What speakers will fit?

DrNumbers · 07-21-2017, 01:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MaysEffect

Whats the purpose of claiming the information is wrong without presenting any facts to your claim.

The speaker depth dictates the potential angle and curvature of the cone, if you reduce the speaker depth you reduce the potential cone depth. Less speaker depth means you inherently sacrifice the curvature of the cone. Changing the cone convexity can and will change the directional beaming of a speaker certainly in the low mids->high fq range. Lastly changing the cone depth changes the overall displacement of air. changing a number of factors can change the total displacement of air, but the primary contributors is the depth of the speaker and xmax of the voicecoil, and the depth of the cone. That was my point about shallow depth speakers which sacrifice both of these factors. A 6 inch wide by 6 inch deep cone will always have more cone area than a 6 inch wide by 1 inch deep speaker.

More of this is discuesed in this older topic
Speaker cone designs and their effects - Car Audio | DiyMobileAudio.com | Car Stereo Forum

Oh man.. Mays just said

Lol..

I highly doubt OP needs to get that technical with speakers either way. He's building a relatively low budget system and he's working with an audio shop. I'm not even sure why the shop isn't handling all the details for him. It sounds like to me he needs to find a better shop.

MaysEffect · 07-21-2017, 01:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DrNumbers

Oh man.. Mays just said

Lol..

I highly doubt OP needs to get that technical with speakers either way. He's building a relatively low budget system and he's working with an audio shop. I'm not even sure why the shop isn't handling all the details for him. It sounds like to me he needs to find a better shop.

I was trying to keep it simple. I just wanted to mention Shallow depth speakers and the potential pro's and con's.

DrNumbers · 07-21-2017, 02:32 AM

I think you did keep it simple. My last comment was meant to be directed to Chopz's comment telling the OP to go do more research. The fact the OP posted on here instead of doing the research himself to begin with would suggest that is very unlikely to happen. And now it's time to get back to work...

ChopsZ · 07-21-2017, 07:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DrNumbers

Oh man.. Mays just said

Uh, no he didn't. But I'm saying that to you...

DrNumbers · 07-21-2017, 11:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChopsZ

Uh, no he didn't. But I'm saying that to you...

Fair enough!

ChopsZ · 07-21-2017, 07:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MaysEffect

Whats the purpose of claiming the information is wrong without presenting any facts to your claim.

The speaker depth dictates the potential angle and curvature of the cone, if you reduce the speaker depth you reduce the potential cone depth. Less speaker depth means you inherently sacrifice the curvature of the cone. Changing the cone convexity can and will change the directional beaming of a speaker certainly in the low mids->high fq range. Lastly changing the cone depth changes the overall displacement of air. changing a number of factors can change the total displacement of air, but the primary contributors is the depth of the speaker and xmax of the voicecoil, and the depth of the cone. That was my point about shallow depth speakers which sacrifice both of these factors. A 6 inch wide by 6 inch deep cone will always have more cone area than a 6 inch wide by 1 inch deep speaker.

More of this is discuesed in this older topic
Speaker cone designs and their effects - Car Audio | DiyMobileAudio.com | Car Stereo Forum

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.

MaysEffect · 07-21-2017, 11:02 AM

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.

ChopsZ · 07-22-2017, 07:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MaysEffect

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.

This was the issue.

I was referring to mid and high frequency reproduction only, whereas you were referring to mid and bass reproduction. So we were/are both correct.

Sorry for the mix up.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
[FOR SALE] Base Radio + Speakers + Aftermarket Speakers	Uzair72	Parts for sale (Private Classifieds)	1	05-03-2015 08:09 PM
Basic speakers to Bose Speakers	e36er	Audio & Video	7	08-21-2012 01:45 PM
JL XD500/3 not powering up speakers properly (only speakers or only sub at a time)	MicTheProduce	Audio & Video	4	07-17-2012 05:16 PM
[WTB] OEM Speakers	FastPaced	Parts for sale (Private Classifieds)	0	11-01-2011 09:00 AM
speakers	kensnismo	Audio & Video	4	05-03-2011 12:14 PM

07-21-2017, 02:32 AM	#3 (permalink)
DrNumbers Base Member Join Date: Mar 2017 Location: SoCal Posts: 71 Drives: 2016 370Z Rep Power: 10	I think you did keep it simple. My last comment was meant to be directed to Chopz's comment telling the OP to go do more research. The fact the OP posted on here instead of doing the research himself to begin with would suggest that is very unlikely to happen. And now it's time to get back to work...