If neodymium is all that great . . .

[Bill Fitzpatrick]

I was reading that neodymium makes a much better magnet than ceramic in regards to quality sound.

If true, where are all the great woofer/mids with the new magnets? I found one ScanSpeak for $160 but that's it.

[David Gatti]

What annoys me is why aren't manufacturers exploiting neodymiums to make highly efficient woofers & mids. 100dB/2.83V would be nice..
Maybe they are harder to work with and too expensive.

[Variac]

Why don't you use the search function or Google?

Most major PA driver makers have mids and woofers- efficient too:
Eminence, PAudio, Beyma, B&C come to mind

Most all PA driver makers have a horn driver or various that use neo.


dome or cone midranges?
Morel ,Seas. HiVi

OK you didn't ask about tweeters, but
Audax, Peerless, Scanspeak, Morel ,Seas. HiVi
have neo

All those new ribbon tweeters from China- I think they use neo
as well ase Bohlender Graebener

[Zaph]

Originally posted by Bill Fitzpatrick
I was reading that neodymium makes a much better magnet than ceramic in regards to quality sound.

If true, where are all the great woofer/mids with the new magnets? I found one ScanSpeak for $160 but that's it.

There's a misconception that the type of magnet affects the sound quality. It's not true. And while Neodymium magnets are more powerfull by weight, they are typically smaller, so any gained efficiency disappears.

About the only thing Neodymiums have going for them is small cross section, which means a smaller reflection back into the rear cone. Even the benefits from that are over rated.

Alnico does not sound any better either. Flux is flux. All that matters is how it's used in a motor design.

(All IMHO)

[Bill Fitzpatrick]

Originally posted by Zaph

There's a misconception that the type of magnet affects the sound quality. It's not true.

Alnico does not sound any better either. Flux is flux.
(All IMHO)

With all due respect, I wasn't fishing for an opinion.

I have read contrawise to your statements on a number of different ocassions.

[Zaph]

Originally posted by Bill Fitzpatrick
With all due respect, I wasn't fishing for an opinion.

Sometimes I habitually add an IMHO to the end of my posts as a sort of disclaimer or flame retardant suit. It's a little less aggressive than strutting around and forcing facts down people's throats. Additionally, stating what I think are facts tends to lead me down the long road of trying to prove myself to people who are unwilling to listen. I don't have the time or patience for that. So... everything I say is an opinion.

I have read contrawise to your statements on a number of different ocassions.

I've read many claims also. To answer your original inquiry, The reason you don't see many woofers with neo magnets is because the manufacturers know that this is not a financially advantageous area to spend money in, at least with traditional motor design. There is no substantial gain except for having the buzzword "Neodymium" on the product. There's more performance gain in spending money on better cone forming equipment or machining of steel motor parts, cone materials, frame aerodynamics, coil former materials, adhesives or the R&D of the aforementioned parts. I feel inclined to add another IMHO here.

[Bill Fitzpatrick]

Just the other night I was reading a paper (which I stupidly failed to bookmark) by an individual who seems to know what he's talking about. Come to think of it, it may have been a link on the Linkwitz site.

He performed a number of test with a variety of listeners comparing ceramic and neodymium magnets on otherwise identical drivers. His focus was on how the ceramic magnet was the lesser performing in terms of how the driver handled the steep fronts of transient information. He talked much about the inability to evaluate equipment given that the speakers used to do so are so inadequate in terms of resolution and that the inadequacies could be partly addressed by using neodymium magnets. He also went on to say that the importance of "time alignment" had been unfairly minimized because of old school ideas. There was also some discussion on how the ear handles transient information.

I'm going to try to find that paper again.

I'll be back.

OK. Two minutes searching and here I am again with the link. It's the first link "Putting The Science Back In Loudspeakers." It's a pdf.

http://www.linkwitzlab.com/links.htm

[RHosch]

Hmm... the author John Watkinson is suspiciously similar to John Atkinson.

I'm sure its just a coincidence, but it did give me enough pause to decide to put off reading the paper until later.

[Depth Charge]

Hey there guys.

First of all I will say that I don't know an awfull lot about magnets, however, I have read that some magnets (Neobodenum included I think) suffer less from Barkhausen Noise than others.

Barkhausen Noise was discovered by Professor Heinrich Georg Barkhausen in 1919. It seems that in the case of loudspeakers that Barkhausen Noise describes how the voice coil jumps from one magnetic domain to another as the voice coil moves through the magnetic gap. Here are a couple of links that I attained from a quick google search.

http://www.stresstech.fi/products?id...1&parent=1&s=2
http://physics.queensu.ca/~lynann/mbnoise.html

I don't know if it's true, but I remember reading from somewhere that because of the discret steps in the magnetic feild of ceramic magnets they aparently can't even achieve 16 bit sound quality.

Interesting that, isn't it?

I hope someone more knowlegable than me can add to/clarify or maybe even correct what I have said.

[Bill Fitzpatrick]

Originally posted by Depth Charge
. . . suffer less from Barkhausen Noise than others.

He covered that in the paper as well.

I did a google on John Wilkinson and he definitely did NOT just fall off the turnip truck.