what is a good poly cone subwoofer for my ht?

Status
This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.
i hate paper cone.....
so what is a good poly cone woofer for my ht subs....
i have built an ht sub using a BLAUPUNKT PCwi1200 12" SUBWOOFER.....and i relly like it....
it realy kicks ***....
are there any ht subs that are poly and have the same frequency responce.....
note: dont want any that are over 200w rms.......

want 12" or 15"
____________________________________________________
thanks
 
Shellac it!

If you dont like the paper try shellac. Like you would put on a violin. It will stiffen that cone and save you money. I have heard of this practice not so much for subs but for very expensive full range drivers($1K/pr) and like the old musical instrument makers the exact formulas are kept secret. It is supposed to improve the tone.
 

kelticwizard

diyAudio Moderator Emeritus
2001-09-18 2:33 am
Connecticut, The Nutmeg State
Slicemaster:

From the link given earlier in this thread about the "01" series of Blueprint Drivers, which includes the 1001 and the 1201: "Rigid poly cones with a medium width rubber surround. Excellent power handling. 33 mm p-p Xmax."

I don't know why you don't like paper, but do not limit yourself to just poly cones as an alternative. Peerless took a fine, inexpensive 10" subwoofer with a poly cone-the 260-and changed the cone to a sandwich construction. It increased the price only $5, but so improved the strength of the cone that it is now very usable for 2 way systems crossing over at 2,000 Hz.

The same speaker, with a poly cone, broke up just above 500 Hz. So it isn't a case of just paper or poly. There are additional alternatives.

Here are the two woofers. Both are available at Parts Express by the way. Note the difference at 800 Hz. Otherwise, these two speakers are exactly identical-same magnet, voice coil, basket, etc.
 

Attachments

  • peerless comparison.png
    peerless comparison.png
    86.8 KB · Views: 362
i think i will stick with the blue print 1201

just on the basis that they have lower frequency responce....
i am a fan of peerless and have looked at both these drivers and have not tossed out the idea of using them...
thanks, for the help.....
i have two last questions.....
are the blue print 1201 drivers 4 or 8 ohm drivers?
could i run 2 blue print 1201 drivers with 400w rms @ 8ohms or 660w rms @ 4ohms with good results? i want these babies to shake the house......loud and clean audio......

thanks,
Slice
 

kelticwizard

diyAudio Moderator Emeritus
2001-09-18 2:33 am
Connecticut, The Nutmeg State
Slice:

To be honest, I have not used Blueprints, but they come highly recommended.

About hooking up 2 woofers-I have decided against advising anyone on that until I personally run tests to see if hooking 2 woofers up in parallel or series changes the Q factor-which affects response. I have read conflicting opinions by knowledgeable people. When I conduct the tests, I will let you know.

You might want to hold off on going with the Blueprint "01" series unless you want to build a speaker immediately. Blueprint also offers an "03" series that has an excursion twice as long and is considered by many to stack up against drivers that cost $400 or more, though it costs about $200 or less. Right now, these are unavailable, but Blueprint promises a new series in the near future.

I showed the Peerless 10 inchers not for you to consider them, since they are not 12 inchers, but to illustrate that a sandwich cone can be superior to a poly cone. I didn't want you to get locked into only looking for poly. Some people really dislike poly, considering it the worst possible cone material. I don't dislike it, but I don't think it is necessarily the best thing out there, either.
 

kelticwizard

diyAudio Moderator Emeritus
2001-09-18 2:33 am
Connecticut, The Nutmeg State
Don't know why they use foam surrounds, Andy. I think the Shiva uses them too.

I have made some jerry-rigged homemade surrounds on cheap speakers, and have discovered that most of the springiness comes from the spider. Just at first glance, it seems to me that just about any reasonable surround material makes little difference. The surround seems to just keep the voice coil straight, and exerts much less pressure than the spider. But that is just an observation on my part.

Parts Express has re-foam kits for around $20, if it comes to that.
 
You can improve a paper cone woofer by giving it a couple coats (or more, but be careful) of puzzlecoat.

There are lots & lots of good poly/kevlar (poly by itself is not great) woofers. The BluePrints mentioned, the Lambda built Stryke woofers or the more expensive TC Sounds ones, , Adire Audio has a very good range, and more.

dave
 
My resoning for disliking foam surrounds is simply aesthetic. I think they are ugly, but I doubt that they degrade performance. I recently bought some little audax 6.5 inchers to replace a burned out woofer in my cousin's bookshelf speakers. It said in the ad that they had rubber surrounds, and it turns out that they had foam. they sound fine, of course, but I was a little peeved. Is it possible to replace a foam surround with a rubber one?
-andy

I don't think I would actually do this, I am just pondering the idea.
 
Ariels

I wouldn't take 'Tranducers' word for it. It seems that he built a really old version of the Ariels... and for some reason, he has a huge beef with Lynn Olson. I'm don't believe everything he says about him or his speakers, especially since he is saying these things without Lynn around to defend himself. I for one have built the latest Ariels with top notch crossover componensts and can say they are a fine sounding speakers. Just a tad rolled off on the highs, and maybe not the end-all in speed and transparency when compared against FR drivers. But they are very room friendly and sound wonderfully musical and warm/lush and a good match for the PP 300B I'm using. And this is with no tweaking of the crossover or line stuffing. I'm sure I can bring up the tweeter level if I want to, but the have sounded so good for the last 3 years, I have never gotten around to tweaking them.
I think they have a very rich and glorious midrange with no "hole" that I can hear... Just a little slow and less detailed as I said when compared against good FR's.

Take note in Tranny quotes his current (bookshelf) speaker as measuring flat. I for one do not consider measurments when I'm choosing a speaker. It either sounds good or it doesn't. There are plenty of flat speakers that sound dead, and plenty of non-flat ones that sound great... when done right.... Lowthers for one.
And multitudes of FR's for others. I don't think Tranny's Ariels were "done right".

My Ariels... www.speechstreet.net/ariels/
 
sub drivers

I took Lynn's comments on sub drivers to heart. Put an alunimum cone 12" driver (Alumapro Alchemy) in my DIY tranmission line sub cabinet. It kicks with extremely clean, undistorted bass and dissapears with most mated mains.

With it, I'm using a NHT SA-3 250W class-D sub amp w/built-in crossover with the normal adjustable gain, phase, x-over, etc.

Next best thing for sub driver cone material besides aluminum, kevlar and other expensive stuff, is treated paper.

This looks like it could be a good one for the money... low Fs and 94db! :)

http://www.partsexpress.com/pe/pshowdetl.cfm?&PartNumber=299-655&DID=7

good luck .
 
Status
This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.