a non-circular cone. As an extreme example, imagine a
perfectly square cone (which I guess would be a pyramid, technically),
where not even the corners are rounded. If you use a non-interrupted
surround, ie. one that's fully attached to both cone and basket all the
way around, you can imagine how the surround on the corners would
stretch compared to the rest of it. Once you hit the limits of the
surround itself, it would start bending the corners of the cone down.

Obviously, the effect would not be so pronounced on an oval cone, and
the closer you get to an actual circle, the less pronounced it is, but
you see where the problem comes from. Engineering a better surround, as
I say, will mitigate the effect, but again, this is just a tendency
that's inherent to the design.

[Matt Ion]

John Durbin wrote:
> If you think speaker design does not allow a non-circular surround to be
> linear, you really do not know crap about speaker design. Please do
> yourselves a favor and pick up a copy of one of the two books I
> mentioned in my other post, and get some education.

I never said non-circular design doesn't allow linearity, I said it
makes the design and construction more complex, and poor designs are
more likely to have problems.

> I'd point you at a very skilled speaker designer I've known for many
> years that could give you chapter & verse why you're both full of crap
> but I'm pretty sure he would shoot me for making the introduction. Life
> is too short to spend it arguing with other people's guts - it's rarely
> successful, and it stinks up the neighborhood.

Whatever. You need to get yourself an education as well - English
comprehension to begin with.

>
> Matt Ion wrote:
>
>> MOSFET 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. 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.
>>>
>>>
>>> Interesting pointm, Matt. I believe you've mentioned this before but I
>>> forgot about this particular phenomena with oval cones. I can
>>> certainly see
>>> your argument is a sound one (no pun intended).
>>
>>
>> Really, it just comes back to common sense. Imagine the speaker
>> without a surround, just the cone attached to the voice coil. You
>> could make the cone just about any shape you want without really
>> affecting the sound - square, octagonal, cut out like Big Bird's
>> head. Granted, there will be some detrimental effect if it's
>> significantly unbalanced (inertia is a bitch), but as long as it's a
>> symmetrical, centered shape, the voice coil really won't see the
>> difference just because the cone is a different shape.
>>
>> A cheap, under-designed surround, however, will not stretch the same
>> at all points on a non-circular cone. As an extreme example, imagine
>> a perfectly square cone (which I guess would be a pyramid,
>> technically), where not even the corners are rounded. If you use a
>> non-interrupted surround, ie. one that's fully attached to both cone
>> and basket all the way around, you can imagine how the surround on the
>> corners would stretch compared to the rest of it. Once you hit the
>> limits of the surround itself, it would start bending the corners of
>> the cone down.
>>
>> Obviously, the effect would not be so pronounced on an oval cone, and
>> the closer you get to an actual circle, the less pronounced it is, but
>> you see where the problem comes from. Engineering a better surround,
>> as I say, will mitigate the effect, but again, this is just a tendency
>> that's inherent to the design.
>

[MOSFET]

Well, I do concede that the theory of :what seems :"logical" is a poor one
to use in proving my case. So you got me there....

AND, as I stated in my earlier post I DO NOT have first hand knowledge of
what an oval speaker would sound like in the home. So again, you got me
there.

I guess a lot of what I say comes from over 10 years of being on RAC, going
to competions, and subscribing to mags line AS&S, CSR, and CA&E. And, of
course, I have read what others have said about this so I tend to believe
THERE IS "something up"with this issue having heard foks with much more
education and first-hand knowledge than myself.

Perhaps I should not have chimed in as A) I have no personall experience
(though I have used quality aftermarket 6X9's for rear-fill) with ovals
OTHER than in the car where poor accoustics, wind, road, and the engine
produce SO much noise, evaluating SQ of a 6X9 in a car becomes nearly
impossible. B) I am no engineer and therefore I should refrain from talking
about things I have only a cursory knowledge of ( I mean, I DO know a little
like Ohm's law and such). And I REALLY try not to come off as an EE, or
know-it-all. It's just that I DO have a lot of installation experience AND
I worked at Phoenix Gold in their marketinng department (I have an MBA).

Does this make me an expert? No. But I have been into car audio for close
to 20 years now and I feel I have much to offer a newb or someone with a
problem.

But on this subject, since I have NEVER HEARD any artificats coming from a
6X9, I probably should have kept my mouth shut as I was only parroting what
others had said in the past (but again, I lack personnal experience).

MOSFET

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

[Matt Ion]

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.

[Jethro[_4_]]

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/showthread.php?t=279397
CarAudioForum.com - Usenet Gateway w/over TWO million posts online!


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

[bob wald]

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.

[bob wald]

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

[MOSFET]

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

[bob wald]

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......

[bob wald]

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

[Matt Ion]

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.

[Matt Ion]

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).

[Matt Ion]

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?

[Matt Ion]

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*

[MOSFET]

"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.

[MOSFET]

>
> 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

[MOSFET]

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).
>

[Matt Ion]

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/whitepapers/sr6500.pdf

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

[MOSFET]

.. 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

[Matt Ion]

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.

[Matt Ion]

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.
>

[MOSFET]

.. 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

[MOSFET]

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-speaker-systems/hsu-research-vt-12/4505-7868_7-30790670.html
> >
> >>>>http://yhst-9301186439366.stores.yahoo.net/zv325hisisus.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-Reviews/Speakers/Bass-From-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
> ups.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.
> >
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>

[Matt Ion]

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).

[Matt Ion]

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?

[Mariachi]

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.

[Eddie Runner]

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

[Eddie Runner]

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

[Eddie Runner]

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

[Eddie Runner]

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

[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

[Eddie Runner]

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

[Mariachi]

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.

[Matt Ion]

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.

[Mariachi]

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?

[Christopher \Torroid\ Ott]

"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

[Eddie Runner]

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

[Eddie Runner]

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

[Eddie Runner]

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

[Eddie Runner]

>> 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

[Matt Ion]

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.

[Eddie Runner]

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
>
>

[Matt Ion]

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?

[Eddie Runner]

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

[Christopher \Torroid\ Ott]

"Eddie Runner" > wrote in message
t...
> 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

[Eddie Runner]

Christopher "Torroid" Ott wrote:
> "Eddie Runner" > wrote in message
> t...
>> 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

[Jethro[_5_]]

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/showthread.php?t=279397
CarAudioForum.com - Usenet Gateway w/over TWO million posts online!


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

[Jethro[_6_]]

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/showthread.php?t=279397
CarAudioForum.com - Usenet Gateway w/over TWO million posts online!


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

[Jethro[_7_]]

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/showthread.php?t=279397
CarAudioForum.com - Usenet Gateway w/over TWO million posts online!


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

[Eddie Runner]

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.

[Eddie Runner]

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

[Daniel W. Rouse Jr.]

"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?

[[email protected]]

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

[[email protected]]

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

[[email protected]]

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

[Eddie Runner]

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

[g]

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

[Eddie Runner]

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

[g]

In article >, (G) wrote:
>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


Eddie Runner, I can't repost from your reply. There is something
in my system that prevent it. Some line too long or something.

Speaker Builder is now the combo of Audio Amateur and SB.
http://www.audioxpress.com/

greg

[MOSFET]

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
>
>
>
>

[Eddie Runner]

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