Simple question but probably complex answers; Do oval drivers such as 6x9 behave differently than round ones with respect to cone breakup modes?
Yes, they got usually more but sometimes more tame breakup frequencies because only the half of it starts breaking up at a certain frequency. But pretty much depends on the construction and geometry too, that's why they don't behave the same and you have to measure for yourself to get an answer about that.
Since the cone is driven from the centre, a round cone may flex more evenly than an elliptical cone which has different distances from centre to edge.
In other words, the elliptical cone may have more breakup modes.
So, providing we are comparing drivers with the same specs and cone surface area, the round cone may have the advantage over the elliptical one.
In other words, the elliptical cone may have more breakup modes.
So, providing we are comparing drivers with the same specs and cone surface area, the round cone may have the advantage over the elliptical one.
It all depends. A round shape isn't all that great either. Transverse waves tend to hit the surround all the same time, and reflections hit the voice coil all the same time. At some frequencies, that causes oscillation. I've even heard of problems where metal cone speakers were held to be unusable above 1/3rd of the main break-up peak, because of harmonic distortion in the pass band. When it comes to energy storage, oval might actually be better, because there's a lot more surround per unit of surface area. Designs like the Manger also push that idea along with their spiky surrounds.
Design factors like a straight conical shape, vs a compound curve, would probably be important when doing a comparison. Round speakers often use a straight cone shape, even though it's flexible and relies on external support, whereas an oval speaker would probably flex too much in the bass. However, a compound curve would have a different sound because it's physically stronger.
There are so many factors, IMO it really boils down to the quality of the design.
Design factors like a straight conical shape, vs a compound curve, would probably be important when doing a comparison. Round speakers often use a straight cone shape, even though it's flexible and relies on external support, whereas an oval speaker would probably flex too much in the bass. However, a compound curve would have a different sound because it's physically stronger.
There are so many factors, IMO it really boils down to the quality of the design.
If a round baffle with the driver centered is a diffraction nightmare, how can a round driver not be worse than an oval (or elliptical) diaphragm? Probably harder to produce but at least SBA is trying, and Sonido.
Because you rarely got a round baffle and - if you like it or not - the oval diaphragm will very likely hit the same or similar baffle like a round driver and therefore hit the same diffractions, the diffractions come from the baffle, not the driver! Aside from that, avoiding some diffraction is possible by placing the driver not in the center and/or rounding or bevel the edges generously.
OK a clunky analog and yes round baffles are rare. I belong to the weird subset of diyers who were once car audio guys, and the non-round drivers were for the most part smoother sounding than the round. So to the question in post #1 I say yes all other things being equal, which they never are.
That's not really comparable. The pressure chamber effect of the passenger compartment, close distance to the listener and especally the mount position change almost everything. Simply the fact the oval speakers can often much easier be mounted than round ones of the same membrane surface gives them an advantage. I don't doubt your experience though but you can't carry that over that easily.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.