Looking for 10-inch speakers with a QTS 3.0 - Page 2 - diyAudio
Go Back   Home > Forums > Loudspeakers > Multi-Way

Multi-Way Conventional loudspeakers with crossovers

Please consider donating to help us continue to serve you.

Ads on/off / Custom Title / More PMs / More album space / Advanced printing & mass image saving
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 1st May 2013, 05:59 PM   #11
OMNIFEX is offline OMNIFEX  Jamaica
diyAudio Member
 
OMNIFEX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Locked Up In The Amp Rack
Quote:
Originally Posted by whgeiger View Post
I am uncertain how that pertains to me looking to replace six 10-inch drivers with a QTS of 3.0 I damaged 20 years ago for a pair of column boxes. I have two originals that are working so I know the driver’s strong and weak points.
__________________
OMNIFEX
  Reply With Quote
Old 1st May 2013, 07:53 PM   #12
sreten is offline sreten  United Kingdom
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Brighton UK
Pyramid Studio Pro WH10 10" Woofer Accordian Surround 290-262

Hi,

The above is near 2. I wouldn't be too precious about hitting 3,
and I'd ditch the last two working drivers, go all new drivers.

rgds, sreten.
__________________
There is nothing so practical as a really good theory - Ludwig Boltzmann
When your only tool is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail - Abraham Maslow
  Reply With Quote
Old 1st May 2013, 07:54 PM   #13
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Pensacola, Florida
Default Outlines System Design using High [QTS] drivers.

Quote:
Originally Posted by OMNIFEX View Post
I am uncertain how that pertains to me looking to replace six 10-inch drivers with a QTS of 3.0 I damaged 20 years ago for a pair of column boxes. I have two originals that are working so I know the driverís strong and weak points.
The matching problem (Drivers to Enclosure) is not tied to a single driver dimension [QTS]. That is what the referenced post is telling you. You may relax the [QTS] requirement somewhat if [QMS] & [Fs] are close. In any case for best results, as stated before, replace or rebuild all the 10" drivers. WHG
  Reply With Quote
Old 1st May 2013, 08:27 PM   #14
sreten is offline sreten  United Kingdom
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Brighton UK
Hi,

Qts and open baffles have little to do with column PA speakers, unless
the PA speakers are open backed and then effectively folded baffles.

High Qts is not now common but it was. High Qts implies small magnets
and low midband efficiency, but can correct baffle step to a degree, giving
a richer vocal reproduction, and relatively good bass efficiency on the cheap.

rgds, sreten.
__________________
There is nothing so practical as a really good theory - Ludwig Boltzmann
When your only tool is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail - Abraham Maslow

Last edited by sreten; 1st May 2013 at 08:30 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 1st May 2013, 08:37 PM   #15
Hentai is offline Hentai  Romania
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
How sure are you they were really having Qts= 3.0? Check the ones that you still have again. Some pictures can reveal certain construction features also perhaps there are some part numbers on the pair you have.
  Reply With Quote
Old 2nd May 2013, 12:21 AM   #16
OMNIFEX is offline OMNIFEX  Jamaica
diyAudio Member
 
OMNIFEX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Locked Up In The Amp Rack
Quote:
Originally Posted by whgeiger View Post
The matching problem (Drivers to Enclosure) is not tied to a single driver dimension [QTS]. That is what the referenced post is telling you. You may relax the [QTS] requirement somewhat if [QMS] & [Fs] are close. In any case for best results, as stated before, replace or rebuild all the 10" drivers. WHG
I already had 10's that are somewhat close in the QMS & fs of the original 10's in the column boxes. However, a QTS of 0.4 sounds anaemic to a QTS of 3.0

It will be difficult for anyone to comprehend the tonal difference unless they have drivers with a high QTS within that region to make a comparison. Id rather use a QTS of 2.0 on those Pyramid's sreten suggested for it will offer closer results to 3.0

And knowing Pyramid's history the QTS is more than likely higher than 1.98

Here is a wav clip of what two old 10’s with a QTS of 3.0 sounds like in one column box sitting on top of another box with the microphone around 12 feet away.

http://www.filedropper.com/twooldtensinonecolumnbox
__________________
OMNIFEX
  Reply With Quote
Old 2nd May 2013, 10:56 PM   #17
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Pensacola, Florida
Default Drive Signal?

Quote:
Originally Posted by OMNIFEX View Post
I already had 10's that are somewhat close in the QMS & fs of the original 10's in the column boxes. However, a QTS of 0.4 sounds anaemic to a QTS of 3.0

It will be difficult for anyone to comprehend the tonal difference unless they have drivers with a high QTS within that region to make a comparison. Id rather use a QTS of 2.0 on those Pyramid's sreten suggested for it will offer closer results to 3.0

And knowing Pyramid's history the QTS is more than likely higher than 1.98

Here is a wav clip of what two old 10ís with a QTS of 3.0 sounds like in one column box sitting on top of another box with the microphone around 12 feet away.

http://www.filedropper.com/twooldtensinonecolumnbox
Were you driving the 10's with a separate amplifier?

Last edited by whgeiger; 2nd May 2013 at 11:00 PM. Reason: Question
  Reply With Quote
Old 2nd May 2013, 11:13 PM   #18
sreten is offline sreten  United Kingdom
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Brighton UK
Hi,

Putting low Qts drivers into older radios, radiograms, jukeboxs and
the like is a sure fire way of losing most of the warmth they have.

rgds, sreten.

Still I'd regard a Qts of 3.0 as OK for such things, which typically
have perforated backs and are folded open baffles. For a box Qbox
can only go up, even well stuffed, Qts = 2 should work as well as 3.
__________________
There is nothing so practical as a really good theory - Ludwig Boltzmann
When your only tool is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail - Abraham Maslow
  Reply With Quote
Old 3rd May 2013, 04:38 AM   #19
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Seattle, WA
Quote:
Originally Posted by OMNIFEX View Post
Here is a wav clip of what two old 10ís with a QTS of 3.0 sounds like in one column box sitting on top of another box with the microphone around 12 feet away.

http://www.filedropper.com/twooldtensinonecolumnbox
mmm....that's good stuff.
__________________
Then again, what do I know?
  Reply With Quote
Old 3rd May 2013, 06:46 AM   #20
diyAudio Member
 
mondogenerator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: City Of Villans
Blog Entries: 1
i know some of visaton low budget hifi stuff have Qts of about 1.5 but i doubt Qms would be close, and i also doubt they suit PA at all. WS250E if i recall is the model.
__________________
Every new piece of knowledge pushes something else out of my brain - Homer.....................Simpson
  Reply With Quote

Reply


Hide this!Advertise here!
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
10 inch sub in a pick-up Dan2 Car Audio 14 4th June 2012 01:41 PM
Can I run a 10 inch JL audio and a 12 inch JL audio off same amp ash4kel Car Audio 2 8th April 2011 02:12 AM
Which 10 inch kits ? qguy Subwoofers 3 30th May 2008 12:27 AM
Resistor to change Qts of 12 inch driver ashok Multi-Way 0 26th May 2007 02:19 AM
JL W3v3 10-inch or 12-inch? bad1301forlife Subwoofers 1 1st April 2007 09:05 AM


New To Site? Need Help?

All times are GMT. The time now is 04:43 PM.


vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright ©1999-2014 diyAudio

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2