| PAudio Drivers - Click HERE for Original Thread |
| ilewis33 |
Anyone have any experience, or heard anecdotes, or whispered allegations about these drivers:
http://www.commonsenseaudio.com/paudio.html
The CommonSense website is one of those annoying "every driver we sell sounds better than every other driver we sell" websites, but these are kind of intriguing. Not too much to be found online about them though.
Thanks,
Iestyn |
|
|
| MisterTwister |
paacoustic.com -manufacturers site has been down for long time already.
I wonder if company is still in business.
Those look like very nice drivers, I'd love to try 18in one in open baffle. Unfortunately there are no impedance curves on spec sheets. |
|
|
| MisterTwister |
| thanks for link. I was searching for a long time for this site :) |
|
|
| ilewis33 |
| The p-audio.co.uk ones do not look like the same drivers as the ones on commonsense, or the other ones posted. Think it may be a different manufacturer. Quite a mystery... |
|
|
| ilewis33 |
| :xeye: Heh... no, you're not missing anything, I am. Didn't see the menu on the left with ALL the drivers they made. Thank you! |
|
|
| ichiban |
If you search the diyAudio Forums > Top >Loudspeakers >Loudspeakers >Beyond the Ariel Threat for PAudio you will find the drivers mentioned in four posts. The search funtion is a bit flaky, it points you approximatly to the page, but you'll best look around the thread using the DATE & TIME stamps
from the search results. :)
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/show...t=&pagenumber=1 |
|
|
| ilewis33 |
| You know, I never noticed the "Show results as posts" option at the bottom. That is much preferable to the "show results as threads" option which seems to be the default. I tried the search with that option turned on, and got plenty of good results. Thank you! |
|
|
| holdent |
| quote: | | I'd love to try 18in one in open baffle |
Both the 15" and 18" have low Qts (.22 and .31) which suggest an OB is not a good application for these drivers. The "Open Baffles" CommonSense Audio refer to appear to be u-frames (or back-less boxes). They indicate that they use these rather than much larger BR cabs for better WAF (!).
I modeled the PAudio 18 using the enclosure size CommonSense lists (30" x 24" x 15" - HxWxD) using Martin's U_Frame_2_25_8 MathCad file and believe they are a little generous when they note "Below 63 cycles, they begin to roll off". They appear to be down -6 dB at approx. 65 Hz, dropping roughly 4 dB/octave below that. Note that I assumed they provided outside dims, the material used was 0.75" thick, and the baffle was 100m from the rear wall.
I also tried modeling it using the same dimensions but as a sealed box (with stuffing set to 0.5 lbs/ft3) and got a much better predicted response particularly closer to the back wall. The impulse reponse was much cleaner and the freq response curve was flatter. You also get other benefits including better controlled cone excursion and more control over cab vibrations. Skip the u-frame design they suggest and put the PAudio 18 in a sealed box! |
|
|
| mikey_audiogeek |
| quote: | | Both the 15" and 18" have low Qts (.22 and .31) which suggest an OB is not a good application for these drivers. |
Hi Holdent, if you search the "Beyond the Ariel" thread you'll see a graph I posted of a 15" P.Audio low QTS driver in an OB which shows that good response to 40Hz is possible and practical.
Cheers,
Mike |
|
|
| holdent |
mikey_audiogeek - the Xlbaffle sim that I found published by you at http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/show...437#post1382437 (page 119 of the thread!) seems to be of the PAudio SN-15B (a woofer) not the BM-15CX38 (a co-axial) referenced above by MisterTwister.
As well, I believe you made a mistake in your original sim by incorrectly entering the Qes and Qms values. I couldn't find them on the web for the SN-15B but you've input 2.10 and 4.99 respectively. This works out to a very high Qts of 1.478. Now this would give a good response to 40 Hz! |
|
|
| holdent |
Mike:
I've read the article you linked to and ran through some rough calculations. Unfortunately I still don't get the same Qts or simulated SPL response results. Could you post your Qts calculations? (I'm guessing you're using a tube amp). I'll run them through Martin's MathCad OB model and see what it predicts.
The T/S data at the link I included above isn't the same which may be part of the problem. The published params at the link are: Fs (Hz) = 41.0, Re (Ohm) = 6.2, Qms = 4.53, Qes = 0.25, Qts = 0.23, Vas (lt) = 196.55, Bl (T/m) = 23.84, and Le (mH) = 1.41.
Ted |
|
|
| mikey_audiogeek |
Hi Ted,
I don't have an original datasheet to hand, but my spreadsheet data was Qes = 0.17, Qms = 4.99 and (therefore) Qts = 0.16. The ouput impedance of my transconductance amplifier is adjustable between 10-100 ohms, and with an output impedance of 60 ohms gives the numbers stated.
Hope this helps!
Mike |
|
|
|
|
