Well I said that more power = more heat, which means more potential for thermal compression.
His reply was (and I quote)
His reply was (and I quote)
Arnold B. Krueger said:
Last edited:
A 5kHz order crossover sends 90% of the power to the woofer.
Why else, pray tell, would manufacturers such as Precision Devices rate their woofers' power compression?
He seems like some of those people that are so very sure they're right, that you'll never persuade them otherwise - better, IMHO, to just leave him to it and let him believe whatever he likes.
Chris
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
Why else, pray tell, would manufacturers such as Precision Devices rate their woofers' power compression?
He seems like some of those people that are so very sure they're right, that you'll never persuade them otherwise - better, IMHO, to just leave him to it and let him believe whatever he likes.
Chris
Apparently I'm wrong on so many different things. I thought that all things being equal between two identical woofers, one in a large box and one in a small box the amount of power would differ to reach a given SPL and more EQ would be needed in the smaller box. Apparently that is not the case, at least not always.
It depends where on the frequency curve you are looking at the SPL. If you are talking low bass response SPL then what you say is correct.
But apparently you can achieve the same response in a small box without EQ (compared to a larger box) using a sufficiently high mass cone.
I thought it was a given that small boxes required more EQ to reach low frequencies even if high mass cones were used. You know, it being a compromise and all that. I haven't heard many cases of designers using zero EQ in small boxes and still achieving excellent bass extension, so I guess the comments I'm hearing from this other guy is just confusing.
I thought it was a given that small boxes required more EQ to reach low frequencies even if high mass cones were used. You know, it being a compromise and all that. I haven't heard many cases of designers using zero EQ in small boxes and still achieving excellent bass extension, so I guess the comments I'm hearing from this other guy is just confusing.
Yes that is correct, but as I pointed out earlier the heavy cone now is less efficient and needs a huge motor to control it.
The problem is that to achieve the extension you have to add so much mass that the design gets plagued with problems.
What Arny is saying is true, what you have said is true, it's just both of you are not including the full context. Or at least in the case of the quote above it adds a caveat which is fine, but the arrogant start to the quote is perhaps not necessary. I don't know the tone of your responses to him.
Richie,
First thanks for taking the time to answer my questions for me. I really appreciate your advice. You mentioned the design gets plagued with problems if you add enough mass to a driver. Could you elaborate on this?
First thanks for taking the time to answer my questions for me. I really appreciate your advice. You mentioned the design gets plagued with problems if you add enough mass to a driver. Could you elaborate on this?
I just don't like the sound of a high Q box. Anyway, ALL BASS BOOST IS NOT A LINKWITZ TRANSFORM. I would advise everyone to please visit his site and read his papers. He even has handy dandy speradsheets that will help with calculation of excursion and power.
One big problem is the suspension. You end up chasing your tail - adding mass to the cone means you need to make the suspension stronger to keep things centralised and under control, which usually makes things stiffer so you need to add more mass to get Fs down again...
Also the motor requirements get more and more, cost comes into play.
Making the cone heavy ruins high frequency response, not such an issue for a dedicated sub but still some like to see a wider bandwidth than you are using the driver for to make it sound nice.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.