Driver Size Thoughts

[theNoid]

Ok, so I'm wondering what everyone's opinion is here on how manufacturers should classify their drivers when it comes to size. Some folks feel a driver's size rating should be based upon radiating surface, others say frame measurements.

In the car audio world, it's pretty simple. For the most part you have 3.5", 4", 5.25", 6.5", 8", 10", 12", 15", and 18" as the standards. These are based roughly upon frame size, not radiating surface. For the most part, it seems to me that the manufacturers of DIY drivers as well have done pretty close to the same in the past.

I for one, feel frame measurement should be the standard. I say this based upon a couple of things. One, I don't feel a driver should be called a 5" driver when I need 6-1/8" of baffle to mount the thing properly. Of course this is on the extreme of things but even calling a particular driver a 4" driver when I need 5" bugs me at times. The second reason is driver spacing, which can be a pretty important thing to consider when desiging a mulitiple driver speaker.

For instance, back in the day, Advent made a venture into the car audio circles. They had what they called a 5-1/4" driver. It was called this because that was it's approximate frame size. But when all the rags did their reviews they would point out that since the radiating surface is so small, they should be compared with 4" drivers. Well I said, and still do say...poppycock my man, pure poppycock. When it came down to people buying the drivers, they would base much of their buying comaprison on the competition's 4" stuff. Just not fair to the competition, or the people buying the product in the end. Fact was, to mount the drivers properly as "drop-in" speakers as they were being marketed as, they needed that 5-1/4" of space. So, in all fairness to the comp and the buyer, they should have been compared to drivers in their frame-size category, in which they usually failed to "reach the bar" so to speak.

So, in closing here, it is my opinion that a particular speaker driver's size rating should be based upon it's frame size. Now I know there are MANY different frame sizes out there, but I think there should be a bit more stringent standard than is in place today...whaddayathunk folks?

Noidster

[rabbitz]

It should be the cone diameter that they use to work out the SD and really it doesn't really matter as long as there are some dimensions to work with and is mostly on data sheets.

If they were to use the outside of the basket then they'll start putting out 4" cones in 12" housing and call it a you beaut 12" driver.... what really matters is what pushes the air. So when I look for a 5" driver, I'm interested in cone diameter and the other dimensions follow.

[pinkmouse]

To be honest, unless I'm looking at bass drivers, diameter is way down the list of importance...

[MJK]

Why would one care or want standardization on driver size labeling? A drawing of the driver on the spec sheet, with key dimensions, should be enough to help make a purchase decision.

Performance is the most important characteristic and the size of the driver, or hole I cut in the baffle, does not enter into my decision process. If an "eight" diameter driver is either 7.75 inches or 8.25 inches and the cone area is a variable between manufacturers it just does not seem to be that important in the overall scheme. I would rather have the manufacturer focused on providing more accurate spec sheet data.

[theNoid]

...unless I'm looking at bass drivers, diameter is way down the list of importance...

I am sure there are many folks who think this way, but then again, there are many speakers designed around particular space issues which can make the diameter important at times.

So when I look for a 5" driver, I'm interested in cone diameter and the other dimensions follow.

So when you are looking for a 5" driver (cone diamter as per your preference), you have to look at all the drivers out there listed anywhere from 5-1/2" up to 6" and some that are even rated as larger, yet still only use a 5" cone.

If they were to use the outside of the basket then they'll start putting out 4" cones in 12" housing and call it a you beaut 12" driver.

While this is a bit of an exageration, it is exactly what brought this idea and post up to me this morning. For instance, the Tang Band W5-876SA has a usable radiating surface diameter of about 4-1/4", but it's frame diameter is over 6", but yet it is listed as a 5" driver. Where's the logic?

Why would one care or want standardization on driver size labeling?

**** I don't know, it is just something I have noticed and pondered about on occasion. Maybe someone wants to build a database for easy, quick look comparisons of certain "size" drivers they need for a particular application.

I would rather have the manufacturer focused on providing more accurate spec sheet data.

Of course that would be awesome as well, and in fact more important than the subject at h*nd. But they spend the time to design a driver, they take the time to supply a spec-sheet, they spend time and energy elsewhere, how damn hard would it be for the person designating a name or number for a driver to use the actual radiating surface or overall diameter? Not too much to ask I don't think, regardless of how minsicule it may seem.

Even if the company in question, regardless of who they are, stuck to one particular "pattern" of ratings it would be a plus in my book. Now I know no-one reads my book but me, but oh well...it's my book d*mn*it!!!

Noidster

[Cal Weldon]

Originally posted by theNoid
Now I know no-one reads my book

theNoid,

While I'm not familiar with your published literature, I do read your posts and I don't like to have to manually edit them when you circumvent the language censor.

That makes me a-Noid.

Cal

[theNoid]

Well shoot Cal, apparently I don't even read my own stuff as I have never noticed that being done here...HA!!!

Just so you know though, I do not use the asterisk to circumvent any computer monitering, it is simply a habit of mine I use even on boards that don't use such censors. For that matter, I rarley use words that aren't allowed on broadcast television or radio now-adays let alone spell them out.

Anyhow, I have searched, but cannot find a list of words that can and cannot be used here at DIYaudio.com so maybe this is another place we could use some "standardization" as thread pertains to. I ask because you bleeped my use of some 4-letter word there in my 4th "paragraph", but yet you let the 6-letter word go in my last "paragraph".

To be honest with you, I don't even remember which four letter word I used, I think it was an alternative to poop, but I thought I bleeped the vowel as is my habit online.

That makes me a-Noid.

Well then, I shall re-Cal-ibrate my language sensors while here because there is room for only one NOIDSTER!!! MUA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA

Noidster

[454Casull]

Depending on the application, the diameter can dictate the upper usable limit of the driver.

[rabbitz]

Goes like this.... work out the application.... find the suitable driver to do the job.... design the box around that driver.

Different matter if you are upgrading an existing box.

[Cal Weldon]

Originally posted by theNoid
I shall re-Cal-ibrate my language