We all know that you get what you pay for and this is true for speaker drivers too. If you want good perfomance from a conventional passive system you need to use good quality drivers. What I want opinions on though is the following approach to making a sub - There are these moderate to cheap (not rock-bottom junk) drivers that I am looking at -> http://www1.jaycar.com.au/productVi...&pageNumber=&priceMin=&priceMax=&SUBCATID=383 and while I realise that if you just stick them in a box, they are not going to set the world on fire the same way a $1,000 driver would.
OK. Lets say we put the above driver in an 80 litre sealed box and equalise the living daylights out of it so it has no choice but to do as it is told. i.e as the frequency goes down the cone displacement goes up in more or less the same manner a perfect driver would, down to say 20Hz, within the mechanical limits of the driver of course. Also, lets put an upper frequency limit of ~100Hz so the cone is reasonably always moving in piston mode, not breaking up into a series of wavy wiggles across it's radius.
Now, the question is this - should I expect a very great improvement in performance so that if a very high quality driver was used in place of the one I am talking about, would there be not much difference in results? i.e can I make a moderate quality driver behave like a very good one, at least as far as frequency response is concerned, *over a necessarily limited range*, provided it has reasonable X-max?
OK. Lets say we put the above driver in an 80 litre sealed box and equalise the living daylights out of it so it has no choice but to do as it is told. i.e as the frequency goes down the cone displacement goes up in more or less the same manner a perfect driver would, down to say 20Hz, within the mechanical limits of the driver of course. Also, lets put an upper frequency limit of ~100Hz so the cone is reasonably always moving in piston mode, not breaking up into a series of wavy wiggles across it's radius.
Now, the question is this - should I expect a very great improvement in performance so that if a very high quality driver was used in place of the one I am talking about, would there be not much difference in results? i.e can I make a moderate quality driver behave like a very good one, at least as far as frequency response is concerned, *over a necessarily limited range*, provided it has reasonable X-max?
I've used those jaycar paper cone woofers before, their not too bad.
Probably the main difference between the heavily EQ'd budget woofer and a "natural" high quality woofer would be potential volume (loudness), though the budget woofers can sometimes have efficiency working in thier favour.
There's other factors like how linear the woofer behaves, transient response ect that need to be considered as well.
Probably the main difference between the heavily EQ'd budget woofer and a "natural" high quality woofer would be potential volume (loudness), though the budget woofers can sometimes have efficiency working in thier favour.
There's other factors like how linear the woofer behaves, transient response ect that need to be considered as well.
Qts of 1.46.... IIRC, doesn't high Q like that usually associate with sloppy, "boombox" bass?
...probably do well with a dipole...
also, the sensitivity is only 89dB, and my personal tastes try to stay above that... however, I'd be interested in seeing what you did with this driver... I'm interested in all projects. 😀
Good luck, let us know what you end up doing.
...probably do well with a dipole...
also, the sensitivity is only 89dB, and my personal tastes try to stay above that... however, I'd be interested in seeing what you did with this driver... I'm interested in all projects. 😀
Good luck, let us know what you end up doing.
With a Qts of 1.46 i would not expect a "fast" bass. I have always preferred a lower Qts that will keep up with a fast mid or full ranger.About the only thing you can do , as far as an enclosure, is an aperiodic port with the cab volume .75 x Vas and even that may not help.Try an OB if you have the space.
ron
ron
My guess is that if you slap that in an open baffle, add a little EQing to it and you'll probablye be amazed that it sounds as good as it does for the price.
The driver is designed to be used as a woofer in a 3-way not to be used in a sub
The "Q" is way to high. The Fs is 32Hz (= BOOM BOX).
The 50 watts power handling is a joke in this day and age. It's not going to handle any reasonable amount of EQ with this wimpy VC.
Interesting that they don't list the Xmax.
This driver should retail for $14.95
Save your money and get something better......
The "Q" is way to high. The Fs is 32Hz (= BOOM BOX).
The 50 watts power handling is a joke in this day and age. It's not going to handle any reasonable amount of EQ with this wimpy VC.
Interesting that they don't list the Xmax.
This driver should retail for $14.95
Save your money and get something better......
Yea , i love some of the cheap car amps that have"400 watts/channel". I tried to explain to a guy once that the output power was more than the input by a wide margin and he would not believe me LOL.
ron
ron
Usually more expensive is better. But power handling is usually what you pay for. A 32Hz fs isn't excessively high, hell, response down to 40Hz is enough for many music listners. And the Q is high, which is good for some arangements, not so good for others.
And as for the EQing you could aply with 50watts, well that is more than enough if you've got a small room, afterall no way will it be reproducing 35Hz continous at 50 watts, and the driver will be able to tolerate more than that peak anyways.
It's good to advise someone asking a question, but in truth none of know how it will really sound, we can only guess.
And as for the EQing you could aply with 50watts, well that is more than enough if you've got a small room, afterall no way will it be reproducing 35Hz continous at 50 watts, and the driver will be able to tolerate more than that peak anyways.
It's good to advise someone asking a question, but in truth none of know how it will really sound, we can only guess.
Circlotron said:
Kind of, and not really. Frequency response wise you could get it to do almost anything you wanted it to, given it did not excede it's excursion limits. You've already alluded to that. However, there are some things you can't correct with only frequency equalization. Linear and non-linear distortion will be quite high for even low power levels. I'll post two plots, 135Hz 150Hz and 165Hz IMD distortion measurements for a $12 5.25" woofer and for a $150 world class 5.25" woofer.
First the cheap one...
Attachments
And now for plot #2
Here's the expensive driver. Remember, only the tones at 135Hz, 150Hz and 165Hz were put into the driver. Any other tone showing up is a distortion....
Now there are expensive drivers that don't do as well as this one and there are inexpensive drivers that do much better than the one I posted above. (There are only a select few I've measured that do better than this guy.)
Scott
Here's the expensive driver. Remember, only the tones at 135Hz, 150Hz and 165Hz were put into the driver. Any other tone showing up is a distortion....
Now there are expensive drivers that don't do as well as this one and there are inexpensive drivers that do much better than the one I posted above. (There are only a select few I've measured that do better than this guy.)
Scott
Attachments
Of course a very high quality driver would be better. Distortion plots will probably show that. But what you really should be thinking about is if a slightly higher priced driver will be that much better, for you probably won't be trying to decide between a $50 driver and $1000 driver.
JoeBob said:
I've seen some $100 tweeters that have 2-5X the distortion of $25 tweeters. So $$$ doesn't always equal better performance.
Unfortunately the only way to know is to measure really....That means buying and returning...or buying and keeping a lot of drivers. Not for everyone.
I'm just trying to bring up the point that frequency response isn't everything.
Good example, there a tweeter from RS that goes for <25$ each that sounds much better or at least the equal of some of the more expensive fostex tweets.
ron
ron
Personally dont care much for Jaycar drivers - most of them (Response) are overpriced.
Try looking at Wes instead....eg. http://www.wescomponents.com/Speakers/Woofer/sp12-100/sp12-100.htm
Try looking at Wes instead....eg. http://www.wescomponents.com/Speakers/Woofer/sp12-100/sp12-100.htm
I bought this peerless 12 sub driver from wes for $169 [ thats the retail cheaper for trade ] it works a charm .
http://www.d-s-t.com/peerless/data/831857.htm
Idont know its of any help . I looked at the jaycar driver before I bought the peerless .
http://www.d-s-t.com/peerless/data/831857.htm
Idont know its of any help . I looked at the jaycar driver before I bought the peerless .
Wes Are Cheaper For The Same Thing....
Hi Graham,
The WES prices are -
SP12-50 $26.00 Res 32Hz.
SP12-100 $34.75 Res 32Hz.
SP12-150 $52.50 Res 35Hz, PP cone.
I would reckon that the SP12-50 is pretty close to the Jaycar one.
These will work ok (cone treatment coating can help) for about half the price, and the PP ones are not much dearer.
Eric.
Hi Graham,
The WES prices are -
SP12-50 $26.00 Res 32Hz.
SP12-100 $34.75 Res 32Hz.
SP12-150 $52.50 Res 35Hz, PP cone.
I would reckon that the SP12-50 is pretty close to the Jaycar one.
These will work ok (cone treatment coating can help) for about half the price, and the PP ones are not much dearer.
Eric.
Re: Wes Are Cheaper For The Same Thing....
You don't drink a good wine because you are thirsty, but because there are things you like about it. Same with me and drivers - they have gotta feel right. For me, the ultimate would be a butyl rubber surround and a satin finish polypropylene cone, like Jaycar's smaller Response units. Monster size magnet too. Other desirable properties are just a bonus.
Mmmmm..... speakers.
Yeah, Eric. I was thinking of these ones too but IIRC they have foam surrounds, so I am unjustifiably biased away from them. As we all know, if your gunna build something to enjoy, make it from stuff you feel good about. Rubber surrounds = 😎 Foam surounds =mrfeedback said:
You don't drink a good wine because you are thirsty, but because there are things you like about it. Same with me and drivers - they have gotta feel right. For me, the ultimate would be a butyl rubber surround and a satin finish polypropylene cone, like Jaycar's smaller Response units. Monster size magnet too. Other desirable properties are just a bonus.
Mmmmm..... speakers.
Circlotron, are you drunk? lol yeah.... I acutally don't like polypropelene cones... treated paper or some other mix of chemicals and stuff for me... lol
i wouldnt stoop to 14.95$
Qts=1.5 NOOOOOOO
if Qts was 0.7 i would tink-dipole/IB
but it cant even do that
perhaps use RLC notch circuit to reduce the response peak 😛
i think a more comparable comparison would be :
can 300$ of say XLS beat
however many cheepie woofers of combined total cost of 300$
you stil get waht you pay for
as for ECLIPSE 12inch 1800$ car woofers
-utter bollox
jaycar is overpriced
i think even PARTSEXPRESS.com s cheap 8"s are better-but thats not much use considering heaps of us in the forum live in Oz etc..
Qts=1.5 NOOOOOOO
if Qts was 0.7 i would tink-dipole/IB
but it cant even do that
perhaps use RLC notch circuit to reduce the response peak 😛
i think a more comparable comparison would be :
can 300$ of say XLS beat
however many cheepie woofers of combined total cost of 300$
you stil get waht you pay for
as for ECLIPSE 12inch 1800$ car woofers
-utter bollox
jaycar is overpriced
i think even PARTSEXPRESS.com s cheap 8"s are better-but thats not much use considering heaps of us in the forum live in Oz etc..
- Status
- Not open for further replies.