|
|||||||
| Home | Forums | Rules | Articles | Store | Gallery | Blogs | Register | Donations | FAQ | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read | Search |
| 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 |
|
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#1 |
|
diyAudio Member
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Ft. Worth, TX
|
So do these three parameters explain a drivers abilities?
I mean can you tell a good driver just by looking at these three parameters, or at least get a good idea of a driver? Consider the following drivers; Driver1 6" Qms 5.56 Qes 0.49 Qts 0.45 Driver2 7" Qms 1.77 Qes 0.46 Qts 0.36 Driver3 7" Qms 7.00 Qes 0.38 Qts 0.36 Driver4 6.5" Qms 3.47 Qes 1.15 Qts 0.86 Now just considering these parameters can you get an idea of which would be better or which would be worse? Some have high mechanical Q, some have high Electrical Q....does it make a difference? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Now to see how well you guessed, I'll devulge the names of the drivers. I'm not trying to say anyone brand is better than the other I just tried to find different examples from different price points. Driver1 = (HiVi M6N) $45 Driver2 = (Vifa XG18WH00-08) $93 Driver3 = (Focal 7W4411) $151 Driver4 = (Goldwood) $17 Just wanted to include a wide range of prices and specs. I know this will probably spark some debate. I know these must mean something. Someone on here once said that Tang Bands were not good drivers because they were not physically made to the same standards that traditional European drivers are, yet those numbers don't seem to reflect that. If anything Focal has horrendous Qms values when compared to their prices, while Scan Speak long known as a "great" brand has high prices, but values that are more in line with everyone else. |
|
|
|
#2 |
|
diyAudio Moderator
|
You skipped to the second question without asking the first- how do you define "good"? A driver which is fine for design A may be lousy for design B.
__________________
If there's a sucker born every minute, where do the rest of them come from? |
|
|
|
#3 |
|
diyAudio Member
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Peterborough, Ontario
|
I think it depends more on how honest the company is when they quote their specs. They can put anything they want. Perhaps if the TB drivers aren't made to the same quality, its not that the overall parameters are worse or better, but the drivers may not come out the same off the production line... Ie. greater variance in production.
Pete |
|
|
|
#4 | |
|
diyAudio Member
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Brighton UK
|
Quote:
Seems to me you don't understand what Qms is. Qts is the result of both Qe and Qms. Qms tells you something........ but hardly the total picture. sreten.
|
|
|
|
|
#5 |
|
diyAudio Member
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Belgium
|
Just keep in mind these figures will give you a prediction in physical behaviour of the drivers, but NO information about sound quality. It's comparable to distortion figures in amplifiers: high feedback gives nice figures but sound dull.
A correct tuned enclosure is only a beginning... |
|
|
|
#6 | |
|
diyAudio Member
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Stockholm
|
Quote:
On top of that, there are a *bunch* of other parameters that will determine the end quality of your system, like Xmax, Power handling capacity, cone breakups etc. Qts=Qes*Qms/(Qes+Qms), and it is only Qts that is important. Well, almost. |
|
|
|
|
#7 |
|
diyAudio Member
|
of course there are other parameters (just ask hunter audio) but i think the question here is how far do Qes and Qms go to explain the driver. i dont know where i read this but somewhere in te back of my head a little voice tells me to keep Qms under 5 and Qes under 1 (preferably under 0.7).
i cant remember where this recomendation was posted or typed.
__________________
...still looking for the holy grail. |
|
|
|
#8 | |
|
diyAudio Member
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Switzerland
|
Quote:
Regards Charles |
|
|
|
|
#9 | |
|
diyAudio Member
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Stockholm
|
Quote:
Why would low mechanical losses be important? Are they worse than electrical? |
|
|
|
|
#10 |
|
diyAudio Member
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Belgium
|
Why would low mechanical losses be important? Are they worse than electrical?
they are not worse but mostly related to the fact that efficiency is traded for a more flat response. In most cases suspension stiffness and freq-response-behaviour is chosen to modify or smooth out some peaks in overall freq-response. This can cause a 'foggy' ie. less grainy response. That's the main reason I personally tend to prefer pro-drivers. Frequency-response smoothed-out electronically by means of a dsp is far better than damping the whole speaker response. |
|
![]() |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| Please explain what I did | amo | Solid State | 22 | 16th July 2008 12:56 PM |
| can please someone explain this to me? | krusty75 | Tubes / Valves | 6 | 18th February 2008 09:38 AM |
| Please explain OS vs. NOS to me... | Lyra | Digital Source | 18 | 5th January 2004 03:45 AM |
| Can someone explain to me? | MaXiZ | Solid State | 3 | 12th November 2003 09:36 PM |
| Can someone explain to me this? | MaXiZ | Solid State | 17 | 1st October 2003 06:43 AM |
| New To Site? | Need Help? |