Looking for 10-inch speakers with a QTS 3.0

Right!

I have some old 10-inch Eminence drivers from the 1970's that offer a QTS of 3.028 (measured in LIMP). I pretty much destroyed 6 out of 8 around 20 years ago, and looking to find six 10-inch speakers that offer a QTS of 3.0 or greater.

As a QTS of 2.0 is not easily found moreso 3.0 these days, does anyone know of any old 10-inch speakers (brand, model number) that offers a QTS of 3.0 that I can look out for on Ebay?
 
QTS = 0.3 ?

Right!

I have some old 10-inch Eminence drivers from the 1970's that offer a QTS of 3.028 (measured in LIMP). I pretty much destroyed 6 out of 8 around 20 years ago, and looking to find six 10-inch speakers that offer a QTS of 3.0 or greater.

As a QTS of 2.0 is not easily found moreso 3.0 these days, does anyone know of any old 10-inch speakers (brand, model number) that offers a QTS of 3.0 that I can look out for on Ebay?

There are a lot of good 10" drivers out there. Replace all the ones you have if they exhibit a Qts = 3.0

WHG

Here is a good one: (QTS = 0.31)

McCauley.com : Products: Components > 6224: Specifications
 
From Parts Express, there is a 10" woofer manufactured by GRS replacement speakers, Qts= 1,27. PE stock # 292-410, for cheap.

Connect an 8 Ohm resistor in-series with it to get an effective Q of about 3,0.

Why do you want such a relatively high value of Qts ?

-Hope that shipping to you from Ohio, US wouldn't be too expensive.

Regards,
Pete
 
Last edited:
Actually a much more sophisticated and better way to increase the effective Qts of the woofer would be to drive it with an amp that has source impedance equal to about 8 Ohm. An appropriate amp might be some tube amps or a transistor/IC amp can be modified to have any required source impedance. I haven't looked for one at all, but AFAIK, a commercial transistor/ IC amp with 8 Ohm source impedance (or about that) doesn't exist.

-Pete
 
Outlines System Design using High [QTS] drivers.

I am uncertain how that pertains to me looking to replace six 10-inch drivers with a QTS of 3.0 I damaged 20 years ago for a pair of column boxes. I have two originals that are working so I know the driver’s strong and weak points.

The matching problem (Drivers to Enclosure) is not tied to a single driver dimension [QTS]. That is what the referenced post is telling you. You may relax the [QTS] requirement somewhat if [QMS] & [Fs] are close. In any case for best results, as stated before, replace or rebuild all the 10" drivers. WHG
 
Hi,

Qts and open baffles have little to do with column PA speakers, unless
the PA speakers are open backed and then effectively folded baffles.

High Qts is not now common but it was. High Qts implies small magnets
and low midband efficiency, but can correct baffle step to a degree, giving
a richer vocal reproduction, and relatively good bass efficiency on the cheap.

rgds, sreten.
 
Last edited:
The matching problem (Drivers to Enclosure) is not tied to a single driver dimension [QTS]. That is what the referenced post is telling you. You may relax the [QTS] requirement somewhat if [QMS] & [Fs] are close. In any case for best results, as stated before, replace or rebuild all the 10" drivers. WHG

I already had 10's that are somewhat close in the QMS & fs of the original 10's in the column boxes. However, a QTS of 0.4 sounds anaemic to a QTS of 3.0

It will be difficult for anyone to comprehend the tonal difference unless they have drivers with a high QTS within that region to make a comparison. Id rather use a QTS of 2.0 on those Pyramid's sreten suggested for it will offer closer results to 3.0

And knowing Pyramid's history the QTS is more than likely higher than 1.98

Here is a wav clip of what two old 10’s with a QTS of 3.0 sounds like in one column box sitting on top of another box with the microphone around 12 feet away.

http://www.filedropper.com/twooldtensinonecolumnbox
 
Drive Signal?

I already had 10's that are somewhat close in the QMS & fs of the original 10's in the column boxes. However, a QTS of 0.4 sounds anaemic to a QTS of 3.0

It will be difficult for anyone to comprehend the tonal difference unless they have drivers with a high QTS within that region to make a comparison. Id rather use a QTS of 2.0 on those Pyramid's sreten suggested for it will offer closer results to 3.0

And knowing Pyramid's history the QTS is more than likely higher than 1.98

Here is a wav clip of what two old 10’s with a QTS of 3.0 sounds like in one column box sitting on top of another box with the microphone around 12 feet away.

http://www.filedropper.com/twooldtensinonecolumnbox

Were you driving the 10's with a separate amplifier?
 
Last edited:
Hi,

Putting low Qts drivers into older radios, radiograms, jukeboxs and
the like is a sure fire way of losing most of the warmth they have.

rgds, sreten.

Still I'd regard a Qts of 3.0 as OK for such things, which typically
have perforated backs and are folded open baffles. For a box Qbox
can only go up, even well stuffed, Qts = 2 should work as well as 3.