Re: Coaxial dipole - Donald North - Propeller Head Plaza

Re: Coaxial dipole

Posted by Donald North (M) on April 12, 2007 at 22:38:40

In Reply to: Re: Coaxial dipole posted by AJinFLA on April 12, 2007 at 18:58:26:

The 5.5" Peerless sandwich cone drivers have low distortion from 100 Hz on up. Below 100 Hz, the distortion will begin to rise with decreasing frequency due to gradual reduction of suspension and motor linearity. A well-designed 8" woofer should have lower low frequency distortion than a 5.5" for the same SPL. However a quartet of 5.5" midranges has a lot of surface area, so for the same SPL, the distortion will be very low, even below 100 Hz, due to the low cone excursion.

There are many factors which determine the sound quality and signal integrity: cone material and its physical properties, cone geometry, dust cap material and geometry (if there is one), type and quantity of adhesives used, voice coil bobbin material, surround material and geometry. Cone/dust gap geometry are more significant contributors to the rigidity of the moving diaphragm than the cone material. This is why all the 5-7" midwoofers I laser scanned entered their bending modes at or below 400 Hz. This includes the Seas Excels with magnesium cones that I tested. The aggregate combination of all these design elements of the diaphragm assembly determine the impulse and frequency response, and energy-time and CSD behavior of the driver.

I think your aversion should not necessarily be to non rigid cone drivers but to drivers which store energy. I don't like drivers which store energy either.

I've disclosed all details about the design of the midrange module to which I am willing at this time. One of these days I will post measurement data for the speaker on my site. I'm pleased with their measured performance, and they correlate with my claims.

Given your preference towards dipole midrange speakers, I think you will find the Sequences dry and not as spacious as you like.

Donald North

This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:

Follow Ups Full Thread

Topic - Why Isn't The Research Being Done? - thetubeguy1954 09:14:29 04/10/07 (17)

Re: Why Isn't The Research Being Done? - Donald North 15:49:55 04/10/07 (11)

Re: Why Isn't The Research Being Done? - thetubeguy1954 13:36:17 04/11/07 (1)

Re: Why Isn't The Research Being Done? - Donald North 14:11:59 04/11/07 (0)

Re: Why Isn't The Research Being Done? - AJinFLA 17:56:35 04/10/07 (8)

Re: Why Isn't The Research Being Done? - Donald North 18:37:46 04/10/07 (7)

Coaxial dipole - AJinFLA 17:33:01 04/11/07 (5)

Re: Coaxial dipole - Donald North 18:23:11 04/11/07 (4)

Re: Coaxial dipole - AJinFLA 19:40:56 04/11/07 (3)

Re: Coaxial dipole - Donald North 22:26:45 04/11/07 (2)

Re: Coaxial dipole - AJinFLA 18:58:26 04/12/07 (1)

Re: Coaxial dipole - Donald North 22:38:40 04/12/07 (0)

Re: Why Isn't The Research Being Done? - Pat D 19:21:42 04/10/07 (0)

Re: Why Isn't The Research Being Done? - tomservo 10:38:27 04/10/07 (1)

Thanks Tom - thetubeguy1954 11:02:19 04/10/07 (0)

It is - you just don't see it - Axon 09:31:08 04/10/07 (0)

"Why isn't more research being invested into making recorded music sound more like live music?" That's easy! - clarkjohnsen 09:23:10 04/10/07 (1)

Sadly, I agree with your first sentence here Mr. CJ. nt - Presto 12:55:55 04/10/07 (0)

Follow Ups

Re: Coaxial dipole - Donald North 22:38:40 04/12/07 (0)

You can not post to an archived thread.