To get a clue about the driver, it's useful to check the cone surface/structure.
If you compare the woofers of the previous pages, the GPA 416 etc., but also the Faital 15PR400 you'll notice the cone surface is similar to this (of my own driver):
If you compare the woofers of the previous pages, the GPA 416 etc., but also the Faital 15PR400 you'll notice the cone surface is similar to this (of my own driver):
Attachments
Yes, I do.
Regarding the cones: Usually straight-sided ribbed cones are better at the low end and thin light curvilinear ones are better at midrange. An then there are some exceptions to that rule. Or curvilinear cones with ribs (2216), or ……….
Hoping to get the best of both worlds my next one will be a tree-way with straight-sided ribbed 15" wofers and a 12" midrange with a light curvilinear cone.
Regards
Charles
You can see that structure on a lot of drivers, even on extremely cheap ones. That's not actually a hint.
If it's that common, it's obviously not a hint. That got the same quality as saying 'that car got alloy wheels, it must be a BMW'.
A lot of the PA drivers got non-coated paper cones. You can find that structure at about 1/4 of them.
Typical high power woofer:
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
@Camplo - in case you have not seen the specs for the JBL 2216Nd: 2216Nd
As mentioned before, I would consider this the benchmark as in the M2 package it can make 20 Hz in-room, has a smooth mid sound and can make it to 800 Hz XO point no problem. At the very least, can be used as comparison to other woofers you may be considering.
As mentioned before, I would consider this the benchmark as in the M2 package it can make 20 Hz in-room, has a smooth mid sound and can make it to 800 Hz XO point no problem. At the very least, can be used as comparison to other woofers you may be considering.
Mitch, I think Camplo will agree. He has compared several woofers to the 2216nd.
The above woofer comparisons do not fully apply in Camplo's case.
He needs a driver in between the B&C TBX and the 15PR400.
The 15FH500 ticks nearly all the boxes, except it needs a large volume cab.
He also still needs a horn, but I think there's some progress in that respect.
The above woofer comparisons do not fully apply in Camplo's case.
He needs a driver in between the B&C TBX and the 15PR400.
The 15FH500 ticks nearly all the boxes, except it needs a large volume cab.
He also still needs a horn, but I think there's some progress in that respect.
Last edited:
Don’t really ‘know’ what I’m talking about but, would that woofer with some sort of aperiodic hybrid vent work?
Aperiodic makes the driver act as if the box was larger.....if it’s possible to reduce the volume enough with all else the same idk?
I know this driver keeps popping its head up, but I have tried the above mentioned 18 sound driver and yes, you have guessed it, the 15PR400
sounds better
I'd not seen the 500 before. That's a lot of Xmax for a woofer that sensitive, with a nice smooth bandwidth. Very impressive.
