I think you guys first need to agree on what is this "speed" you're discussing. I suspect diyiggy is referring to a certain characteristic of the sound a speaker makes, I'm not sure it necessarily relates to the linear cone speed or acceleration.
Quoting myself from an earlier thread
https://www.diyaudio.com/community/...rease-sound-stage.382407/page-20#post-6941810
Fast bass… what does it mean?
People can hear a qualitative difference in bass performance between speakers, that much is obvious. Some bass sounds are percussive and highly dynamic, such as kick drum, electric bass, plucked double bass. With such sounds, some speakers give the impression of being slow or sluggish. Other speakers give the impression of being closer to the original sound, more real. People like to use the term “fast” to describe this impression.
The cone of the bass driver undergoes the full swing of velocity and acceleration with each cycle it makes. It fully accelerates to full velocity in one direction, then fully accelerates to full velocity in the other direction. If two speakers with the same Sd are playing a 40 Hz tone at the same dB SPL, both are radiating the same energy, both cones are experiencing the same velocity and acceleration. There is no difference in speed between the two, even if one sounds slow and the other fast. The higher the SPL, the higher the acceleration and velocity.
A transient bass sound with a peak SPL of 100 dB does not require more cone acceleration or velocity than a steady state sound of 100 dB. As the sound builds up in SPL, the acceleration increases. When a bass driver recreates a percussive, dynamic sound, the maximum velocity and acceleration is NOT at the start of the sound, but when the sound reaches max SPL and begins to decay.
None of this is new, and most of us know this. So what is going on here? Well, “fast bass” is just a description of how we perceive the sound. People who use the term “fast” to describe how they perceive bass sound quality are not foolish or stupid, but they may be confused about the physics involved. But not always... I like to use the term "fast" to describe high quality bass that preserves the punch and dynamics of the real event. It is just a word that captures their perception. They (and I) are hearing something, some aspect of performance, and it is probably a complicated set of acoustic processes that make bass sound “fast” rather than the more typical “slow or sluggish”.
So we should keep this in mind when someone talks about “fast” bass. They are hearing something real, something which is qualitatively better about the bass performance. It may be something we may not fully understand. We may need to describe the physics to them, but lecturing them about how “fast bass” is impossible is not helpful.
https://www.diyaudio.com/community/...rease-sound-stage.382407/page-20#post-6941810
Fast bass… what does it mean?
People can hear a qualitative difference in bass performance between speakers, that much is obvious. Some bass sounds are percussive and highly dynamic, such as kick drum, electric bass, plucked double bass. With such sounds, some speakers give the impression of being slow or sluggish. Other speakers give the impression of being closer to the original sound, more real. People like to use the term “fast” to describe this impression.
The cone of the bass driver undergoes the full swing of velocity and acceleration with each cycle it makes. It fully accelerates to full velocity in one direction, then fully accelerates to full velocity in the other direction. If two speakers with the same Sd are playing a 40 Hz tone at the same dB SPL, both are radiating the same energy, both cones are experiencing the same velocity and acceleration. There is no difference in speed between the two, even if one sounds slow and the other fast. The higher the SPL, the higher the acceleration and velocity.
A transient bass sound with a peak SPL of 100 dB does not require more cone acceleration or velocity than a steady state sound of 100 dB. As the sound builds up in SPL, the acceleration increases. When a bass driver recreates a percussive, dynamic sound, the maximum velocity and acceleration is NOT at the start of the sound, but when the sound reaches max SPL and begins to decay.
None of this is new, and most of us know this. So what is going on here? Well, “fast bass” is just a description of how we perceive the sound. People who use the term “fast” to describe how they perceive bass sound quality are not foolish or stupid, but they may be confused about the physics involved. But not always... I like to use the term "fast" to describe high quality bass that preserves the punch and dynamics of the real event. It is just a word that captures their perception. They (and I) are hearing something, some aspect of performance, and it is probably a complicated set of acoustic processes that make bass sound “fast” rather than the more typical “slow or sluggish”.
So we should keep this in mind when someone talks about “fast” bass. They are hearing something real, something which is qualitatively better about the bass performance. It may be something we may not fully understand. We may need to describe the physics to them, but lecturing them about how “fast bass” is impossible is not helpful.
I do not say a cone has to move faster or slower to reach a frequency. But to reach a spl if it has different size as an answer to YKY member about PA driver that are bigger with more efficienty as a possible attribute to be faster. This is wrong and I try to explain the speed of a cone is not related to the frequency it has to play but the spl it has to produce related to the cone size/shape, i.e. quantity of air pushed in a time windows to reach a spl level. This spl level is required to compare two units of a different size if we talk about speed, i.e. speed of the cone.
Your answer: the bigger will have higher spl because at the same xmax reached it has bigger Sd (bigger Sd at iso distance equals higher spl if I am not wrong).
Speed is about distance A to B. I do not say the air will move faster to you ears but the little cone will have to move faster THAN the bigger one in order to compress the same air to produce the same spl level because it HAS to reach twice the distance from the rest point. In your illustration if the Xmax is not enough for the littliest driver to reach the same spl : bing driver broken (because in your illustration for the same spl the 5" would have certainly to move 10 mm not 5 mm (again numbers just for illustration).
If we talk about the speed of a driver, i.e. speed of its cone, it is not related to frequency (where I am not agree with TNT) but spl level when comparing two drivers of a different cone size. Imo TNT is talking about speed of frequency, not spl. A wave length (a frequency) has the same speed whatever the spl, we do not talk about that.
you all, are talking of subjective perception which will be related (according YNY) with speed of a driver. What you ear is not the speed of the cone (but if we talk about the same spl of two different sized cone). what you hear when you talk about the wrong term of speed for sound perception is about groupo delay, delay introduced between two driver because the filter slope; group delay, harmonics BUT not the speed of the cone. maybe cleaner THD helps because less distance of the cone, maybe also less speed of it, i.e. less break ups of its surface. But here one should talk of clean, not speed.
I just eventually say that what YNY is experiencing with his big 15" is not a faster driver at iso spl with a little cone (beginning and topic of the discussion about speed) but exactly the opposite. If I am wrong with that, (and I am ok to be wrong as far it is the truth) I have not seen yet the explanation here.
The cone will move as fast as needed to reach the spl you need, and this speed of the cone to reach this SPL is about its size (not the efficienty) : maybe I am wrong about the size, it is more about its air mass it can contains and push ? I of course assume the two different cone for the comparaison have the same Z delay distance to the listener.
speed of bass is another discussion and related to the percieved harmonics in an acurate time windows.
I missed my Netflix because of that !
Your answer: the bigger will have higher spl because at the same xmax reached it has bigger Sd (bigger Sd at iso distance equals higher spl if I am not wrong).
Speed is about distance A to B. I do not say the air will move faster to you ears but the little cone will have to move faster THAN the bigger one in order to compress the same air to produce the same spl level because it HAS to reach twice the distance from the rest point. In your illustration if the Xmax is not enough for the littliest driver to reach the same spl : bing driver broken (because in your illustration for the same spl the 5" would have certainly to move 10 mm not 5 mm (again numbers just for illustration).
If we talk about the speed of a driver, i.e. speed of its cone, it is not related to frequency (where I am not agree with TNT) but spl level when comparing two drivers of a different cone size. Imo TNT is talking about speed of frequency, not spl. A wave length (a frequency) has the same speed whatever the spl, we do not talk about that.
you all, are talking of subjective perception which will be related (according YNY) with speed of a driver. What you ear is not the speed of the cone (but if we talk about the same spl of two different sized cone). what you hear when you talk about the wrong term of speed for sound perception is about groupo delay, delay introduced between two driver because the filter slope; group delay, harmonics BUT not the speed of the cone. maybe cleaner THD helps because less distance of the cone, maybe also less speed of it, i.e. less break ups of its surface. But here one should talk of clean, not speed.
I just eventually say that what YNY is experiencing with his big 15" is not a faster driver at iso spl with a little cone (beginning and topic of the discussion about speed) but exactly the opposite. If I am wrong with that, (and I am ok to be wrong as far it is the truth) I have not seen yet the explanation here.
The cone will move as fast as needed to reach the spl you need, and this speed of the cone to reach this SPL is about its size (not the efficienty) : maybe I am wrong about the size, it is more about its air mass it can contains and push ? I of course assume the two different cone for the comparaison have the same Z delay distance to the listener.
speed of bass is another discussion and related to the percieved harmonics in an acurate time windows.
I missed my Netflix because of that !
Last edited:
OK, this sounds almost tautological (not a value judgment): in order to reproduce an impulse/transcient, it is necessary and sufficient to be able to produce correspondingly high-frequency sine wave with low distortion. Is this it?
So... Applied to a single driver, having higher-frequency useable frequency response is predictive of faster transcient response (such as metal cone vs plastic, tweeter vs midrange), though frequency dependent group delay has to be a factor. In a multi-way speaker where FR and fundamental/harmonics are distributed/summed over several XO'ed drivers, mixed group delays and overall phase incoherence ought to have a greater impact on transcient response fidelity (even beyond perceived fast/slow bass).
Used singly, a 5" woofer will almost certainly "transcient faster" than a 15" on a bass-note fundamental within both their useable FR, because the 5" FR reaches higher-frequency harmonics of the fundamental. Just tautological. Is this right?
It then follows, if a multi-way speaker system is DSP'ed to have ruler-flat sine-wave FR, it will automatically have perfect transcient response. No?
Last edited:
^Yeah, play with VituixCAD ideal drivers, realtime to see what the system response is 
Ideal driver, flat response DC - light to all directions
And as soon as its bandwidth is limited by physics, which I emulate here with simple filters, the perfect transient response goes away.
More deviation with increased group delay
So, define "response is DSP:d flat"? We can't have systems that would play DC. Also, our systems usually have varying response to any direction, so the impulse is as perfect as it can be to one direction only, or maybe to few, but not all. Anyway, fun stuff to play around.
I think "fast bass" is just description people use, like Hifijim said. Can't be debated until its all participants know what the others mean by it. Wide bandwidth, problem free playback system that is capable of good SPL level well positioned in the room can be described with any adjectives, like fast bass, or high feel, high fidelity, what ever.
ps. One has to think loudspeakers part of a system, because room and hearing is also included in the total outcome, perception of sound. By asking if 2 or 3 way speaker is good, well, whats the difference if there is no system context? Think how room affects, think wavelength, and it has to be 3-way system even before thinking about loudspeakers at all Simply because wide bandwidth good SPL capability are the two most basic things that are required from "hifi" playback system and because wavelength varies so much from low to high frequency we need at least one way for the room sized wavelengths and their problematics, one way for the thumb size wavelengths and their problematics, and one to bridge them together with another set of issues. Yeah, one could have one speaker to cover the whole bandwidth, SPL capability is just limited and its not problem free because there is no separation of concern there is lots of trade-offs.
Ideal driver, flat response DC - light to all directions
And as soon as its bandwidth is limited by physics, which I emulate here with simple filters, the perfect transient response goes away.
More deviation with increased group delay
So, define "response is DSP:d flat"?
We can't have systems that would play DC. Also, our systems usually have varying response to any direction, so the impulse is as perfect as it can be to one direction only, or maybe to few, but not all. Anyway, fun stuff to play around.I think "fast bass" is just description people use, like Hifijim said. Can't be debated until its all participants know what the others mean by it. Wide bandwidth, problem free playback system that is capable of good SPL level well positioned in the room can be described with any adjectives, like fast bass, or high feel, high fidelity, what ever.
ps. One has to think loudspeakers part of a system, because room and hearing is also included in the total outcome, perception of sound. By asking if 2 or 3 way speaker is good, well, whats the difference if there is no system context? Think how room affects, think wavelength, and it has to be 3-way system even before thinking about loudspeakers at all
Simply because wide bandwidth good SPL capability are the two most basic things that are required from "hifi" playback system and because wavelength varies so much from low to high frequency we need at least one way for the room sized wavelengths and their problematics, one way for the thumb size wavelengths and their problematics, and one to bridge them together with another set of issues. Yeah, one could have one speaker to cover the whole bandwidth, SPL capability is just limited and its not problem free because there is no separation of concern there is lots of trade-offs.
To the topic, its fun to think ideal systems. What if we had ideal sound source, like in VituixCAD, would that make good perceived sound quality when its put into a room? It has flat power response and probably would sound too bright. Loud early reflections and so on. Perhaps it was with some tone control, reduced highs, but now the direct sound wouldn't be flat anymore so not sure. Acoustic treatment then but why have omni directionality in first place?
Luckily we don't have to think it too much further as we don't have ideal omnidirectional sound sources but bandwidth limited electro-mechanical transducers with all kind of properties and "issues". We have bandwidth limited omnidirectional sound sources and could emulate and simulate those if one wants to have omnidirectional system. Or we could ditch the omnidirectionality if it wasn't the best because of room and hearing system, controlled directivity. What is it then that makes good sound? It is everyones personal task to find out what they like and then figure out system what can achieve that in their situation, as well as feasible.
Luckily we don't have to think it too much further as we don't have ideal omnidirectional sound sources but bandwidth limited electro-mechanical transducers with all kind of properties and "issues". We have bandwidth limited omnidirectional sound sources and could emulate and simulate those if one wants to have omnidirectional system. Or we could ditch the omnidirectionality if it wasn't the best because of room and hearing system, controlled directivity. What is it then that makes good sound? It is everyones personal task to find out what they like and then figure out system what can achieve that in their situation, as well as feasible.
Much thanks. I eyeballed the response curves and mentally-integrated above -30dB line plus dips, to arrive at the following set of distortion measures vs perfect null case.^Yeah, play with VituixCAD ideal drivers, realtime to see what the system response is
Ideal driver, flat response DC - light to all directions
View attachment 1107022
And as soon as its bandwidth is limited by physics, which I emulate here with simple filters, the perfect transient response goes away. View attachment 1107020
More deviation with increased group delay
View attachment 1107021
So, define "response is DSP:d flat"?
I think "fast bass" is just description people use, like Hifijim said. Can't be debated until its all participants know what the others mean by it. Wide bandwidth, problem free playback system that is capable of good SPL level well positioned in the room can be described with any adjectives, like fast bass, or high feel, high fidelity, what ever.
ps. One has to think loudspeakers part of a system, because room and hearing is also included in the total outcome, perception of sound. By asking if 2 or 3 way speaker is good, well, whats the difference if there is no system context? Think how room affects, think wavelength, and it has to be 3-way system even before thinking about loudspeakers at all
Each value is the ratio (area under exactly one of input/output curves not the other)/(area under both curves)
bandwidth-unlimited case: impulse=0, ETC=0, step=0
1-way bandwidth-limited case: impulse=2.5, ETC=2.5, step=1
2-way HF-restored case: impulse=5, ETC=3, step=1
Group delay etc makes 2-way worse (response curve differs more by area) than 1-way despite a much better FR, at least according to this measure (albeit approximate).
So, given a speaker's published FR chart, assumed to be true, can its transcient response fidelity be accurately predicted? What additional data are necessary?
Sort of. The frequency response and distortion are separate quantities. One can transform the frequency response to an impulse response and vice-versa via an FFT but not the distortion. This has to be handled separately but for decent drivers working within their reasonable operating range this will be audibly small and unimportant compared to the frequency response (on and off-axis). Distortion becomes significant and of importance when a decent driver works outside it's reasonable operating range. For example, a decent 5" driver in a 2 way main speaker in a room will generate audible linear and nonlinear distortion at the low frequency end and audible nonlinear distortion at the high frequency end. On the other hand if the same driver was high and low passed to remain within it's reasonable operating range with more appropriately sized drivers handling the removed high and low frequencies it would likely be fine.
Would be careful with the word faster given some of the recent posts.
??? The frequency response includes both phase and magnitude.
Again this seems to be trying to separate the frequency response from the time response and includes the word faster. The frequency responses (on and off-axis) tells us how the input to the speaker is transformed into the output (the linear part not any nonlinear distortion) regardless of the crossover and the number of ways. This is for the speaker on it's own. If the output is considered to be a listening position in a room with the system including both the speaker and the room then things are more complicated but not intractably so.
For example, one can take an FFT of a song to look at the frequency components present. An inverse FFT of that frequency response (magnitude and phase) will recreate the time signal of the song exactly. They contain the same information just presented in different ways.
Not quite. Modifying the frequency response to make percussion sound tighter/faster/drier/... is well understood by recording engineers. For example and there is plenty more of this type of information on the web. Using such information along with the frequency response of the speakers involved can often help interpret audiophile waffle concerning "fast bass" should one feel there is something present worth the effort to interpret.
If you include both magnitude and phase then yes and the number of ways doesn't matter. Over 20 years ago speakers like the K&H 0 500 C were introduced to do this on axis and they weren't particularly successful because of what happened off-axis. The crossover section in this paper discusses some of the issues.
Then why did they call one a 5" and the other a 15"?
I believe that's where the confusion started.2 identical driver sizes with the same frequency curve would have the same speed.
A small driver vs a large driver changes the situation. To reach the same SPL, the small driver's cone needs to travel further so indeed it must move faster if it produces the same tone at the same SPL as the larger driver. Would this solve the confusion?
On the subject of fast bass...
I always "claim" my speaker has fast bass, and try and prove it with this (real life) measurement at the listening spot (using a demo version of APL_TDA):
I got there with specific room treatment and DSP, but one can't deny it is fast...
Not quite as fast as the signal going in:
This is what the DAC sends to the speaker. But at least I've backed up what I mean by fast bass
.
wchang / andy, yeah single driver manufacturer sheet frequency response shows roughly what a single driver is capable of. But when implemented into a system, with x-ways, crossovers, enclosures, toss in measurement conditions etc. there might be stuff going on that is not obvious from frequency response alone, and doesn't tell whole story of what the perceived sound is in various rooms.
We know that crossovers can be made linear phase eliminating group delay. Likewise any particular driver can be EQ:d flat at least to one axis for the whole bandwidth its required to reproduce with DSP. So, one could assume these things while designing loudspeakers. There is still plenty of things to consider, like whats the directivity, whats the structure of a loudspeaker to prevent any extra sounds and issues like resonances, diffraction, reflections, how we perceive sound and what we like and so on, how to deal with bass that the room modes ruin regardless of the speaker. Then, if there is no FIR or even a DSP just replace all the ideal drivers and crossovers with tech that fits the budget and job done, its as good as it can be with the constraints there is.
We know that crossovers can be made linear phase eliminating group delay. Likewise any particular driver can be EQ:d flat at least to one axis for the whole bandwidth its required to reproduce with DSP. So, one could assume these things while designing loudspeakers. There is still plenty of things to consider, like whats the directivity, whats the structure of a loudspeaker to prevent any extra sounds and issues like resonances, diffraction, reflections, how we perceive sound and what we like and so on, how to deal with bass that the room modes ruin regardless of the speaker. Then, if there is no FIR or even a DSP just replace all the ideal drivers and crossovers with tech that fits the budget and job done, its as good as it can be with the constraints there is.
Last edited:
Thanks again. For myself, an "ideal system" or "gold standard" is necessary for me to evaluate both purchased equipment and (more recently) diy, in a repeatable and non-cumbersome way (read: quick-and-dirty). It is "subjectively objective", to my best effort unbiased. It is simply "realism" based on the mental integration of my one or several (?) hundred live concerts of small ensemble acoustic instruments or voices, majority of which experienced front-row, plus a few orchestral concerts from mid-hall. I like to make a distinction between "Purist" and "Audiophile" sound in the domain of classical music recording. Purist attempts to recreate the listening experience of the concert audience (minimally mic'ed). Audiophile attempts to create or synthesize a hyper-real mix of sounds from the performers' perspectives (multiple closely-mic'ed). Anyway this is how I interpret these two words. I can deal with this "contradiction" because I sat so close, within a few meters of the musicians (near where mics are hung, if any).
As for test setup, I focus on one scenario only, because it is well-defined, repeatable, and very convenient. I try to form a proverbial-home-audiophile equilateral triangle listening position, ~2.5m apart and at least 1m from walls, aiming the HF transducers axially at my ears but (importantly) from the front-left/right directions where hearing is most sensitive. This is because "off-axis" or "room-effect" listening are beyond what I can precisely control in an experiment. I have a very old Radio Shack SPL meter (!) and once-upon-a-time SOTA reference speakers, but 99% of the time I use the free Android APP Frequency Sound Generator, which supports Hertz-level finger-sweep sine/square/triangular-wave plus direct comparison of three separately-attenuable frequencies. Any FR unevenness within the human-judgeable band (depending on the individual and sound-level) is found in seconds. Our ears are extremely sensitive at this task.
Yeah the room and context, or application, is very important. If one likes sort of airy diffuse huge wall of sound kind of thing then its not that critical how the system is placed in a room and what the response is as long as its fine enough to most directions, good power response. But then, if one wants the pin point kind of imaging, perhaps what you describe as audiophile sound, then the room needs to be taken more seriously. Which kind of speakers fit the room (listening triangle) so that the room interaction is not detrimental for the image. Is frequency response even enough over all and between speakers, how long and loud the reverberation is, how close nearest walls, height, many things. Perhaps its a family livingroom and system needs to be practical as well, perhaps size and location constrains, not much possibility for acoustic treatment. Then directivity becomes very important trying to reach a goal. Conversely, if system is what it is just take it close enough to listener, nearfield listening might work just fine even on small speakers.
On both cases, diffuse sound or pin point imaging, there is still the room affecting bass, SPL and bandwidth question, so its minimum 3-way system in my opinion as everything sounds better by just turning volume up as long as its comfortable to listen to. Big speakers / systems have ability to sound better simply because they can be played louder with wider bandwidth before ear says sound is bad (no matter how many ways). Even if big system wasn't particularly well implemented I'd still take it before small system because I like the fun And even big systems fall short from real sounds, like reproducing hand clap somebody already mentioned. Even triangle is tough let alone snare or kick drum, good luck with 5" driver if realism is the goal. Anyway, big systems don't have to be played loud, they are mighty on low volume listening too.
On both cases, diffuse sound or pin point imaging, there is still the room affecting bass, SPL and bandwidth question, so its minimum 3-way system in my opinion as everything sounds better by just turning volume up as long as its comfortable to listen to. Big speakers / systems have ability to sound better simply because they can be played louder with wider bandwidth before ear says sound is bad (no matter how many ways). Even if big system wasn't particularly well implemented I'd still take it before small system because I like the fun
And even big systems fall short from real sounds, like reproducing hand clap somebody already mentioned. Even triangle is tough let alone snare or kick drum, good luck with 5" driver if realism is the goal. Anyway, big systems don't have to be played loud, they are mighty on low volume listening too.
Last edited:
Probably offtopic.
can anyone post links to few 2 way speakers (Diy or commercial) with good measurements like linearity, compression*, distortion and low fq. extension in more or less that order of importance ? No subjective review only measurements links.
or names of kits/speakers.
* compared to other 2 ways.
thanks and regards.
can anyone post links to few 2 way speakers (Diy or commercial) with good measurements like linearity, compression*, distortion and low fq. extension in more or less that order of importance ? No subjective review only measurements links.
or names of kits/speakers.
* compared to other 2 ways.
thanks and regards.
OK - still, its not what happens on the envelope during 25us that is the SQ impression - it is much more the total averaged and not the "cone speed".Then why did they call one a 5" and the other a 15"?
.....
//
Damit, TNT, what a Nobel, you do ... you understand I think that way... common!
Btw this cone speed is not an interresting thing for us as it is not what is related to what is interresting for us, i.e. music perception. What I notice with littlle cones for that frequencies YouKnowYou is talking about is they can suffer of thermal compression when pushed too much hard with some that has very low efficienty. And we know when it occurs than the spl on a parts of the curve falls then. Trade off. But I like the fact they can be relative full range and have good soundstaging and dynamic subjective behavior because of their small size. Works fine if the cone is hard but needs to tame the break-ups. Then a good tweeter, metal too, and the transcient feeling is there if the filternis made good.
Youknow you is liking as many the trade offs of a big cone size in the lows. And I even notice some also like that also in upper ranges like for instance pano, profiguy, etc members that even like a 8" in the mid up to the beginning of treble. That is trade off and tastes related. Experience matters. The topic is a little a question of total Sd and radiation pattern as it is 2 ways VS 3 ways. Btw how things go with your 2 ways with horns ? Is it a FAST ? (2 cents pune). I am trying too a horn, just 28 cm diameter with a 12" in the months to come...so littlier than your flower project.
... you understand I think that way... common!Btw this cone speed is not an interresting thing for us as it is not what is related to what is interresting for us, i.e. music perception. What I notice with littlle cones for that frequencies YouKnowYou is talking about is they can suffer of thermal compression when pushed too much hard with some that has very low efficienty. And we know when it occurs than the spl on a parts of the curve falls then. Trade off. But I like the fact they can be relative full range and have good soundstaging and dynamic subjective behavior because of their small size. Works fine if the cone is hard but needs to tame the break-ups. Then a good tweeter, metal too, and the transcient feeling is there if the filternis made good.
Youknow you is liking as many the trade offs of a big cone size in the lows. And I even notice some also like that also in upper ranges like for instance pano, profiguy, etc members that even like a 8" in the mid up to the beginning of treble. That is trade off and tastes related. Experience matters. The topic is a little a question of total Sd and radiation pattern as it is 2 ways VS 3 ways. Btw how things go with your 2 ways with horns ? Is it a FAST ? (2 cents pune). I am trying too a horn, just 28 cm diameter with a 12" in the months to come...so littlier than your flower project.
Last edited: