Scottmoose said:
see, Cuibono actual figure for Dayton compared to Alpha,
25hz 50hz
dayton 87 88
alpha 70 82
my comments are based on above figure, and try to make an educated comments. possibly you don't believe the figure. Furhermore, From my reading of reports from elsewhere other than this site, Dayton driver(you may like it or not) give an impression of stronger/powerful bass.
If you disagree that is your opinion. I am not going to argue with you.
Who's arguing?
OK, which actual figures are we talking about here? We've already established the Eminence graph & any data from it is valueless -it's simply not conforming to the laws of physics or its T/S parameters, so something is wrong there. FWIW, I suspect they've accidentally used the graph of a different driver on the data sheet. It wouldn't be the first time something like that has happened. As I've said many times before (certainly not just here), my advice is never trust a graph from a manufacturer, for the reasons I outlined above. You'll run into problems if you do.
The Dayton does have an Fs ~an octave lower that the others. I'd categorise it as a sub driver while the others are bass drivers. However what I'm pointing out is that on an open baffle, its better-damped LF behaviour (lower Q) will not compensate for the natural roll-off of the sound pressure levels you will get with it run dipole. In many applications it will be the better driver, and go lower, smoother. In this case, on an OB, you'd need a (much) wider baffle to keep the SPLs up than the Alpha, with its underdamped bass & peak at Fc requires, as shown by the MathCad simulations. The graph of a driver run in a ~optimal Infinite Baffle is nice to look at (assuming it's accurate), but below its mass-corner, it's not particularly relevant when you put the driver on / in something other than the aforementioned Infinite Baffle.
OK, which actual figures are we talking about here? We've already established the Eminence graph & any data from it is valueless -it's simply not conforming to the laws of physics or its T/S parameters, so something is wrong there. FWIW, I suspect they've accidentally used the graph of a different driver on the data sheet. It wouldn't be the first time something like that has happened. As I've said many times before (certainly not just here), my advice is never trust a graph from a manufacturer, for the reasons I outlined above. You'll run into problems if you do.
The Dayton does have an Fs ~an octave lower that the others. I'd categorise it as a sub driver while the others are bass drivers. However what I'm pointing out is that on an open baffle, its better-damped LF behaviour (lower Q) will not compensate for the natural roll-off of the sound pressure levels you will get with it run dipole. In many applications it will be the better driver, and go lower, smoother. In this case, on an OB, you'd need a (much) wider baffle to keep the SPLs up than the Alpha, with its underdamped bass & peak at Fc requires, as shown by the MathCad simulations. The graph of a driver run in a ~optimal Infinite Baffle is nice to look at (assuming it's accurate), but below its mass-corner, it's not particularly relevant when you put the driver on / in something other than the aforementioned Infinite Baffle.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.