In Reply to: What is the real efficiency of the Coincident partial eclipse? posted by violinist3 on July 9, 2007 at 13:11:02:
I don't know how accurate the efficiency claims are but the impedance curve is amazingly smooth (something like 9 ohms plus or minus 10%), implying that the Partial Eclipse is a very easy load to drive. The only speaker I know of that rivalled the Partial Eclipse for ultrasmooth impedance was the sadly discontinued Buggtussel Solitarius, a transmission line design. Even single driver speakers (in my experience) have more variation in their impedance curve than the Partial Eclipse.
In case you can't tell, as a rival manufacturer I have Impedance Curve Envy.
Duke
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- RE: What is the real efficiency of the Coincident partial eclipse? - Duke 13:50:20 07/09/07 (5)
- RE: What is the real efficiency of the Coincident partial eclipse? - hahax@verizon.net 20:33:45 07/09/07 (0)
- Is the Partial eclipse flatter than the Super Eclipse? - violinist3 17:06:57 07/09/07 (1)
- RE: Is the Partial eclipse flatter than the Super Eclipse? - Duke 22:18:59 07/09/07 (0)
- RE: What is the real efficiency of the Coincident partial eclipse? - GM 14:30:19 07/09/07 (1)
- RE: What is the real efficiency of the Coincident partial eclipse? - Duke 22:31:03 07/09/07 (0)