We know that we don't want a "one-note bass", the low notes must accompany the melody, the "walking" of a doublebass in music of blues or jazz must be heard with many harmonics. And the high notes should remain in the air, like the ringing of a bell or the cymbal of a drum when struck. Which is not so easy to achieve...
I found this link to a state-of-the-art speaker with 81 neodymium magnets, it is a RE of "only" 10 inches that has a BL of 2.4 Tesla!
Therefore I deduce the importance of a high BL factor for a speaker to be considered high quality/development.
The minimum currents that circulate through the coil will have a correlation in the movement of the cone, which with a low BL would be lost. Is this correct to think ?
https://www.stereotimes.com/post/cube-audio-nenuphar-loudspeakers-by-mike-girardi/
I found this link to a state-of-the-art speaker with 81 neodymium magnets, it is a RE of "only" 10 inches that has a BL of 2.4 Tesla!
Therefore I deduce the importance of a high BL factor for a speaker to be considered high quality/development.
The minimum currents that circulate through the coil will have a correlation in the movement of the cone, which with a low BL would be lost. Is this correct to think ?
https://www.stereotimes.com/post/cube-audio-nenuphar-loudspeakers-by-mike-girardi/
It's never just one item in a system that governs the system performance. It's the sum of the components. I don't think one can say that BL is the important factor.
It's better to ponder what total system characteristics one wants to achieve and see to that the black box have it. One can avoid one-note-bass with both low and high BL drivers I'm sure. It depends on the total Q and FR of the total system. Total system being: recording, DAC, amp, speaker, placing, room.
//
It's better to ponder what total system characteristics one wants to achieve and see to that the black box have it. One can avoid one-note-bass with both low and high BL drivers I'm sure. It depends on the total Q and FR of the total system. Total system being: recording, DAC, amp, speaker, placing, room.
//
Any opinions would be welcome, I know this has been talked about before, but there are always new people here who may be interested.
It's beautiful, but frequency response of the entry level is not that good for a quite large loudspeaker.
And $9,500.00 a pair is a lot of money.
Frequency response: 35 Hz - 18kHz ( 6db)*
Dimensions: 30 x 40 x 94 cm
The best model, much bigger and heavier, has a good response, but costs 21,000.00!! a pair.
I have a DIY similar in size (80liters) of the entry level, with 8" woofer, locally sourced, that responds down to 28Hz @ 0dB and down to 23Hz @ -3dB.
I don't use sub woofer, but just these 2 towers.
I prefer a 3-way speaker, where you can fine control the response and don't have to stretch the bandwidth of each speaker.
And $9,500.00 a pair is a lot of money.
Frequency response: 35 Hz - 18kHz ( 6db)*
Dimensions: 30 x 40 x 94 cm
The best model, much bigger and heavier, has a good response, but costs 21,000.00!! a pair.
I have a DIY similar in size (80liters) of the entry level, with 8" woofer, locally sourced, that responds down to 28Hz @ 0dB and down to 23Hz @ -3dB.
I don't use sub woofer, but just these 2 towers.
I prefer a 3-way speaker, where you can fine control the response and don't have to stretch the bandwidth of each speaker.
Last edited:
BL to speakers is like an engine to a car or truck. It's the engine of the speaker. It just dictates how and where the speaker can be used. Like putting a Honda 4 cylinder engine in a Suburban, or a Lambo V12 in a Miata. Both will behave totally different. But in the overall view, it's only one piece of the puzzle.
Every design is different Qts will tell you the whole story.
It includes mechanical and electrical property.
The suspension is either so loose or tight depending on sensitivity goals and other factors.
And the cone/coil can start getting heavy for low distortion/ High SPL/ low frequency etc etc.
So eventually to have good control at resonance you will need more magnet to get low Qts
So it typically takes a rather large magnet for a fast well controlled driver. or low Qts around .3
If the driver has very good control the free air impedance curve will shoot up very high indicating it has very good control at resonance.
But again will be rather obvious if Qts is around .3 to .4
Typical as the speaker moves farther out of the gap in a overhung coil. The magnet looses control.
So at 70% BL expect typical 10% distortion or Xmax
So say you had a typical gap height or front plate of 6mm and at 70% Bl you only had 3mm xmax
it is a rather poor to average magnet
As opposed to a more powerful magnet at 70% Bl you might have 5mm xmax
With a stronger magnet it can maintain control to almost all the 6mm front plate.
One note wonders, will probably have a weak magnet. heavy cone etc etc.
And require a large box. If the box is too small the sound will be boomy or the overall Q of the system
will be too high. The weak little magnet needs help with a bigger box.
If you look at old radio speakers from 1930's to 1940's they make the suspension rather tight for efficiency.
But alnico magnets or field coils were somewhat expensive or difficult to wind.
Pretty weak magnet driven by cost makes for very High Qts speaker. Pretty normal for them to be open back enclosure.
Since they need extremely large enclosure. Open back has very little control though. So it is typical to use a underhung coil.
Or basically stays in the gap for slightly better gap efficiency and cone control since the enclosure offers no air spring or extra cone control.
Boomy annoying high Qts speakers are good for " open baffle" which offers not much cone control but a seemly " large" box.
Or if you can tolerate a large box, they can do well sealed for better cone control.
Might as well go underhung as well to reduce distortion for open back. Expensive rare earth alnico and field coils are in the past.
So you can stack up pretty powerful magnets now cheaply. Specially for live sound drivers using tighter suspension for efficiency.
You can pile up a lot of magnet and get a high efficiency driver with low Qts. least for bass the cone is large, heavy, maybe tight suspension.
Field coil or alnico much easier to use for low mass driver like compression driver. Or today using rare earth neo, much more cheaper and useful
for a mid or tweeter. To get enough BL with neo for a woofer, to even match a typical ceramic magnet. It is a rather expensive chunk of rare earth
and often many smaller magnets in a group to get efficiency in the gap and perform as well as good old ferrite/ceramic
It includes mechanical and electrical property.
The suspension is either so loose or tight depending on sensitivity goals and other factors.
And the cone/coil can start getting heavy for low distortion/ High SPL/ low frequency etc etc.
So eventually to have good control at resonance you will need more magnet to get low Qts
So it typically takes a rather large magnet for a fast well controlled driver. or low Qts around .3
If the driver has very good control the free air impedance curve will shoot up very high indicating it has very good control at resonance.
But again will be rather obvious if Qts is around .3 to .4
Typical as the speaker moves farther out of the gap in a overhung coil. The magnet looses control.
So at 70% BL expect typical 10% distortion or Xmax
So say you had a typical gap height or front plate of 6mm and at 70% Bl you only had 3mm xmax
it is a rather poor to average magnet
As opposed to a more powerful magnet at 70% Bl you might have 5mm xmax
With a stronger magnet it can maintain control to almost all the 6mm front plate.
One note wonders, will probably have a weak magnet. heavy cone etc etc.
And require a large box. If the box is too small the sound will be boomy or the overall Q of the system
will be too high. The weak little magnet needs help with a bigger box.
If you look at old radio speakers from 1930's to 1940's they make the suspension rather tight for efficiency.
But alnico magnets or field coils were somewhat expensive or difficult to wind.
Pretty weak magnet driven by cost makes for very High Qts speaker. Pretty normal for them to be open back enclosure.
Since they need extremely large enclosure. Open back has very little control though. So it is typical to use a underhung coil.
Or basically stays in the gap for slightly better gap efficiency and cone control since the enclosure offers no air spring or extra cone control.
Boomy annoying high Qts speakers are good for " open baffle" which offers not much cone control but a seemly " large" box.
Or if you can tolerate a large box, they can do well sealed for better cone control.
Might as well go underhung as well to reduce distortion for open back. Expensive rare earth alnico and field coils are in the past.
So you can stack up pretty powerful magnets now cheaply. Specially for live sound drivers using tighter suspension for efficiency.
You can pile up a lot of magnet and get a high efficiency driver with low Qts. least for bass the cone is large, heavy, maybe tight suspension.
Field coil or alnico much easier to use for low mass driver like compression driver. Or today using rare earth neo, much more cheaper and useful
for a mid or tweeter. To get enough BL with neo for a woofer, to even match a typical ceramic magnet. It is a rather expensive chunk of rare earth
and often many smaller magnets in a group to get efficiency in the gap and perform as well as good old ferrite/ceramic
Last edited:
That's not how that works; the BL curve and linear displacement limit is dependent on the ratio of coil height to gap height. Differing flux densities from stronger or weaker magnet do not change the shape of the field through the gap. A specific ratio of coil height to gap height will have the same xmax regardless of how strong or weak the motor is.
Thanks for the replies. I'm curious about the bass performance, I always thought a high BL was better, but I've been reading and it's a subject for scholars. It seems simple but it's not (at least for me) but I'd like to present a specific case that puzzles me.
I built a subwoofer, 18 inches, BR, 120 liters, the speaker was designed as a PA subwoofer, Eminence Delta Pro 18 A. Ferrite magnet. Powered with a lot of power and Xover via DSP (Bheringer NX3000D, default cutoff of NXEdit software at 20 Hz)
Also many years ago I had built (and I still enjoy it) a vintage JBL, BR, 80 liters, LE14C - it's the same as the LE14A - Alnico magnet. This one has less BL than the Eminence, but believe it or not, I hear that the bass is more natural and deeper. 😳 The xover is the LX-1, a coil and a capacitor to block the bass and protect the tweeter, but the twofer is direct all de power y FR to the VC. That is, the cutoff frequency is limited to the response of the amplifier, a NAD3020.
Obviously, the speakers are in the same room, although not in the same position.
I can provide more data on each of these speakers if necessary .....
I built a subwoofer, 18 inches, BR, 120 liters, the speaker was designed as a PA subwoofer, Eminence Delta Pro 18 A. Ferrite magnet. Powered with a lot of power and Xover via DSP (Bheringer NX3000D, default cutoff of NXEdit software at 20 Hz)
Also many years ago I had built (and I still enjoy it) a vintage JBL, BR, 80 liters, LE14C - it's the same as the LE14A - Alnico magnet. This one has less BL than the Eminence, but believe it or not, I hear that the bass is more natural and deeper. 😳 The xover is the LX-1, a coil and a capacitor to block the bass and protect the tweeter, but the twofer is direct all de power y FR to the VC. That is, the cutoff frequency is limited to the response of the amplifier, a NAD3020.
Obviously, the speakers are in the same room, although not in the same position.
I can provide more data on each of these speakers if necessary .....
Last edited:
What would be the equivalence between Eminence = 18.9 T-M and JBL = 11000 Gauss? I've been digging around the net and I see that they are very different ways of measuring the intensity of the magnetic field, I can't use 1 Tesla = 10000 Gauss because then Eminence Delta Pro 18 A would have 189000 Gauss! Look at the size of those magnets, yes, I see that one is Ferrite and the other Alnico, but still...
By the way, I forgot to mention that LE14C/LE14A are 14-inch speakers versus 18 of the Eminence 18 A
By the way, I forgot to mention that LE14C/LE14A are 14-inch speakers versus 18 of the Eminence 18 A
Attachments
All right. Some first principles, FWIW, some covered above, but quickly going over:
- BL is actually a factor: B*L as in the flux density in the coil gap x the length of the coil itself expressed in Tesla Meters or Newton Amps assuming 1 ampere of current is applied. You can in fact (probably should in practice rather than static conditions) take that an extra step and call it B*L*i where i is the amount of current that's actually used.
- B*L is a fundamental parameter; for a given size of drive unit, it, with Mms & the coil impedance, determines reference efficiency
- It's a constituent of the Qe (electrical damping at resonance) calculation, which is taken as (2pi*Fs*Mms*Re)/(B*L^2). So it affects the total Q (summed electrical & mechanical damping at resonance) where Qts = (Qes*Qms)/(Qes+Qms). The lower, the more highly damped at resonance the driver is.
- Moving coil drive units are constant acceleration devices in their piston range -there isn't really much variation as such, since 'speed' in its mass-controlled piston range is proportional to the amount of current applied, and in the 'acceleration' (rising response) BW up to the mass corner frequency 2Fs/Qts' by the driver Q in free air conditions or the enclosure load under practical usage. This can change when you get to the upper TL (resonant) BW of the cone & any sub-emitting surfaces, but that's a separate issue, since you're now dealing with resonant structures and their mechanical properties and the damping applied to them become critical -as much or more than the raw electrical motor strength
Hi Scott
Thanks for that, the theory is irrefutable, but... so I should deduce that the JBL meets better TS parameters - in general - than the Eminence, despite having a less powerful magnet? Is that so? What about the equivalences? What is the real comparison between both? And I should deduce that for that reason their low frequency reproduction is better? Something doesn't add up, definitely. What about the 20 HZ cut by default in Beringher through the DSP software, as I already mentioned? The JBL is NOT a speaker manufactured as a "subwoofer", the Eminence IS, and yet JBL comes in cleaner "down there" in my sound systems. Look at the crossover network and you will see that it reproduces the entire frequency range it receives from the amplifier, there is a "natural" filter there, the highs are absorbed by the cone, which has a higher Mms than Eminence at first glance, because the cone has corrugations, Aquaplas coating on its back, more sensitive suspension - foam - instead of the fabric/bitumen accordion, etc.
I must say that the VC of those JBL speakers is a classic that is widely copied today. It is 4 inches, the coil turns are concentrated in a smaller space, by using square section wire.
I sense greater reaction to weak currents there. Eminence has a VC of 2.5 inches and with several superimposed layers of common wire (I think there are three, I checked with the manufacturer at the time), it is a beast designed to pull other cars. At a rock show nobody is dedicated to analyzing harmonics, I suppose.
I think I will have to experiment a bit. I have already found out and there is a "trick" to make the Bheringer reproduce less than 20 Hz. Or maybe reconnect a Dayton SPA250 plate amplifier that I already used with the Eminence speaker, it does not have DSP, but I can select the crossover frequency and the gain. I seem to remember that I was more satisfied with the sound, despite having less power, perhaps the sound obtained from the switched sources is not as good as that of the analog ones, many people have made conscientious measurements and came to that conclusion ........
Thanks for that, the theory is irrefutable, but... so I should deduce that the JBL meets better TS parameters - in general - than the Eminence, despite having a less powerful magnet? Is that so? What about the equivalences? What is the real comparison between both? And I should deduce that for that reason their low frequency reproduction is better? Something doesn't add up, definitely. What about the 20 HZ cut by default in Beringher through the DSP software, as I already mentioned? The JBL is NOT a speaker manufactured as a "subwoofer", the Eminence IS, and yet JBL comes in cleaner "down there" in my sound systems. Look at the crossover network and you will see that it reproduces the entire frequency range it receives from the amplifier, there is a "natural" filter there, the highs are absorbed by the cone, which has a higher Mms than Eminence at first glance, because the cone has corrugations, Aquaplas coating on its back, more sensitive suspension - foam - instead of the fabric/bitumen accordion, etc.
I must say that the VC of those JBL speakers is a classic that is widely copied today. It is 4 inches, the coil turns are concentrated in a smaller space, by using square section wire.
I sense greater reaction to weak currents there. Eminence has a VC of 2.5 inches and with several superimposed layers of common wire (I think there are three, I checked with the manufacturer at the time), it is a beast designed to pull other cars. At a rock show nobody is dedicated to analyzing harmonics, I suppose.
I think I will have to experiment a bit. I have already found out and there is a "trick" to make the Bheringer reproduce less than 20 Hz. Or maybe reconnect a Dayton SPA250 plate amplifier that I already used with the Eminence speaker, it does not have DSP, but I can select the crossover frequency and the gain. I seem to remember that I was more satisfied with the sound, despite having less power, perhaps the sound obtained from the switched sources is not as good as that of the analog ones, many people have made conscientious measurements and came to that conclusion ........
Attachments
Last edited:
I don't know, since I don't know how you're defining 'better'. There are no 'better' T/S parameters in overall terms. T/S parameters, or what we generally lump together under that name, are just a mixture of electromechanical parameters / values, divided up into fundamental properties, small signal parameters and large signal parameters. In a sense, they are what they are (with some variation in small signal values for drive level & climatic conditions) and you pick a driver for a wide variety of reasons, one of which may be how best its overall T/S values best suits your requirements (others being frequency response, impedance, HD & IM distortion performance, which are also usually affected by other features which may or may not be obviously reflected in the bald T/S values such as Farrady shielding / plating / symmetric drive, spider / surround design, ventilation etc.
Well, an 11,000gauss magnet = 1.1 Tesla, but for Tesla metres (i.e. a B*L factor -remember B*L is a factor, not a single value) you also need to know the length of wire suspended in the magnetic field; they're not direct equivalents since the Gauss figure only provides half of the equation.
As far as a T/S comparison goes, measured data taken under identical conditions. Even then, per above, that's only a part of the equation, since T/S parameters themselves are extremely useful, but don't tell you everything about a drive unit.
Again, it depends what you're calling 'better'. Assuming (just as a thought experiment -it's guaranteed not to be in practice) identical responses & identical alignments in identical enclosures there are audible & measureable differences, you're unlikely to be able to identify all of those simply from the 'basic' tabulated data from a lumped T/S set; you'll almost certainly need frequency, impedance & various distortion measurements for that, along with some knowledge of the physical design details.
There you go -one example that you couldn't identify 'blind' from a set of T/S values. Depending on how comprehensive it is, you might be able to make some broad inferences from Le & Le2 values etc., but these aren't cut & dried, just some macro indications.
I can't comment about the Behringer as I haven't looked into it, & I've no real interest in DSP & active systems, with the exception of some arrays. Nothing against them, just not very interesting to me. And these are separate in any event from the actual drive unit characteristics, so like any form of filter, you're basically applying some form of equalisation to & shaping of its behaviour -it's just the method that differs.
All of this is a bit moot anyway, since you're not even comparing equivalent size drive units (not even close), and for technical comparisons to have any value, that's really one of the fundamentals.
The "quote" does not appear? Is it because I am responding to the last post?
Anyway, here it goes, in order of appearance.
1) I seem to have forgotten that a magnet with a certain strength doesn't say much if it doesn't interact with a certain winding...
2) I was referring to the fact that Delta Pro 18 A has 18.9 Tm, but they are Tesla Meters, which I see is not the same as Tesla = 10,000 Gauss....but it is no longer important to know which magnet is more powerful given the previous point.
3) I was referring to what I hear as bass reproduction that is NOT "single note", but contains many overtones. I listen to a lot of jazz music, those double basses are my weakness...
I think that given the build quality of the Eminence speaker, with a cheap connector to solder, a light paper cone without further treatment and a classic suspension, and a dubious motor for hi-fi....
My conclusion is that I should have invested a little more money in another speaker, 18Sound has good products too and they are available here. Not JBL's professional subwoofers, but they would be impossible for my budget anyway. Thanks for your kind responses.
Anyway, here it goes, in order of appearance.
1) I seem to have forgotten that a magnet with a certain strength doesn't say much if it doesn't interact with a certain winding...
2) I was referring to the fact that Delta Pro 18 A has 18.9 Tm, but they are Tesla Meters, which I see is not the same as Tesla = 10,000 Gauss....but it is no longer important to know which magnet is more powerful given the previous point.
3) I was referring to what I hear as bass reproduction that is NOT "single note", but contains many overtones. I listen to a lot of jazz music, those double basses are my weakness...
I think that given the build quality of the Eminence speaker, with a cheap connector to solder, a light paper cone without further treatment and a classic suspension, and a dubious motor for hi-fi....
My conclusion is that I should have invested a little more money in another speaker, 18Sound has good products too and they are available here. Not JBL's professional subwoofers, but they would be impossible for my budget anyway. Thanks for your kind responses.
Attachments
(You can isolate and quote a section like this.) I got my pair of JBL 2226H 15" Fs40hz for $125 (possibly vc replaced considering low price but still very high resolution bass). Pair LE14A would cost $750 with surrounds replaced; here both are abundant. My question is, would the LE14A/C be even better specifically for doublebass? My 12" small alnico vintage Rola(s) and Zenith didn't go that low (on the fundamental) but doublebass still sounded better (with more focused strength) than my smaller stuff.
Last edited:
What a coincidence !, there is a forum member friend who has two of those JBL 2226H and he can't decide whether to use them... I'd bet they deliver better bass ! 😊
https://www.vinylengine.com/turntable_forum/viewtopic.php?f=85&t=137884&start=12
Post 3702
"Someday before I croak, I'd like to build that designers higher end horn augmented speakers using the JBL 2226H woofer and B&C compression driver. Got the drivers and everything. I've become like Percy Kilbride aka, Pa Kettle. Who he and I procrastinate about equally."
https://www.vinylengine.com/turntable_forum/viewtopic.php?f=85&t=137884&start=12
Post 3702
"Someday before I croak, I'd like to build that designers higher end horn augmented speakers using the JBL 2226H woofer and B&C compression driver. Got the drivers and everything. I've become like Percy Kilbride aka, Pa Kettle. Who he and I procrastinate about equally."
Attachments
They're excellent -worthy decendants (definitely not the same, but you can see the engineering history) of the old Altec units.
Re overtones, that's largely taking you back to bandwidth, frequency response, distortion performance etc. The Eminence, for all its other merits, doesn't have, and isn't designed for a wide operating BW, so assuming that's required the JBLs automatically have an advantage in this regard for obvious reasons: they were designed for a wider BW, and their engineering priorities reflect that.
Re overtones, that's largely taking you back to bandwidth, frequency response, distortion performance etc. The Eminence, for all its other merits, doesn't have, and isn't designed for a wide operating BW, so assuming that's required the JBLs automatically have an advantage in this regard for obvious reasons: they were designed for a wider BW, and their engineering priorities reflect that.
And so, I have another conclusion here. With the advent of DSP, many people, when they detect some deficiency in the speaker/sound cabinet assembly, automatically think "with a little software manipulation I will correct it".
Well, you can manipulate FR, increase or decrease a few DB according to your needs, but the harmonics will be produced by the final element, our beloved speaker. At least, that is what I am experiencing. I have tried different filters and different slopes, Besell, Buterwhort, LR, and 6, 12,18,24 DB/octave and here I am. A waste of time for me.
For that very reason I do not think I will venture to do what you advise me here:
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...sp-amplifier-review.14544/page-5#post-2122887
( Post 94 onwards )
Well, you can manipulate FR, increase or decrease a few DB according to your needs, but the harmonics will be produced by the final element, our beloved speaker. At least, that is what I am experiencing. I have tried different filters and different slopes, Besell, Buterwhort, LR, and 6, 12,18,24 DB/octave and here I am. A waste of time for me.
For that very reason I do not think I will venture to do what you advise me here:
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...sp-amplifier-review.14544/page-5#post-2122887
( Post 94 onwards )
Well don't look at me -I didn't! 😉 (whatever it is -no time to read). I'm not a member of the ASR forum -nothing for or against, I just don't have time to be on multiple boards these days & this is where I prefer to lurk.
The harmonics are produced by 'the beloved speaker' but they're ultimately part of the overall frequency response -not separate from it. If it's flat, it's flat, end of. But there are other reasons why one unit may be superior to another -for e.g., if you're forcing a driver that isn't designed for a wide bandwidth to play over a wide bandwith through EQ or whatever, then even if you've flattened the response out, you'll likely be running into other issues -excess non-linear distortion of various types & through various causes, perhaps limited power response / narrowing polars through coil diameter, cone & suspension geometry, inherent resonant modes that may have had the linear flattened but leave the non-linear present (back to the non-linear distortion again) & so on & so forth. Equalisation can be a very powerful tool -especailly in recent years. But it's not a panacea & it can't fix everything -many things, yes, but at the end of the day, it's still an electrical and potentially time manipulation, and some physical / mechanical issues simply can't be fixed that way.
The harmonics are produced by 'the beloved speaker' but they're ultimately part of the overall frequency response -not separate from it. If it's flat, it's flat, end of. But there are other reasons why one unit may be superior to another -for e.g., if you're forcing a driver that isn't designed for a wide bandwidth to play over a wide bandwith through EQ or whatever, then even if you've flattened the response out, you'll likely be running into other issues -excess non-linear distortion of various types & through various causes, perhaps limited power response / narrowing polars through coil diameter, cone & suspension geometry, inherent resonant modes that may have had the linear flattened but leave the non-linear present (back to the non-linear distortion again) & so on & so forth. Equalisation can be a very powerful tool -especailly in recent years. But it's not a panacea & it can't fix everything -many things, yes, but at the end of the day, it's still an electrical and potentially time manipulation, and some physical / mechanical issues simply can't be fixed that way.
Mom, soup again?
In the last post, the "quote" marks don't appear!
No problem, maybe it will be useful to others. I don't participate much there either, too technical for my knowledge and they make you feel quite arrogant. In that thread I attached, a guy thinks that you can't compare a class AB amplifier and a class D one, that it's a comparison of apples and oranges. He gives his explanation about the speed of the signal, etc. And I think that yes, he is right, it sounds coherent to me..
It seems that I said something stupid, well at almost 75 years old and my memory is getting weaker, I forgive myself....
That's what I wanted to say, nothing like a pure signal and a good speaker, in my opinion. Although I am no longer a user of full range speakers, I believe that a filter in the signal path alters something (don't ask me what, you know it well, ha) audible to the same.
I already mentioned how the LX2-1 crossover network that I attached allows the signal to pass through cleanly. No coils there to block mids and highs, let them pass, they will die mechanically there, the ribs of the cone end a few centimeters before reaching the VC to favor the reproduction of mids. It is a coaxial. And yes, I love it, it was a wedding gift from my wife's aunt who brought - from the USA to Argentina - two of these beasts in her suitcases to look good with her niece... When she met me she said: "Kid, you could have chosen something smaller"
And my DQWTII speakers have the midrange speaker connected directly too, the designer, TG said: No high quality capacitor will be better than the absence of it"
In the last post, the "quote" marks don't appear!
No problem, maybe it will be useful to others. I don't participate much there either, too technical for my knowledge and they make you feel quite arrogant. In that thread I attached, a guy thinks that you can't compare a class AB amplifier and a class D one, that it's a comparison of apples and oranges. He gives his explanation about the speed of the signal, etc. And I think that yes, he is right, it sounds coherent to me..
It seems that I said something stupid, well at almost 75 years old and my memory is getting weaker, I forgive myself....
That's what I wanted to say, nothing like a pure signal and a good speaker, in my opinion. Although I am no longer a user of full range speakers, I believe that a filter in the signal path alters something (don't ask me what, you know it well, ha) audible to the same.
I already mentioned how the LX2-1 crossover network that I attached allows the signal to pass through cleanly. No coils there to block mids and highs, let them pass, they will die mechanically there, the ribs of the cone end a few centimeters before reaching the VC to favor the reproduction of mids. It is a coaxial. And yes, I love it, it was a wedding gift from my wife's aunt who brought - from the USA to Argentina - two of these beasts in her suitcases to look good with her niece... When she met me she said: "Kid, you could have chosen something smaller"
And my DQWTII speakers have the midrange speaker connected directly too, the designer, TG said: No high quality capacitor will be better than the absence of it"
Last edited: