I have released a few videos recently of stuff that is of interest. Which some of you have already watched over at my you tube channel.
YouTube
I asked Mark if he would come over and record some QandA type sessions with me, to which he has graciously agreed. The purpose of this thread is to find out what you would like to ask him if you were having a conversation face to face.
Things like
Where do you see driver design ending up in the future?
YouTube
I asked Mark if he would come over and record some QandA type sessions with me, to which he has graciously agreed. The purpose of this thread is to find out what you would like to ask him if you were having a conversation face to face.
Things like
Where do you see driver design ending up in the future?
Hi Stefan,
Thanks for replying.
I'm not really sure I can answer that, I suppose my best answer is whatever Mark considers to be the best compromise between the two extremes.
As you know, there are 8" and 10" full-range drivers out there, but I can't help believe that Mark could do a much better job.
I already own a pair of 10.3 (that I bought from you), and I suppose I'd just love to try and get a bit more low frequency capability. I'm happy with how low they go (f0), I just want them to move more air before they 'clip'. In other words, I'd like the product of Xmax and Sd to be higher.
I hope that makes sense!
Ian
Thanks for replying.
I'm not really sure I can answer that, I suppose my best answer is whatever Mark considers to be the best compromise between the two extremes.
As you know, there are 8" and 10" full-range drivers out there, but I can't help believe that Mark could do a much better job.
I already own a pair of 10.3 (that I bought from you), and I suppose I'd just love to try and get a bit more low frequency capability. I'm happy with how low they go (f0), I just want them to move more air before they 'clip'. In other words, I'd like the product of Xmax and Sd to be higher.
I hope that makes sense!
Ian
I'd like to ask about if you could apply all that is known that you've done so far, and bring the overall sens up to compete with the likes of Lowther, AER, etc drivers for those that use very low wattage amps.
Something in the 95+ sens range, using a paper cone that walks all over the higher sens drivers such as Fostex, Lowther, and all the usual higher sens driver offerings out there save for the pro divers etc. And perhaps there is something to be gleaned by methods such as with the Fane TC divers that you could refine, and make the most killer high sens driver for a good part of the frequency spectrum compared to the usual offerings.
Something in the 95+ sens range, using a paper cone that walks all over the higher sens drivers such as Fostex, Lowther, and all the usual higher sens driver offerings out there save for the pro divers etc. And perhaps there is something to be gleaned by methods such as with the Fane TC divers that you could refine, and make the most killer high sens driver for a good part of the frequency spectrum compared to the usual offerings.
I think the subject of larger driver sizes and sensitivity was discussed here years ago, before Mark's retirement from active posting. Every speaker design (team) has their own set of target performance and compromise "red-lines" beyond which they have trouble ignoring the laws of physics and materials behaviour.
In the video, Mark stated that massive woofers and subwoofers are more-or-less useless for accurately reproducing music.
They may be able to produce a 40Hz sine wave, Mark says, but they cannot reproduce the "sub-frequencies" that distinguish a double bass playing a 40Hz tone from a bass guitar playing a 40Hz tone. Why? Because their massive cones absorb/mask those sub-frequencies. This makes them mere "atmosphere generators." They make "a sound" but not "music." That, says Mark, is why we need a driver like the proposed "Alpair WW." Its large, light cone can accurately reproduce bass signals, unlike a traditional subwoofer/woofer.
It seems obvious that subwoofers cannot reproduce the harmonics that distinguish a double bass playing a low C from a bass guitar playing a low C. But who would ever task a massive woofer/subwoofer with reproducing those frequencies? Isn't that what we have crossovers for?
So, sure, they are useless for reproducing music full-range. But they seem uniquely capable/well suited to accurately reproducing the portion of music they were designed for thanks, in part, to their mass.
Say I have a 15" subwoofer with a well designed motor capable of accurately controlling the cone. Say I cross it to an Alpair 11MS at 100Hz.
The Alpair's thin light cone would accurately reproduce all the sub-frequences the subwoofer's can't, and the subwoofer, operating in its pistonic range with its massive sturdy cone, could accurately reproduce all the lower frequencies that would destroy a thin, light cone.
So the mass of a subwoofer/woofer seems an asset to musical reproduction, when used properly.
What am I missing?
Or am I misunderstanding?
They may be able to produce a 40Hz sine wave, Mark says, but they cannot reproduce the "sub-frequencies" that distinguish a double bass playing a 40Hz tone from a bass guitar playing a 40Hz tone. Why? Because their massive cones absorb/mask those sub-frequencies. This makes them mere "atmosphere generators." They make "a sound" but not "music." That, says Mark, is why we need a driver like the proposed "Alpair WW." Its large, light cone can accurately reproduce bass signals, unlike a traditional subwoofer/woofer.
It seems obvious that subwoofers cannot reproduce the harmonics that distinguish a double bass playing a low C from a bass guitar playing a low C. But who would ever task a massive woofer/subwoofer with reproducing those frequencies? Isn't that what we have crossovers for?
So, sure, they are useless for reproducing music full-range. But they seem uniquely capable/well suited to accurately reproducing the portion of music they were designed for thanks, in part, to their mass.
Say I have a 15" subwoofer with a well designed motor capable of accurately controlling the cone. Say I cross it to an Alpair 11MS at 100Hz.
The Alpair's thin light cone would accurately reproduce all the sub-frequences the subwoofer's can't, and the subwoofer, operating in its pistonic range with its massive sturdy cone, could accurately reproduce all the lower frequencies that would destroy a thin, light cone.
So the mass of a subwoofer/woofer seems an asset to musical reproduction, when used properly.
What am I missing?
Or am I misunderstanding?
Last edited:
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.