Just found this nice collection of driver measurements:
http://www.dibirama.altervista.org/le-prove.html
What I've found challenging with regards to driver measurements on the web is that measuring conditions are never the same, which makes it hard to do reasonable comparisons.
Here however, we have a huge collection of measurements all presumably done under the same conditions.
Looking through a large portion of the measurements, what stood out to me is how clean of a waterfall some metal cone drivers provide (up to breakup of course).
But despite this there seems to be a general preference of paper cone drivers in the industry.
Buchardt even changed from aluminum to paper cones in their latest speaker iterations.
http://www.dibirama.altervista.org/le-prove.html
What I've found challenging with regards to driver measurements on the web is that measuring conditions are never the same, which makes it hard to do reasonable comparisons.
Here however, we have a huge collection of measurements all presumably done under the same conditions.
Looking through a large portion of the measurements, what stood out to me is how clean of a waterfall some metal cone drivers provide (up to breakup of course).
But despite this there seems to be a general preference of paper cone drivers in the industry.
Buchardt even changed from aluminum to paper cones in their latest speaker iterations.
Thank you. The measure are all in the same conditions. On the CSD you have to make attention to evaluate the graphics, bacause, if there is a violent break-up, at zero time, the linear zone of the response is shifted very low, and you don't can see the real trend of the decay.
