I was looking over the spec.s on this driver and everything looked pretty good for what it was, except the distortion near fs looked UNUSUALLY good.
-then I looked more closely at the scale of the driver's KMS (X).
Yowza!
😀
Test Bench: LaVoce WAN103-01 High-Power 10” Midbass Driver | audioXpress
..makes me wonder if the spider and surround are made from cement! 😛
Note: subjectively this is sort of the epitome of "doesn't come "alive" until it's loud" - type of driver.
-then I looked more closely at the scale of the driver's KMS (X).
Yowza!
😀Test Bench: LaVoce WAN103-01 High-Power 10” Midbass Driver | audioXpress
..makes me wonder if the spider and surround are made from cement! 😛
Note: subjectively this is sort of the epitome of "doesn't come "alive" until it's loud" - type of driver.
Last edited:
I'm guessing the person that gave the thread one star was looking for something else based on the thread's title..
-it's literally an order of magnitude more than what I would consider a "stiff" driver which is about 2.
Particularly for a midbass driver.
(..I've seen pro and car-audio subwoofers at 4-8.)
Particularly for a midbass driver.
(..I've seen pro and car-audio subwoofers at 4-8.)
before your exalted wisdom with such an astute and decisive decision. Sometimes I wonder if their data is off. They get some strange numbers at times. Even B&C's 21DS115 maxes out at 13 N/mm at 15mm and 7 N/mm at resting position.
Listed at a barely perceptible .12 from their datasheet, and it's probably lower than that because Qm on their data sheet is higher (4) than what's being measured here (3.58 to 3.11).
Note: Measured (in article) on a Klippel (for fig.s 5-9) based on Klippel's method.
Last edited:
So i guess the only logical way to use it is in a large midrange horn with a lot of fire on its terminals.
But assuming the T/S parameters are correct, I've found a woofer with an even lower CMS - Tannoy V12 12" woofer CMS = 0.079
Got to admit that I don't understand Klippel measurements. I really should read up on it.
It's likely a "back-horn" ("scoop") or TQWT driver.
Such an acoustic device unloads the driver at low freq.s (wanting a driver that won't go into over-excursion easily) AND requires it to be very resistant from "waffling" (..where the resonances from the rear are trying to modulate the diaphragm).
IF you put this in a front horn, then you have to crank-up the pressure even more to get past that "small driver" sound; you are getting added "gain" here reducing driver excursion and voltage for a given spl. Same problem with using multiple drivers - requiring even louder output before the driver "wakes up" (..depending on the low-pass nature of the design).
On the other hand, when this driver does "wake up": holy cr@p will this thing be a "punch" to the gut, more so in a bass reflex design with a lower freq. tuning point. My guess though is that even with such a bass reflex design that you would be above 90 db 2-meter in-room average before the thing started to sound excellent.
IF you did this with a lower freq. tuning AND started with the low-pass as a corrective filter near 80 Hz or so, then it would probably "wake up" at lower pressure levels, BUT you'd be spl-limited.
Last edited: