Rerurn to Romy the Cat's Site

miab wrote:

I'm curious as to why the preference to paper cones as opposed to carbon/poly/kevlar/ceramic/.... With weight and stiffness advantages of other materials, would advancing technology not be well implemented towards drivers?

My preferences are to the drivers that sound properly and they much not necessary be papers. However, speaker designers invented for themselves an idiotic notion of piston-like uniform movement of driver’s diaphragm, with no break-ups. So, many of today’s “granite drivers” are the illustration of this concept. I do not support the idea of stiff drivers. However, if someone is able to get a right sound from non-stiff drivers then it is good for them. I am not saying it imposable but it is highly unlikely to see in a typically-senseless commercial implementation as the commercial modals are made to fulfill the generic public demand, the demand that is hugely corrupted and tainted.

miab wrote:

I'm Does it have to be one box? What about seperating the cabinets for lower frequencies altogether for a two box solution? Not in the Watt/Puppy (over/under) style but altogether seperate placement. I'm thinking room placement and lower frequency issues.

Well, there in doubts in my mind that for more or less objectionable acoustic system the MF and LF should be separated in different locations a they serve functionally different purpose. I have written about it in multiple places of my site. However for the sake of the given exercise the separate cabinets are no acceptable as it would defeat the whole purpose.  If a person put the LF section into a separate enclosure then you’re not restricted by design limitation of a full range loudspeaker and you can go more aggressive and tougher with your design decisions.  Having a separate LF section would instantaneously imply multiamping, the concept that contradicts the idea of a powerful full-range SET. In any powerful full-range SET I would say 85% of the amp’s efforts and money are wasted for the bottom two-tree octaves. If there is no need for it in the amp then it should not be powerful full-range SET but a DSET (the concept that kills any powerful full-range SET). So, if we accept on the market the army of 30W-100W SETs that are trying to be full-range amplifiers than I think the only rational way to use them is to have just one full-range box. If you go for two box solution with different sensitivity and different loading need then why you would need a powerful full-range SET.

BTW, there is in this subject a “kink” – a powerful full-range SET with the sections of output transformer exposed, allowing driving multiple loudspeaker’ segment by different transformer’s section. However, it becomes complex in term of loading, crossovering and few other subjects that would be too difficult for an ordinary user to care.  In case the powerful full-range SET is many by the same company as the loudspeakers. Then a single amp might have HF and LF outputs.

Rerurn to Romy the Cat's Site