doudou Posted September 27, 2004 Share Posted September 27, 2004 i was talking about the dual-concentric driver design that cleve introduce when talking about tannoy you post too fast for me, in the time it took to me to think in english you post 20 time!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fini Posted September 27, 2004 Share Posted September 27, 2004 ---------------- On 9/24/2004 10:44:21 AM Q-Man wrote: Isn't this where Fini comes in and says something like he prefers a 3-way as long as it's with two girls? Or do I have that wrong? ---------------- No, I was going to say that I prefer a full, open top end, with a warm, tight bottom end. Or the opposite. It's all about reproduction, although my, uh, speaker wires were cut several years ago... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dodger Posted September 27, 2004 Share Posted September 27, 2004 Greetings: On page 2 of this thread, RFK notes that sounds emminate from all of nature not just through woofers, mids and tweeters - paraphrased. The sounds emminate from a number of sources able to produce and meant to produce different tones. Birds chirping, dogs growling, other animals bellowing. It is the human ear that is the source of being a recptacle of all of those tones through the ear canal, hairs and the ear drum. If a speaker, horn or cone, could be made to accurately reflect what our 2 ears can hear, that would be a major improvement. We have the Bose, the Tannoys and as stated people love them or they hate them. What if we could exchange our hearing components? Or trade them with someone else with a different hearing curve and sensitivity? One of my clocks just chimed, it is meant for one note. In theory, that would have come through a mid. But one cannot categorize all sounds we hear as possibly being made from one speaker. The human ear and its structure must be remembered along with all of the auditory nerves and mental interpretations. dodger Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrWho Posted September 27, 2004 Share Posted September 27, 2004 ---------------- On 9/26/2004 11:57:54 AM TBrennan wrote: Dr Who----That a high sensitivity DR cone sounds better than a horn is strictly your opinion, not a fact. And I know of no DR cones that match compression driver sensitivity. ---------------- Opinion? I was trying to be hypothetical. A DR cone with the same sensitivity as a horn should have less distortion. Using a larger throat is just minimizing a flaw already in the design. When it comes down to it, I find that every DR basically has the same sound as all the other DRs. Same thing with horns and electrostatics and so forth...Each design has inherent flaws and the better sounding speakers just do a better job of tweaking around them; but the flaws are still there. If you're going to get serious about obtaining the purest audio signal path, then you're going to need to find a new type of speaker that naturally doesn't have all these crap flaws. I forget who said it (maybe pwk), but he said that it's freaken amazing that we get anything realistic sounding through the crap system we've set up for ourselves (paraphrase, lol...perhaps i should find the actual quote). When it comes down to x-way versus y-way, it just becomes a matter of preference. Personally, I'm a fan of the fully horn loaded 2 way systems and I'd really like to hear something similar to the jubilee... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marvel Posted September 27, 2004 Share Posted September 27, 2004 I actually knew it was John Warren! I was just thinking that those JBLs would certainly sound very good, with high sensitivity. But the cost value certainly changed as well. Adding four of those 10s wasn't cheap, even with the deal he got. Marvel Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D-MAN Posted September 28, 2004 Share Posted September 28, 2004 On the subject of compression midrange drivers vs. cone midrange drivers here's some thoughts... The compression driver typically has a smaller, lighter diaphragm compared to the "regular" cone midrange. In threory, the light weight and smaller size of the compression diaphragm, combined with the reduced excursion afforded by horn loading, allows for less modulation distortion. This usually translates as faster, more dynamic transients compared to the cone driver for the same electrical signal. It can also translate as being more efficient coupling to the atmosphere which also lowers distortions (both modulation and dopler) as it requires less excursion than a cone driver to achieve the same SPL. The higher efficiency also means that the horn-loaded driver is easier to drive from the amplifier and results in less distortion, i.e., lower power is required to achieve the same SPL as the load is easier to drive as it is more consistant in the amount of reactance presented to the amp. The dispersion characteristics are also more controlled with a horn than a direct radiator. All of which would reinforce the notion that a horn-loaded midrange compression driver fields some advantages that a direct-radiating cone midrange driver does not. DM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.