audio-talk

Makes perfect sense. That was what the first two paragraphs of my post were about. :^) The third paragraph was an expansion of your remarks in re efficiency, not a reply to them per se, though I see I wasn't very clear.

(deleted the worthless attempt to explain)

deleted

It's a case of how well you can control the driver. A more powerful motor = superior cone control, especially when combined with a light & stiff diaphram. Low Q drivers for e.g. are overdamped in the LF, with a high mass corner & shallow roll-off. Remember it's also relative rather than ulti...

Deleted useless post.

deleted

Deleted post.

You speak words of wisdom Nick. It depends what it is you're doing. What applies for a flat baffle, with its dipolar radiation characteristics, does not necessarily hold good for a U-frame, or open-back cabinet, which have a more complicated polar response (though you can take good odds it'll be fin...

The mass-corner of a driver is a floating point that is defined by the Qt and Fs. It is the point at which the LF response will start to roll away.

He's right. And it cetainly makes things cheaper. ;^) Normally I bleed low Q drivers = better, but on a flat baffle a higher Q is extremely useful as you don't have to resort to brute force or multiple drive units to prop the LF up. What's more important is the mass-corner & roll-off characteris...

WRT flat baffle shapes, low Fs is good; what's more important though is a low mass-corner, or things will roll off far more than is ideal, unless you resort to multiple drivers to boost overall system senstivity, or move to a different shape, with sides et al. Brigg's books are still an excellent re...

120s are great -both the FX & F120a, but my God, do you pay for it. Especially the latter. Happy Christmas to you James -good to see you around again. Yep, there seems an over-assumption / reliance on a flat FR these days, as if that is the be-all-end-all. Nice if you can get it, but given our h...

So the big question for Mr Scott is should I cut out the top of the bottom box? i.e. for it to be open bafffle does the back of the driver have to have the full hight of the front baffle like the front of it does? I realise using it as it is now there is a resonance issue with the open back box the...

Happy Christmas to you all guys! Hope you all have a good 'un & look forward to seeng you in the new year. Just options Dave. There won't much, if anything, in it in practice -it's just me having some fun with resonance math more than anything else. How to get a theoretical optimum, even if the ...

As it's Christmas, here's an optional adjustment for you Dave. An alternative driver-position is 16.625in down from the sealed end, rather than the 11in of my originals. Technically the performance is slightly better, though the driver is lower, so it's the usual win some, loose some. Driver positio...

Sorry. Not meaning to be mysterious, I simply have several options, all of them horn-based, and I haven't decided on which one yet. Given that I tend to prefer as little dynamic compression as possible, pipe-horns are favourite at this stage, but I might change my mind as I'm working so much with fo...