Quote:
Originally Posted by ChopsZ
Again, wrong. Well, part right, part wrong.
Beaming has to do with frequency and cone diameter, not cone curvature or depth.
When dealing with midrange frequencies (the most sensitive to human hearing), you don't use a "deep" cone. In fact, the shallower, the better. The deeper the cone, the more resonance, cone break-up and non-linearity you get from the cone.
Probably why some of the finest, most accurate midrange drivers in the world are flat, near flat, shallow, or not even cones at all.
|
I can see how what i'm saying may be a bit misleading, but i'm not sure you are accurately following my point. My initial point was a lack of cone depth (cone concavity >cone area) sacrifices BASS response and impact. I didn't say anything about its way of handling higher frequencies, the article i posted even made this argument for me - post #4 by electrodynamics made this exact argument, in which i 100% agree to.
I'm sure i also wrote (maybe not in this thread), using such a driver with less cone area (flat, convex) would work well with a dedicated subwoofer or low bass driver. In this i think we are agreeing to the same thing. But in the case where this particularly driver has to do both the work for mids and low bass, a larger cone area is more beneficial. Of course you have the hybrid type drivers that use phase plugs and pointed dustcaps which will add a bit in articulations and decreasing "phase" cancellations which help out mids>highs. But that wasn't my point, it was made in the article...which is why i linked it.
If you sacrifice the overall width, you can gain some back with depth, which was my point about the smaller 5 1/2 speaker with a deeper cone depth oppose to a flat shallow depth speaker.
I also including somewhere how a domed tweeter or midrange driver is best for dispersion of higher frequencies, this clearly goes against the idea of cone concavity which works better with bass and larger excursions drivers.