Hi Prashanthb,
Don't take this personally. I am not criticizing your view point.
I am only focusing your attention that these drivers are built for a specific purpose. The cone manufacture who produces these stiff surround/cones also make soft surround/cones of similar cone bodies in all possible stiffness/weight/shape & profiles.
The end driver manufacturer has a freedom to choose what ever is required for.
It's not that soft complaint surround/cones are not of versatile use.
They are well established in there own work place.
All depends on the application, where these stiff one goes to these extreme end car subwoofers.
Softer one's considered for hi-fi use at home and studio's.
Softer ones will rip apart is subjected to the workload for extreme car audio.
Discussing on cone travel / cone & surround material etc. is another point of discussion, will not be correct here to discuss in this thread for now.
I only intend to clarify my point on the stiff surround drivers which according to you is worthless and bad speaker.
Don't take this personally. I am not criticizing your view point.
I am only focusing your attention that these drivers are built for a specific purpose. The cone manufacture who produces these stiff surround/cones also make soft surround/cones of similar cone bodies in all possible stiffness/weight/shape & profiles.
The end driver manufacturer has a freedom to choose what ever is required for.
It's not that soft complaint surround/cones are not of versatile use.
They are well established in there own work place.
All depends on the application, where these stiff one goes to these extreme end car subwoofers.
Softer one's considered for hi-fi use at home and studio's.
Softer ones will rip apart is subjected to the workload for extreme car audio.
Discussing on cone travel / cone & surround material etc. is another point of discussion, will not be correct here to discuss in this thread for now.
I only intend to clarify my point on the stiff surround drivers which according to you is worthless and bad speaker.
I am very sorry if I sounded harsh Mr. Sidewinder18x. I absolutely did not intend that. Probably my mind suspension was stiff yesterday night
.With due respect to all categories of music I state that stiff drivers are bad designs.
1)Stiffness higher than required will modify the sound reproduced.
2)High stiffness in fact reduces the low frequency SPL potential of that driver. So you have to use more power to get same SPLs, which is unnecessary waste.
3)If appropriate modern materials are used, then you can make a driver with the near correct damping and spring rate and still not tear apart at high SPLs. These can be used anywhere, car or home.
Please do tell me your views in support of the stiff suspension.
.With due respect to all categories of music I state that stiff drivers are bad designs.1)Stiffness higher than required will modify the sound reproduced.
2)High stiffness in fact reduces the low frequency SPL potential of that driver. So you have to use more power to get same SPLs, which is unnecessary waste.
3)If appropriate modern materials are used, then you can make a driver with the near correct damping and spring rate and still not tear apart at high SPLs. These can be used anywhere, car or home.
Please do tell me your views in support of the stiff suspension.
Last edited:
hmm ... well, if your demand is 20-30mm Xmax the surround will need to be quite big, and thus also sturdy, or the cone will wobble like a drunk sailor (and distort)
and the cone will likewise have to be very strong, and thus also heavy, and again ... bla bla, and so on
Xmax seem to be the end killer
and the cone will likewise have to be very strong, and thus also heavy, and again ... bla bla, and so on
Xmax seem to be the end killer
Yes it is a difficult challenge but there is a work around for that. Use multiple drivers. So (Xmax/no. of drivers) will be 'manageable Xmax'. But this will increase the cost of the system but cost is no object in our discussion here. There is another work around. Just listen at sane SPL levels(like me).
And tinitus, modern materials do allow you to be light and sturdy at the same time and at not so expensive prices.
Again I state this, there is nothing like loose or stiff suspension. There is only one suspension. That is a "correct suspension" for a given moving mass in grams. If by mistake it is loose, you can increase stiffness by using appropriate enclosures. But if it is stiff, I dont know of any method by which you can decrease stiffness. So that driver has to be let go!
I would like to know if the 3 points I mentioned above are right or wrong.
). And tinitus, modern materials do allow you to be light and sturdy at the same time and at not so expensive prices.
Again I state this, there is nothing like loose or stiff suspension. There is only one suspension. That is a "correct suspension" for a given moving mass in grams. If by mistake it is loose, you can increase stiffness by using appropriate enclosures. But if it is stiff, I dont know of any method by which you can decrease stiffness. So that driver has to be let go!
I would like to know if the 3 points I mentioned above are right or wrong.
yeah, very thick poly
and not so new at all plastic bucket cone, and rubber boot surround, will last forever
With a sealed cabinet, you can benefit by using a looser suspension. If the cabinet is opened back (like most guitar amps) or vented, a tighter suspension may be wiser. If the woofer is going to be pushed real hard (lots of watts), tighter suspension is wiser. Room acoustics and where the woofer is located within that room will have a very large effect on the overall sound, independent of everything else.
@Bob: I would put it this way. Sealed or vented or open,a "sound making device"(includes enclosure), must have the correct suspension to get accurate sound. Now, if you are afraid of damaging your drivers, then use other methods to get high SPLs but whatever it is; suspension rate cannot be changed. It is tied to the moving mass. You can go ahead and change it, but at the cost of sound quality. To keep the discussion simple lets ignore room acoustics for now, or just imagine you are testing the speaker in a well damped listening room.
"If the woofer is going to be pushed real hard (lots of watts), tighter suspension is wiser."
Would it be incorrect if I say......
If the woofer is going to be pushed real hard (lots of watts), the same suspension rate but stronger material is wiser.
"If the woofer is going to be pushed real hard (lots of watts), tighter suspension is wiser."
Would it be incorrect if I say......
If the woofer is going to be pushed real hard (lots of watts), the same suspension rate but stronger material is wiser.
I would suggest to try a woofer type like the ones made by SB Acoustics
not really subwoofers as such, but more like woofers with low Fs and good Xmax
and Mivoc have designed new 12" with adjustable Fs
I don't know, but might be more 'sub oriented'
It's hard to give a helpful answer to such a general question. There are all kinds of criteria that should be considered when choosing any driver. I think the original question was more about, why is there such a big difference in suspension tightness from one driver to another?
Xmax is one of the first specs I look at, along with frequency response, and is the suspension foam (no good) or rubber. Then rear venting (pole piece and spider), efficiency, box design specs, shorting ring on the pole piece, etc.
If I'm building a guitar amp, I want cones with no ribs (cone breakup is a fun distortion IMO), efficiency, power handling, smaller voice coil so high end response is probably better, etc.
SB brand does seem to be pretty good, but most brands have some good drivers and many bad ones if you look at frequency response graphs and Xmax. It always depends on what you want it to do.
Xmax is one of the first specs I look at, along with frequency response, and is the suspension foam (no good) or rubber. Then rear venting (pole piece and spider), efficiency, box design specs, shorting ring on the pole piece, etc.
If I'm building a guitar amp, I want cones with no ribs (cone breakup is a fun distortion IMO), efficiency, power handling, smaller voice coil so high end response is probably better, etc.
SB brand does seem to be pretty good, but most brands have some good drivers and many bad ones if you look at frequency response graphs and Xmax. It always depends on what you want it to do.
not many brands with good 12"
and Fs is lower than most other
but I find the 6mm pole plate a bit 'wimpy'
though the new 12" appear to have 8mm poleplate, which ought to be a good improvement
(well, I think its a new driver)
Hi Prashanthb,
I really appreciate your perspectives and views on suspension stiffness. You speak intelligently as to what you had found to be correct according to theory's and laws of physics. But .... But you had not been into transducer engineering or are a part of loudspeaker fabrication industry. But here in the real world things work in a different way. Technology and recipe to driver's are not an open book. They are confined to limited information to the end users. What material to be used ?, why to use ?,where to use?, how to use?...... Is not relieved discreetly.
Limited information is provided for technology and other aspect, they are confined. Preventing leak out of technical know how. See, as you say soft suspension reacts to signal faithfully in real time. The one fitted with a stiff surround. ..... every thing which goes with it .... the cone body, the spider, the voice coil, the motor design are in contrast to it.
This approach or design ensures a driver to operate at high power levels and higher x-max capabilities. It will be as similar to a soft suspension driver moment in its region of operating parameters.
What I mean to say both can be same in term of reaction to a signal but will differ in power handling and x-max travels.
I am looking forward for a discussion with you. What is your contact no. ?.
My mob no. 09331927102. (Vivek)
Thanks for you reply Mr. Sidewinder18x.
With all due respects to you sir, I still am not finding proof in your(or anybody else) statement that stiff suspension allows higher power handling capabilities. It remains an unsubstantiated statement. While in the real world, I find proof of the reverse. Two drivers(one stiff and other correct suspension rate) fed with same amount of power, the second one will make more sound!!!! If you do not want it to get damaged, then use stronger materials(and stronger does not have to mean heavy). This is about max power capability which I was not interested in discussing. I wanted to talk about quality of sound. The OP too wanted that.
And I will not accept it if you say physics behaves different in the manufacturing world. If it behaves different then I am missing some parameters in my evaluation and you are not disclosing those extra parameters. I do not think there is some 'super secret' deference between stiff and loose suspension drivers.
But I will go away now to take care of my other tasks. I think it would be appropriate to discuss this topic outside this thread at a later time, so that it doesn’t get hijacked and the OP gets his dilemma cleared by experts. I will invite you and others to that thread. And it would be better if it is in written form rather than discussing on the telephone. But thanks for your number, I would like to meet you some day to gain more insight into the loudspeaker industry.
I would close my comments with this post directed towards the OP. According to me, you should be selecting a driver with high compliance and low moving mass values. Only then you will get the correct/near correct sound without expending energy unnecessarily.
With all due respects to you sir, I still am not finding proof in your(or anybody else) statement that stiff suspension allows higher power handling capabilities. It remains an unsubstantiated statement. While in the real world, I find proof of the reverse. Two drivers(one stiff and other correct suspension rate) fed with same amount of power, the second one will make more sound!!!! If you do not want it to get damaged, then use stronger materials(and stronger does not have to mean heavy). This is about max power capability which I was not interested in discussing. I wanted to talk about quality of sound. The OP too wanted that.
And I will not accept it if you say physics behaves different in the manufacturing world. If it behaves different then I am missing some parameters in my evaluation and you are not disclosing those extra parameters. I do not think there is some 'super secret' deference between stiff and loose suspension drivers.
But I will go away now to take care of my other tasks. I think it would be appropriate to discuss this topic outside this thread at a later time, so that it doesn’t get hijacked and the OP gets his dilemma cleared by experts. I will invite you and others to that thread. And it would be better if it is in written form rather than discussing on the telephone. But thanks for your number, I would like to meet you some day to gain more insight into the loudspeaker industry.
I would close my comments with this post directed towards the OP. According to me, you should be selecting a driver with high compliance and low moving mass values. Only then you will get the correct/near correct sound without expending energy unnecessarily.
Last edited:
Hi Prashanthb,
If you do not agree with me that fine. No regrets !.
Very respected Mr.Dan Wiggins, a well know name in the audio society, his highly acclaimed XBL motor techonolgy. See his details on surround stiffness in his Shiva subwoofer.
Kindly open attach file to view details on Shive subwoofer from Adire Audio.
If you do not agree with me that fine. No regrets !.
Very respected Mr.Dan Wiggins, a well know name in the audio society, his highly acclaimed XBL motor techonolgy. See his details on surround stiffness in his Shiva subwoofer.
Kindly open attach file to view details on Shive subwoofer from Adire Audio.
Mr.Dan Wiggins agrees with me
added dramatically to the stiffness of the suspension, resulting in a much higher Fs
His motor design(in this document) is same as others in concept. No secret sauce here. Still you have to answer many of my other points. Please come to the new thread later and discuss it in detail rather than posting any more here. I will also refine my questions/case so that it is clear to everybody. To the OP my suggestion still holds.Bye.
added dramatically to the stiffness of the suspension, resulting in a much higher Fs
His motor design(in this document) is same as others in concept. No secret sauce here. Still you have to answer many of my other points. Please come to the new thread later and discuss it in detail rather than posting any more here. I will also refine my questions/case so that it is clear to everybody. To the OP my suggestion still holds.Bye.
Last edited:
Mr.Dan Wiggins agrees with me
added dramatically to the stiffness of the suspension, resulting in a much higher Fs
His motor design(in this document) is same as others in concept. No secret sauce here. Still you have to answer many of my other points. Please come to the new thread later and discuss it in detail rather than posting any more here. I will also refine my questions/case so that it is clear to everybody. To the OP my suggestion still holds.Bye.
As stated by Mr. Dan Wiggins Shiva subwoofer whitepaper, he states .........
Additionally, thin and loose surrounds, both foam and rubber, can experience "suck back" at high SPLs when the negative pressure (relative to ambient outside pressure) inside the box literally pulls the surround backwards, flipping it inside out and quickly destroying it. To avoid this effect, the surround must be made thick. However, synthetic and rubber surrounds of sufficient thickness to avoid this problem would have added dramatically to the stiffness of the suspension, resulting in a much higher Fs. The foam material used on the Shiva surround allows for sufficient thickness to avoid suckback, but without the negative effects of a much stiffer suspension.
You had refered "added dramatically to the stiffness of the suspension, resulting in a much higher Fs" that line in incomplete.
You had skipped ........ "would have" in the beginning. ???????????
Isn't that changes the entire meaninng of that line ?????????.
Follow what he is trying to say ..... would have added dramatically to the stiffness of the suspension, resulting in a much higher Fs.
The foam material used on the Shiva surround allows for sufficient thickness to avoid suckback, but without the negative effects of a much stiffer suspension. ........ (which means not higher fs in his case).
(1) .fs of shiva subwoofer is 21Hz
(2). over here in this case again material science ..... "foam material used on the Shiva surround" .
I urge Sir. Tinitus who had been very kind and been in touch with this discussion all this while and other respected members to kindly go to page.11 on Shiva subwoofer whitepaper attached details and decide if I am correct or incorrect.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.