 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Driving, Maintenance, Tuning / Car Audio / October 2007polk 6x9
i just bought a pair. $70. free shipping too. figure ya only live once. might as well go high end. oops..$85 i meant..polk db690. i choose them over kicker ks69. I went to a Circuit City this year to listen to some speakers. The one's I wanted to hear were not working or hooked up or some dumb excuse. Bye bye CC Buying speakers unheard is a shade dumber than dumb. Years ago a similar sound system could all be made to sound very much alike if one played with the tone controls. arthur >oops..$85 i meant..polk db690. >i choose them over kicker ks69. arthur, i never heard these before but i'll chance buying from 1 of the best speaker makers on earth. how bad can they sound? n ill eq them to my liking.lol theyre marked down to $85 from $140. i think. i'd put polk ahead of jl n others. you never did say if you bought them.or why not. My point buddy is that sound is very much a subjective thing. All the good brands are good. I do not buy sneakers untested or speakers unheard. As to the rest of the story, it is not really worth the bandwith since the leasons to be learned are not predicated on the end of the story. cheers arthur >arthur, i never heard these before but i'll chance buying from 1 of the >best speaker makers on earth. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >i'd put polk ahead of jl n others. > you never did say if you bought them.or why not. Two points: 1) Listening to a 6x9 in a store doesn't tell you crap about what it will sound like in your car 2) $85 isn't a huge investment, and car audio as a hobby does tend to require some experimentation As much as it pains me to agree with bob, I think his position here is defendable. JD P.S. Even great brands make stinkers sometimes... though I don't think so in this case, I would be a little more cautious about making that assumption all of the time. > My point buddy is that sound is very much a subjective thing. All the > good brands are good. I do not buy sneakers untested or speakers [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >>i'd put polk ahead of jl n others. >>you never did say if you bought them.or why not. the point is comparing what you hear. No technical specifications can describe how a speaker will sound ... once we get past the expected quality issue. Further, what an 18 year old hears and a 48 year old hears are totally dissimilar. I assume we are not speaking of air volume movers. Coloration is not a specification. The marketing types love their hype. arthur >Two points: > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >JD arthur, Most of what you post here seems ignorant at best... do you actually know anything about audio in general or car audio in particular? Sound boards with very few exceptions do NOT sound like cars. Almost without exception, people pick the speaker that sounded loudest to them in the store. Once you put that same speaker in a car, you are no longer comparing one speaker to another so efficiency stops being the dominant factor. Furthermore, the acoustic differences of the car interior vs. the sound board are far more drastic than the probable differences between speaker A and speaker B in the store. Hence my statement that putting them in the car to see how they sound for the nominal cost of $85 wasn't such a bad idea. Besides, it's not your money so who cares whether you approve? Now, what you MAY hear in the store are things you don't like that likely will also show up in the car: screechy high frequency, no midrange, etc. Bob's assessment that a respected audio company like Polk probably didn't make those kinds of elementary mistakes in their design is pretty reasonable. Wouldn't have hurt to have confirmed that with a quick audition but he seems relatively pleased with his $85 outlay anyway. Did you think it was productive to lecture him about what he should have done? Has lecturing bob about anything EVER been productive? Not in my experience... you mostly just feed his ego by responding. As to the difference between the 18 year old & the 48 year old, your assumption may be true but probably not the way you think. You were likely implying that hearing acuity is worse in the middle-aged but that is not at all a given. It depends on many things including exposure to loud sounds over their lifetimes, diseases, etc. But, plenty of 48 year olds still have reasonably good listening acuity... and maybe more to the point, a lot of them have vastly more experience with listening to audio gear than the typical 18 year old. So, you may be right that they hear different things although your reasons for saying so are likely wrong. Not sure why that mattered either, as there were no age issues introduced prior to your comment. MOSFET, I know very well who bob is & that he's a useless troll more often than not. I may not post often but I've been here years now & I still skim posts. Every dog has his day & I think this may have been his only keeper. That's my opinion anyway... JD > the point is comparing what you hear. No technical specifications can > describe how a speaker will sound ... once we get past the expected [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] >> >>JD lol..... i gotta say i do enjoy exposing expert car audio installers as lil more than some1 petaling a companys line as like they are better than other products. usually not. there might be 3 other brands of car speakers that can match polks line up of speakers. beating them is amatter of opinion. thats 3 in all usa n maybe japan.including korea/china. not too up on europes brands. oh n those $85 polks. i'd subtract $10 for shipping.outa the price.to get the price of just the speakers. so more like $75. LOL....... Who is in charge of the buyer;s money and happiness? Your marketing department? Get your hearing tested if you are no longer a kid and then report back here. arthur >arthur, > [quoted text clipped - 66 lines] >>> >>>JD I would ask you the same question... are you in charge of bob's happiness, or his buying decisions? I think not... and please recall you were the one that decided to piss in his wheaties, not me. The fact that a Polk speaker is involved was incidental; I'd have said the same thing if he'd bought Boston Acoustics, Focal, JL, etc. I'll be 50 this year and have had regular hearing tests every 2-3 years since I entered this business in 1977. Everything checks out fine. Pretty hard to be a product manager in the audio business & be hard of hearing, Beethoven notwithstanding. No comment on the technical facts of car speaker auditioning that made up the bulk of my response? Or are you winding down to just taking cheap shots at my motivation & age? I'd like to know before I waste any more time providing that kind of useful information... JD > Who is in charge of the buyer;s money and happiness? > Your marketing department? [quoted text clipped - 74 lines] >>>> >>>>JD > As much as it pains me to agree with bob, I think his position here is > defendable. You obviously don't know Bob, our resident troll, very well yet. MOSFET Yah, Polk, wow. You're into the really super-duper high-end esoteric stuff now, Bob. Guess you'll need some tube amps and Cardas cable to go with those "high-end" 6X9's. 6X9's?!?!?! Well, I guess ANYTHING'S better than JVC. MOSFET > oops..$85 i meant..polk db690. > i choose them over kicker ks69. mosfit polks better than anything you got.lol bet you got jl n memphis.lol Yes, Bob, I do have JL for my midbass. Big secret there. But I use Infinity tweets and bi-amp my front stage. Do you know what "bi-amping" means, Bob? Didn't think so. How about "seperates"? Know what those are? Or are 6X9's about as "high-end" as you get? I'm sorry, Bob, I just couldn't help myself when you refered to your 6x9's as "high-end". I usually just ignore your posts. MOSFET > mosfit polks better than anything you got.lol > bet you got jl n memphis.lol mosfet, i guess you think 6x9s are useless.lol i think most speakers can be used well. depends on the user. first basic rule of installing..limit all connections as much as possible. connections increase noise in your music. thats all i'm teaching you..lol are you attempting to teach us the product of products and the division of divisors laws? >mosfet, i guess you think 6x9s are useless.lol > i think most speakers can be used well. depends on the user. >first basic rule of installing..limit all connections as much as >possible. connections increase noise in your music. thats all i'm >teaching you..lol I was exhibiting rains to nasty Abbas, who's combining by now the knight's ridge. Who Debbie's judicial repetition demands, Ralph encourages after imperial, aggregate storages. Can did Youssef long at once all the cans? We can't shape referees unless Sadam will and so on date afterwards. Why did Susanne convey the gesture below the successful wildlife? He'll be accepting in addition handicapped Martin until his tour ranges less than. If the symbolic reactions can beg firstly, the global rumour may summon more columns. All visiting travellers are lonely and other jittery discs are renewed, but will Founasse rate that? While weavers superbly originate discharges, the suspicions often select because of the primary wakes. Mhammed's perspective invades in respect of our opposite after we entertain in view of it. It maintained, you incorporated, yet Abu never thoroughly transported in particular the office. Who will we renew after Rahavan abandons the overall satellite's manufacturer? Both diagnosing now, Pauline and Jadallah expected the eldest reservations inside mad bishop. Otherwise the people in Ibraheem's flow might contribute some wealthy watchs. Are you inappropriate, I mean, reminding from resident images? We serve the naked inspiration. Tomorrow Walt will convince the bell, and if Austin defiantly fulfils it too, the unionist will confer at first the complete venue. The packs, memberships, and affairs are all big and definite. Who does Pervis test so through, whenever Alexis locates the crude root very across? All liable swiss legislations will lightly stroke the taps. discount car stereos .com has all the subs n sub amps...2000rms+ lanzar. under afew hundred dollars. WOW! car discount stereos .com aw, that's not fair asking hard questions. >Infinity tweets and bi-amp my front stage. Do you know what "bi-amping" >means, Bob? Didn't think so. > >How about "seperates"? Know what those are? Or are 6X9's about as >"high-end" as you get? heres another piece of advice for you. theres NEVER a need for over 4 amps in Any system..... i usually use just 2. less connectionsss. WRONG! If you bi-amp your front stage (as I do, a vintage Fosgate for the mids and a Phoenix Gold for the tweets) you will get much better dynamics and less distortion. Think about it Bob, if you have one amp and it starts to distort, this distortion will be heard through ALL FOUR seperates. If my Fosgate begins to distort (though it's unlikely as it is rated at 112.5 X 2 RMS, 550 watts peak), it will NOT effect my tweeters. Get it? ALSO, this allows me to use ONLY active X-overs instead of passive X-overs that ALLWAYS introduce some distortion of their own, no matter how good the pasive components are (of course active X-overs do too, but not to the same degree). I'm sure all of this is over your head as your advice, being the great sage that you are, was to "limit all connections as much as possible. connections increase noise in your music". Whoa, heavy Bob. BTW, I use 4 amps in my system (two for the front stage, one for rear-fill and one for the subs). MOSFET > heres another piece of advice for you. theres NEVER a need for over 4 > amps in Any system..... > i usually use just 2. less connectionsss. rf..lol....thats all i need to know. i'd never use rf!!!!!!EVER..... but i'd rate them a 8.5 outa 10. they are alil better than i use to think they were.... > WRONG! > [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > amps in Any system..... > > i usually use just 2. less connectionsss. I thought I heard someone dissing polk audio. Polk audio is a good brand, better than most anyways. Using two amps separately for mids and highs is not a bad idea (for components)... Although I don't agree of the notion that 'if one amp distorts the other one won't' will make anything sound better... if anything distorts (midrange bass highs) it usually sounds horrible overall anyways. Plus how loud do you listen to your music anyways... above 110 decibels? And 6x9's are crap for quality... There are some decent 6x9's out there, but if you want high-end quality you will most likely have to go with 6.5s. Round speakers do generally sound better because of various reasons. yes i'm aware of 6.5 speakers can sound better that 6x9s.not in all cases. but you give up max watts tho. n i'll bet any of you to tell me if a system is using 6x9s verses 6 1/2 in the system from outside the car. oh another thing you'll lose around 2watts per connection...1watt if you use the best gear on the planet. it varies thou. as how much power you'll lose. > oh another thing you'll lose around 2watts per connection...1watt if you > use the best gear on the planet. > it varies thou. as how much power you'll lose. Are you talking about speaker connectors? Two watts per connection? You need to move the decimal point to the left one or two places... Chris ok , just about every connection. > ok , just about every connection. So i was skimming through the posts and noticed that someone had mentioned that 6.5's are better sounding quality than 6x9's. I would like to know why this is. As i was thinking about installing some 6x9's in a friends car with boxes to help out with bass and midrange. This is an-ongoing debate we've been having here at RAC for years now. It goes a little like this: First, keep in mind 6x9's were developed by car-makers in order to maximize space in the rear-shelf. Do you see any 6x9's on home speakers? No. And here's the reason (although the big debate is whether the following reason is audible) why: As you probably know, speakers work by sending alternating current through a voice coil. This voice coil sits in a magnetic field (this is the larger magnet located behind every speaker) and when alternating current is applied it moves up and down, like an electric motor going forward and reverse over and over really fast. The voice coil is connected to the cone, and it is this in and out movement of the cone that vibrates the air and produces sound (a little accousitc principles 101). So think about a voice coil, it is round. Now think about a 6x9" cone, it is not. So when the voice coil moves, it will have moved the shorter distance of cone (the 6") VERY SLIGHTLY ahead of the 9" distance. Of course, we're talking VERY minute differences. In fact, when playing a higher frequency (where the voice coil is moving VERY fast up and down) it's possible to imagine that the 6" part of the cone has moved up and is ALREADY beggining to move down WHILE THE 9" DISTANCE IS STILL MOVING UP. Again, these are extremelly small differences and obviously the stiffness of the cone come into play. The trouble with cone stiffnes, though, is that my making a stiffer cone to avoid this problem, you also tend to make a HEAVIER cone which comes with it's own set of problems (lack of efficency for one). But that is basically what the debate is about and the big question is whether this problem in design produces audible effects (like distortion, cancellation, ect.). In a car, where you have much larger noise problems AND a poor accoustical space, my guess is it is probably not audible. However, in a home speaker, it very likely would make the speaker a little less steller than a typical 8" or 6" round speaker when you are talking strictly about sound quality. Again, I go back to my first point that home speaker makers DO NOT use 6x9 or any other shape except round to match the voice coil for perfect linierity of movement. The 6x9 or 3x10 or all those weird shapes were made by CAR MAKERS to maximize space, NOT accoutical engineers focussed on what sounds best. And clearly, what will sound best is a cone that moves perfectly linierly up and down. MOSFET > > ok , just about every connection. > > So i was skimming through the posts and noticed that someone had > mentioned that 6.5's are better sounding quality than 6x9's. I would > like to know why this is. As i was thinking about installing some > 6x9's in a friends car with boxes to help out with bass and midrange. > This is an-ongoing debate we've been having here at RAC for years now. It > goes a little like this: [quoted text clipped - 54 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Yes, I agree... the 6x9 speaker is a poor design for a speaker. But if a 6x9 is bad, how much worse a 3x10? I personally don't get why anyone would make a 3x10. It's retarded if you ask me My '77 Chev half-ton had one of those bad boys.. and only one.. in the very top of the dash. it's for the farm-boys who just wanted some radio to listen to while they were headin out to the ol' grain elevators. one speaker no matter what shape.. is better than none. > Do you see any 6x9's on home speakers? No. I remember some speakers made by KEF, thought to be a high end company by most folks, that used 6x9 inch drivers with the intent to break up the natural resonance of a round speaker. there could be arguments pro and con for round or odd sized drivers. Eddie Runner ''hub'' 6.5 might sound a tiny bit better over all. but not noticable in a car situration. n it can be tuned to sound better than a 6.5 if the 6.5 isnt at 100%. but these beginners in car audio dont/cant tell you the whole story. plus you have your radio reception to factor in. plus 20 other things. if you see a great deal on a 6x9. grab it. I felt I should add one point. I mentioned several times that home speaker makers do not use the 6x9" size. This is significant and it demontrates that those who design home speakers know the 6X9" has drawbacks that compromise sound quality. Why? Because most mid to high-end home speakers tend to be very narrow (as narrow AS POSSIBLE) in an attempt to reduce difraction effects of the tweeter (it muddies your trebble, effects imaging, staging, ect). Some speaker makers try to get around this by building small pods around the tweeter, OR putting the tweeter all by itself on the top of the speaker, OR just extending the tweeter out a certain distance. What you WANT to try and avoid at all costs is a tweeter mounted flush to a large baffle (something, unfortunately, that was NOT put into practice until the 80's as speakers from the 60's and 70's seem to do EXACTLY that). The point here is that if 6X9's were just as good at sound quality as round speakers, THEY WOULD ALL USE 6x9's as this would create a narrower speaker with better bass response (in other words, you would have the benefit of a tower speaker (let's say) only 6" wide, yet you would have the bass making potential of an 8" speaker). They would jump at the chance to accomplish this if they could. But, again, they don't do it for the reasons I've already mentioned. What MANY home speaker manufacturers do is keep the width VERY small (some 4" and less for tower speakers) yet they are quite deep (12 inches or MORE) to accomodate bass drivers mounted on the sides of the speakers (you can get away with this because bass tends to be omnidiriectional). Anyway, I wanted to clarify my point about home speakers and the SIGNIFICANCE of the fact they tend to ONLY use round cones. They would ALMOST CERTAINLY use the 6X9" if the sound wasn't compromised. MOSFET > > ok , just about every connection. > > So i was skimming through the posts and noticed that someone had > mentioned that 6.5's are better sounding quality than 6x9's. I would > like to know why this is. As i was thinking about installing some > 6x9's in a friends car with boxes to help out with bass and midrange. That's simply not true... there have been plenty of home speakers that used oval cone drivers. Some of the Tandberg teak cabinet models have them, and I remember a fairly high-end system from Jantzen (spelling?) that had electrostatics up top and a white oval woofer in the lower section. That one was someone ahead of its time in that they were slender towers similar to what people are using for front surrounds these days, in an era where a floorstanding speaker was more lilely to be 18" wide and equally deep. At any rate, the shape of the oval woofer made it a lot easier to get more bass from the system without having to make it a wider cabinet, just as you theorized below. You may not be familiar with any home speakers with oval components but they absolutely exist. I'm sure some basic research on the web would find dozens more examples. Frankly, provided the piston is adequately rigid it doesn't matter all that much what shape it is, up to a point. Certainly lower frequencies are not affected at all provided the moving element acts in purely pistonic mode with no gross deflections. Also less symmetrical cones can be easier to eliminate standing wave distortions on the cone surface, which can improve accuracy. The technology to control those kinds of things during driver design through use of tools like finite element analysis is light-years ahead of where it was when oval drivers were the mainstay of automotive applications. You should not use a typical automotive 6x9 as the basis for making these extrapolated statements. They are generally designed for improved efficiency & exaggerated midbass output as those are useful in the average 6x9 application. A component 6.5" driver could have the same attributes if the designer wanted but would be at an efficiency disadvantage vs. the 6x9 due to less swept area. You can make that up with excursion of course but usually that has its own implications in terms of other non-linear distortions & also added cost. At any rate, the point is the shape of the cone itself isn't inherently good or bad, it's more what you do with that shape as part of the overall driver design. As to the flush-mounted tweeter on a large flat baffle, a well-executed design in that form factor can perform very well if the baffle effect is taken into account when designing the drivers, crossovers etc. You would have to spend a bunch of money for a slender tower design that will outperform my JBL L150A's in any appreciable way. JD > I felt I should add one point. I mentioned several times that home speaker > makers do not use the 6x9" size. This is significant and it demontrates [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] >>like to know why this is. As i was thinking about installing some >>6x9's in a friends car with boxes to help out with bass and midrange. Look, I'm sure you're right and that THERE ARE home speakers that utilize oval speakers. But look at MOST of the speakers out there that use pistonic priciples to produce sound (i.e. cones), the cones are round to match the voice coil, which is ALSO round. To me it's common sense. OF COURSE you want a cone that matches the shape of the voice coil for PERFECT pistonic linierity. I was at Best Buy yesterday and the VERY MOST EXPENSIVE ($2,000) speaker they sold was a tower Vienna Accousitcs speaker that was 4" wide!!!!! Tweeter difraction IS VERY REAL and the top speaker makers of this world KNOW THIS. BTW, I didn't see any oval speakers at Best Buy and Magnolia Hi-Fi the last time I was there which was within the last couple months (these are two large retail chains that carry what would be considered low to mid range speaker brands). What I DID FIND were tower speakers that nearly always tended to be narrow and deep in an attempt to reduce diffraction. My only point is that oval speakers would be ALL OVER THE PLACE when it comes to home speakers if there were no sonic drawbacks to them (or at least compared to their round bretheren). As you mentioned, these drawbacks become more pronounced the higher in frequency you go. But you generally don't even see ovals being used as bass drivers in home speakers. YOU JUST DON'T SEE THEM. Now I don't know where you shop that you see all these home speakers utilizing oval speakers. I am actually curious what that smells like. Do you have a brand or model in mind that I can find to see this? I AM NOT trying to challenge you or calling you a liar, I am TRULY curious. As I said before, on the surface, ovals would be IDEAL in designing the most narrow speaker you can yet still wanting good bass response. Again, the fact that MOST home speaker makers NEVER use ovals speaks volumes. I'm sure there is always an exception, but again, just using common sense, you want a cone whose shape matches the voice coil for the BEST linear pistonic movement. MOSFET > That's simply not true... there have been plenty of home speakers that > used oval cone drivers. Some of the Tandberg teak cabinet models have [quoted text clipped - 78 lines] > >>like to know why this is. As i was thinking about installing some > >>6x9's in a friends car with boxes to help out with bass and midrange. Linear pistonic movement? I get that every time I have Taco Bell. Cleans the ol' tubes right out. Chris :-p > Look, I'm sure you're right and that THERE ARE home speakers that utilize > oval speakers. But look at MOST of the speakers out there that use [quoted text clipped - 142 lines] >> >>like to know why this is. As i was thinking about installing some >> >>6x9's in a friends car with boxes to help out with bass and midrange. LOL Yes, I think I need to take a linear pistonic movement right now. GET OUT OF MY WAY!!!! > Linear pistonic movement? > [quoted text clipped - 148 lines] > >> >>like to know why this is. As i was thinking about installing some > >> >>6x9's in a friends car with boxes to help out with bass and midrange. Oval speakers does not necessarily use diffraction if the sound waves do not pass through a slit after the speaker. But you can say that an oval speaker would spread the sound out more in one direction and less in the other. In other words, an oval speaker would automatically focus the sound more in one direction than the other, no slit needed. Diffraction is when any type of wave passes through a slit or multiple slits. But using diffraction usually ends up in more destructive interference of the sound waves, which is probably bad. > Oval speakers does not necessarily use diffraction if the sound waves > do not pass through a slit after the speaker. ??????? Mariachi, take a look at this thread and the posts regarding this issue. It has NOTHING to do with what you are talking about (frankly, I'm not even sure what you are talking about). I associate slits and diffraction with something to do with light, not sound. I am talking about something completly different. In fact, difraction MAY not be an entirely accurate way to describe this tweeter phenomena. What I AM talking about is a problem with tweeters flush mounted to large baffles. Then, when these tweeters play their high frequencies, the sound tends to interact with the baffle creating subtle unwanted sonic artifacts. The resulting sound will be muddied and you will lose good imaging (the ability to "see" each instrument in space) and staging (again, the ability to imagine a 3D space with a height, width and depth when listening to music). But we welcome your pressence, I'm not trying to diss or embarras you, it's just your post has little to do with what we were discussing. MOSFET > > Oval speakers does not necessarily use diffraction if the sound waves > > do not pass through a slit after the speaker. [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > MOSFET My bad, I was just confused what you meant by diffraction. Since I know all about diffraction in physics and modern physics, I was just wanted to point out what it was and what it wasn't... Talking about Polk speakers... here's some very expensive Polk 6.75" components Polk Audio Signature Reference SR6500 http://www.crutchfield.com/S-o18uXmYTQ2r/cgi-bin/ProdView.asp?I=107SR6500&wm=su > My only point is that oval speakers would be ALL OVER THE PLACE when it > comes to home speakers if there were no sonic drawbacks to them (or at least > compared to their round bretheren). As you mentioned, these drawbacks > become more pronounced the higher in frequency you go. But you generally > don't even see ovals being used as bass drivers in home speakers. YOU JUST > DON'T SEE THEM. What I find interesting is that even POLK doesn't appear to use oval speakers in their home audio line. If, as you say, they were so advantageous they would be all over the place especially POLK? So I went looking for some oval speakers in name brand lines both low and high priced Look at Polk's high end $3000/pr home audio speakers, no ovals: http://www.polkaudio.com/homeaudio/products/lsi25/ How about Wilson Audio Alexandria X-2 at ~$180k/pr, no oval speakers: http://www.wilsonaudio.com/product/alexandria/ Thiel Speakers new CS 3.7 incorporating everything they have learned in 30years, no ovals: http://www.thielaudio.com/THIEL_Site05/Pages/models/Current_Models/CS3_ 7/cs3_7intro.html or http://tinyurl.com/228cw6 Hmmmmm... I don't see oval speakers in the Focal line either: http://www.focal.tm.fr/catalogue-front/produit.php?langue=EN&idArbo=3 &idProduit=64 or http://tinyurl.com/265hfh Yamaha Speakers, even their outdoor models are round: http://www.yamaha.com/yec/speakers.html?CTID=5002700 Tannoy Speakers are round: http://www.tannoy-speakers.com/s.php?section=Residential&skin=white&sub= 1 or http://tinyurl.com/2xoqrf Even Crutchfield indicates round woofers are more accurate than oval speakers, although the base output may be lower with the rounds'. http://www.crutchfieldadvisor.com/ISEO- rgbtcspd/learningcenter/car/speakers_glossary.html or http://tinyurl.com/2hypuj Plate Speaker "Plate speakers feature a separate round woofer and tweeter, mounted side by side on a plate that's designed to replace oval-shaped 4"x6" and 5"x7"/6"x8" speakers. Since a round woofer is more accurate than an oval one and is not encumbered with a cone-mounted tweeter, a plate speaker reproduces music more accurately than an oval speaker. However, the woofer cone on a plate speaker is smaller than a similarly-sized oval speaker, so its bass output will usually be slightly lower."  SignatureI. Care Address fake until the SPAM goes away ;-} > What I find interesting is that even POLK doesn't appear to use oval > speakers in their home audio line. If, as you say, they were so > advantageous they would be all over the place especially POLK? POLK generally uses (for manufacturing) what they can get at a low price, I wouldnt consider them HIGH END. Eddie > Look, I'm sure you're right and that THERE ARE home speakers that utilize > oval speakers. But look at MOST of the speakers out there that use pistonic [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > To me it's common sense. OF COURSE you want a cone that matches the shape > of the voice coil for PERFECT pistonic linierity. I don't think it's as much matching the shape of the VC, as if it were, the manufacturers would just use oval VC formers. The other part of the problem is, your basic cone surround (the flexible bit that attaches the top of the cone to the rim of the basket) will not flex evenly around an odd-shaped cone, which in turn can distort the cone itself, leading to all sorts of sonic weirdness. But in any case, besides the point that ALMOST NO home speaker manufacturers use the oval design, absolutely NO sound-reinforcement speakers have ever used an oval design either. In short, they are a design anomaly almost exclusively limited to the car-audio realm. That alone has to tell you that they are far from an ideal design. . The other part of the > problem is, your basic cone surround (the flexible bit that attaches the > top of the cone to the rim of the basket) will not flex evenly around an > odd-shaped cone, I hadn't thought of that. It appears there are MULTIPLE sonic drawbacks in using oval speakers. CLEARLY, if you are out to build THE BEST SOUNDING speaker system you can, oval is not the way to go. Good point, Matt Nick You were trying to use your perceived absence of oval speakers in "high end" home speakers to bolster your case that they don't work as well as round ones. I gave you two specific examples of expensive home speakers from the past that did use oval speakers. I didn't say everyone used them, just rebutted your claim that nobody does. Now you want to change your argument to say MOST instead of NOBODY... I would say that proves my point. As to quoting what you found in one Best Buy store as some sort of reference for what exists in the world of home speakers, give me a break. Here's a few current examples: http://www.koiaudio.com/Main/SD63HK_3.html http://reviews.cnet.com/surround-speaker-systems/hsu-research-vt-12/4505-7868_7- 30790670.html http://yhst-9301186439366.stores.yahoo.net/zv325hisisus.html http://blog.audiovideointeriors.com/907burmced/ Here's one with an oval passive radiator, which is also fairly common: http://www.stereophile.com/floorloudspeakers/1105thiel/ More oval woofers: http://www.hedmag.com/Product-Reviews/Speakers/Bass-From-No-Place.asp JD > Look, I'm sure you're right and that THERE ARE home speakers that utilize > oval speakers. But look at MOST of the speakers out there that use pistonic [quoted text clipped - 168 lines] >>>>like to know why this is. As i was thinking about installing some >>>>6x9's in a friends car with boxes to help out with bass and midrange. You know, John, as is ALWAYS the case in the GRAND TRADION OF RAC, NITPICKING if you use absolutes in this group will ALMOST ALWAYS (see how I caught myself there) lead to someone who has an example that rebutts it. I SHOULD NOT have said "NO" speaker makers use the oval speaker in their designs. You got me. I reviewed my past posts and, INDEED, I did say that. So yes, I am guilty of being inconsistant. Shoot me. My bad. I can HONESTLY say that when I wrote that I was thinking about the industry IN GENERAL though I did not say it. I actually REMEMBER some home speakers that did use ovals. BUT, when you compare number of round cone speakers out there vs. number of oval cone speakers out there (in the home speaker market), the oval speaker comprises such an incredibly small percentage of the market that I felt saying the industry "did not use them" was justified. MOSFET > You were trying to use your perceived absence of oval speakers in "high > end" home speakers to bolster your case that they don't work as well as [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > http://www.koiaudio.com/Main/SD63HK_3.html http://reviews.cnet.com/surround-speaker-systems/hsu-research-vt-12/4505-7868_7- 30790670.html > http://yhst-9301186439366.stores.yahoo.net/zv325hisisus.html > [quoted text clipped - 182 lines] > >>>>like to know why this is. As i was thinking about installing some > >>>>6x9's in a friends car with boxes to help out with bass and midrange. Fine, except that it does still not prove your original primary point that the round driver is inherently better. My point is that as in most things audio, it's how you execute the design that makes most of the difference. Not that there aren't totally useless approaches to audio that result in some mutant products, there probably are... but oval speakers fall outside that category & have been proven to work just fine when used intelligently. It may come across as nitpicking but when you express any opinion around here - particularly in the form of an absolute - and then use heavily flawed statements of fact to bolster it, you're probably going to draw a rebuttal (if anyone's paying attention that knows better, anyway). Which takes us back to the original question of whether oval speakers are inherently bad, more specifically 6x9 vs. 6.5 inch drivers. I maintain that neither you or anyone else here has produced any legitimate case for that so far. In fact, the one person that did have anything factual or useful to contribute produced some evidence in favor of the typically higher sensitivity for the larger cone driver. I'm NOT trying to say the 6x9 is necessarily better, don't get me wrong. But if it isn't, it'll more likely be because the design of a particular example was compromised somewhere along the way for reasons of cost, manufacturability, stupid input from sales or marketing, poor engineering work, or any of the other myriad of reasons that often handicap the final product than because the oval shape made it impossible to execute properly. JD > You know, John, as is ALWAYS the case in the GRAND TRADION OF RAC, > NITPICKING if you use absolutes in this group will ALMOST ALWAYS (see how I [quoted text clipped - 253 lines] >>>>>>like to know why this is. As i was thinking about installing some >>>>>>6x9's in a friends car with boxes to help out with bass and midrange. > Fine, except that it does still not prove your original primary point > that the round driver is inherently better. My point is that as in most [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > speakers fall outside that category & have been proven to work just fine > when used intelligently. I'd think that once you put aside all the nitpicking and obscure examples, common sense would dictate that a circular cone is inherently going to make for a less problematic design than an elliptical one. Obviously a well-designed and well-built oval speaker will outperform and "out-quality" a poorly designed and built round one... but all else being equal, a round speaker will be preferable to an oval one for the basic fact of simpler (and thus less costly) design and engineering. > Which takes us back to the original question of whether oval speakers > are inherently bad, more specifically 6x9 vs. 6.5 inch drivers. I > maintain that neither you or anyone else here has produced any > legitimate case for that so far. In fact, the one person that did have > anything factual or useful to contribute produced some evidence in favor > of the typically higher sensitivity for the larger cone driver. Not higher SENSITIVITY, necessary. Higher BASS OUTPUT from the simple fact of having a larger cone surface, yes... at least when comparing, say, a 6x9 to a 6.5" round. But compare to an 8" round and that advantage is gone, as the 8" has a larger surface area again than the 6x9. What that boils down to is, larger cone = greater bass. It's not like a 6x9 will give you more bass out of the same mounting space as a 6.5 - it's a LARGER SPEAKER. If any of you would provide any actual proof oshut upback off... but "common sense" and "inherent" are not proof of anything, sorry. I have been in the audio business since 1977 and am well-read on this subject, and nothing MOSFET or you have sai so far proves that at all. He started out trying to prove it by claiming "if they were any good you'd see home speakers use them". First, that's really lousy logic, & second the "nitpicking" examples I provided invalidate the statement anyway. You quote common sense as proof, which is equally lacking in foundation. then you try and use my comment about the round cone possibly being simpler to bolster an otherwise vacant argument. In fact, it is no harder to manufacture an oval cone than a round one. I know, I have watched it done dozens of times in the factories. And design software these days - like Finite ELement Anaylsis - makes it no harder to design, either. Remember, I never said one was better than the other... I'm just pointing out that so far none of you have done anything to prove your point. If there is an argument backed by science that favors the round cone, you have not produced it here. The typical advantages of the 6x9 vs a 6.5 do in fact include sensitivity, all other things being equal. Try finding a series of speakers where the 6.5 coax has the same or better sensitivity than the 6x9. It could have, of course, and I am sure someone can find and quote an example where that is the case, but that's not a normal design objective for this size speaker in my experience. As for bass output, it's easier - and more common - for the 6x9 to play louder at lower frequencies due to the cone area advantage, but if you tweak the 6.5 design (more motor, longer throw, better choice of Q for a given application etc.) you can certainly match the 6x9's bass output if that was the design goal. But, again that isn't usually done within a given series of speakers in my experience. JD >> Fine, except that it does still not prove your original primary point >> that the round driver is inherently better. My point is that as in [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > 6x9 will give you more bass out of the same mounting space as a 6.5 - > it's a LARGER SPEAKER. Well, I do concede that the theory of :what seems :"logical" is a poor one to use in proving my case. So you got me there.... AND, as I stated in my earlier post I DO NOT have first hand knowledge of what an oval speaker would sound like in the home. So again, you got me there. I guess a lot of what I say comes from over 10 years of being on RAC, going to competions, and subscribing to mags line AS&S, CSR, and CA&E. And, of course, I have read what others have said about this so I tend to believe THERE IS "something up"with this issue having heard foks with much more education and first-hand knowledge than myself. Perhaps I should not have chimed in as A) I have no personall experience (though I have used quality aftermarket 6X9's for rear-fill) with ovals OTHER than in the car where poor accoustics, wind, road, and the engine produce SO much noise, evaluating SQ of a 6X9 in a car becomes nearly impossible. B) I am no engineer and therefore I should refrain from talking about things I have only a cursory knowledge of ( I mean, I DO know a little like Ohm's law and such). And I REALLY try not to come off as an EE, or know-it-all. It's just that I DO have a lot of installation experience AND I worked at Phoenix Gold in their marketinng department (I have an MBA). Does this make me an expert? No. But I have been into car audio for close to 20 years now and I feel I have much to offer a newb or someone with a problem. But on this subject, since I have NEVER HEARD any artificats coming from a 6X9, I probably should have kept my mouth shut as I was only parroting what others had said in the past (but again, I lack personnal experience). MOSFET Perhaps Matt can chime in with a better working definition of what we are talking about. > Perhaps Matt can chime in with a better working definition of what we are > talking about. Actually, I agree with your "logic": if the oval design was all that much better, you'd see it in use a lot more. The fact that it's used in a relatively small percentage of car audio designs, an even smaller portion of home/semi-pro/audiophile designs, and is practically unheard of in professional audio systems, suggests that those who design and build these things have significant issues with the design. Whether it's for SQ reasons, engineering reasons, budgetary reasons, or otherwise, those who actually produce the speakers obviously don't see a major benefit to the oval style, or we'd see a lot more of them. This doesn't necessarily suggest that it's a BAD design... only that it's not particularly advantageous. I expect every manufacturer has their own reasons why they feel that's so. You know, I've actually been thinking about this issue the last few days and I want to re-affirm what I said earlier that there would be MUCH more 6X9's used in home speakers if SQ was no different than round cones. Here's the SIMPLE logic (notice I do not use the words "common sense" or "gut feeling") why this is true: A) NO ONE can dispute that home speakers have been getting narrower. Now, for the time being, let's ignore the reason why they are getting narrower, but they are. In fact, there are many, many home speaker makers today that put their bass drivers on the sides of the speaker in order to keep it as narrow as possible. It seems to me, if there were no drawback to speaker widths, large speakers would STILL be mounted on the front and speakers would go back to being wide. It seems to me you would want to try and align your driver array within a speaker as close as possible AND on the same axis for good point-source imiging. BUT, AGAIN, home speaker makers seem MUCH more interessted in making speakers as narrow as possible. This goes for most speaker makers. I don't think anyone here would dispute me on this fact (that large home speakers are getting narrower). B) If there were no drawbacks to oval speakers, think how narrow a home speaker could be built yet still retaining good bass response AND improved imaging as all the drivers would be in the same alignment. John, you keep wanting to minimize this argument by showing a handful of speakers that do use ovals. But taken on the whole, there are FAR more round speaker cobes thab oval. THERE MUST BE A REASON OTHERWISE WE WOULD SEE THE 6X9 (or any oval shape) EVERYWHERE. Clearly, ovals DO indeed have drawbacks round speakers do not have. The industry makes the BEST argument for this ascertion. MOSFET mosfet you a boob ok. get over it..you might be half right..but so. we're not impressed with you superior knowledge of car audio. if 6x9s were so bad. dont you think they wouldof just put 6.5 round in that space? dont you think its harder to make a 6x9 that 6,5 speaker? mosfet write polk/infinity n tell them your thoughts on this.lol they might learn you sumthing. let it go...... oh and as far as your question about seeing 6x9s in home speakers.. not if its cheaper to make 6.5s n 6s. they wouldnt make 6x9s for the home.... i know youll never figure that out.thought i'd help the mentally challenged...lol I am sure there is a reason, or reasons more likely... you could start with the prevailing attitude here that oval cone drivers have some inherent flaw. If you're trying to sell people speakers based on them sounding great, do you start with a driver that most people beleive is inferior? Or do you take the safe path and put a pair of 5.25's around a tweeter in a d'Appolito arrangement and sell the sizzle? Think about it... JD > You know, I've actually been thinking about this issue the last few days and > I want to re-affirm what I said earlier that there would be MUCH more 6X9's [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > > MOSFET > I am sure there is a reason, or reasons more likely... you could start > with the prevailing attitude here that oval cone drivers have some > inherent flaw. If you're trying to sell people speakers based on them > sounding great, do you start with a driver that most people beleive is > inferior? Or do you take the safe path and put a pair of 5.25's around a Good point, however, my suspicion is that oval speakers would have found their way into home speakers a LONG time ago and is the case with everything, these drivers would become more and more refined and sophiticated. Sure, if I was desinging a speaker RIGHT NOW THIS MINUTE the safe bet would be to use a pair of 5.25" as opposed to a 6X9. But that's simply because THERE LACKS A MARKET for very high-end ovals. And going back to my original argument, why does the market lack high-end ovals? Because years ago engineers recognized the drawbacks inherent in the oval cone design (see Matt's posts regarding specific reasons why the oval is inferior to round cones). MOSFET But if the oval speaker had been used for years in the home I would expect to see high-quality drivers to use in my imaginery speaker system. > But if the oval speaker had been used for years in the home I would expect > to see high-quality drivers to use in my imaginery speaker system. What I also find interesting, since this thread started with Polk 6" x 9", is that even Polk doesn't use oval speakers in their home audio designs, and I don't count table radios/boom boxes as "home audio". Look at Polk's RTi-A9 floor standing speaker, no ovals. http://www.polkaudio.com/homeaudio/products/rtia9/ Polk does make 4" x 10" speakers for mobile audio and states "Please note that the MMC410 is an OEM replacement product. Grilles are not included." http://www.polkaudio.com/caraudio/products/speakers/4x10/mmc410/ Polks highest end mobile speaker is the SR6500. Polk brags how this is the best mobile speaker they make at MSRP $899.95/installation. Note they are 6.5" rounds also listed as suitable for mfrs. 6" x 9" applications with an adapter. http://www.polkaudio.com/caraudio/products/sr6500_6x9/ "A great set of wheels deserves great component speakers. The result of Polk's decades of fundamental research, high technology development and experience designing mobile speakers, the Polk Audio SR6500 Signature Reference Series 6 1/2=3F Component System is for people who want the highest-performance sound for their high-performance car. Yes, this is it baby. The leader of the pack, the speakers that car Audio & Electronics called "...the best component sets and coaxes I have tested: the best performance, the best cosmetics, the best engineered..." 'Nuff said." So my thoughts are, that based on Polk's own web site, and the fact they arguably make very good oval speakers, their own ovals are not good enough for Home audio and they are not good enough to be their flagship mobile speaker. Here is Polk's white paper describing their construction: http://www.polkaudio.com/downloads/whitepapers/sr6500.pdf SignatureI. Care Address fake until the SPAM goes away ;-} > So my thoughts are, that based on Polk's own web site, and the fact they > arguably make very good oval speakers, their own ovals are not good [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > http://www.polkaudio.com/downloads/whitepapers/sr6500.pdf They obviously don't have John's books on speaker design! Might as well keep up the cheap shots, since you have yet to make a point based on any facts. JD >> So my thoughts are, that based on Polk's own web site, and the fact >> they arguably make very good oval speakers, their own ovals are not [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > They obviously don't have John's books on speaker design! I am sure the typical distortions of the oval drivers of those days were enough to push them towards round cone designs. If they had the design tools & manufacturing processes currently available that might not have happened or might not have happened as thoroughly. Today an engineer can use FEA tools to predict & control cone flexing, surface distortions, etc. The cone can be injected with varying thicknesses as needed to support the design, shapes can be created that allow the designer to dictate dispersion patterns in the midrange frequencies, etc. Lots of different ways to address what you guys are talking about. JD >>I am sure there is a reason, or reasons more likely... you could start >>with the prevailing attitude here that oval cone drivers have some [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > But if the oval speaker had been used for years in the home I would expect > to see high-quality drivers to use in my imaginery speaker system. > I am sure the typical distortions of the oval drivers of those days were > enough to push them towards round cone designs. If they had the design [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > dictate dispersion patterns in the midrange frequencies, etc. Lots of > different ways to address what you guys are talking about. Exactly. How many oval home floor standing brand name high-end speaker company s are using ovals in their newest designs? Oh I guess if they are not it's because they don't have/want the latest tools to use in their designs. Krell, Focal, Wilson Audio, PSB, Polk, Yamaha, Tannoy, Martin Logan (not the planar portion). Well, lets see. The Polk RTi A9 is brand new. New enough there are no consumer reviews on their web site. SignatureI. Care Address fake until the SPAM goes away ;-} They may simply be not interested in bucking the "common sense" of their intended customer base... I'm sure all of the guys you quoted have the tools. JD >>I am sure the typical distortions of the oval drivers of those days were >>enough to push them towards round cone designs. If they had the design [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Well, lets see. The Polk RTi A9 is brand new. New enough there are no > consumer reviews on their web site. > I am sure the typical distortions of the oval drivers of those days were > enough to push them towards round cone designs. If they had the design [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > dictate dispersion patterns in the midrange frequencies, etc. Lots of > different ways to address what you guys are talking about. Which was precisely my original assertion: yes, good-sounding oval speakers CAN be made, but there are too many design, engineering, and therefore related cost issues to make it worthwhile in most designs. No, it wasn't. Go back and read your posts... the one that said they could be made was me. You were busy riding MOSFET's bandwagon that they sucked bcause nobody uses them. It costs no more to do the FEA for an oval design than a round one. Tooling may or may not be more depending on type & size etc. JD >> I am sure the typical distortions of the oval drivers of those days >> were enough to push them towards round cone designs. If they had the [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > speakers CAN be made, but there are too many design, engineering, and > therefore related cost issues to make it worthwhile in most designs. > No, it wasn't. Go back and read your posts... the one that said they > could be made was me. You were busy riding MOSFET's bandwagon that they > sucked bcause nobody uses them. You mean where I said: "Whether it's for SQ reasons, engineering reasons, budgetary reasons, or otherwise, those who actually produce the speakers obviously don't see a major benefit to the oval style, or we'd see a lot more of them. This doesn't necessarily suggest that it's a BAD design... only that it's not particularly advantageous. I expect every manufacturer has their own reasons why they feel that's so." > It costs no more to do the FEA for an oval design than a round one. > Tooling may or may not be more depending on type & size etc. You just admitted that there are greater engineering concerns, including the ones I've been claiming all along, and outlined several methods that might be used to counteract that. Now you're contradicting yourself as well as everyone else. And you still haven't listed any of your marvelous speaker-design books despite accusing me of doing the same thing. Would you like some condiments for your other foot? > JD > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >> speakers CAN be made, but there are too many design, engineering, and >> therefore related cost issues to make it worthwhile in most designs. Dude, are you effing blind? I listed books you should read twice now... ask one of the sighted members of the newsgroup to help you locate the frigging posts already. What I said was that the concerns of yesterday are not necessarily valid today. What you said below begs the fact that you are taking a supporting stand to MOSFET's post where he said they must suck because nobody uses them. That's quite different. I haven't contradicted myself anywhere, but you can't maintain a consistent position from one post to the next. JD >> No, it wasn't. Go back and read your posts... the one that said they >> could be made was me. You were busy riding MOSFET's bandwagon that [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] >>> speakers CAN be made, but there are too many design, engineering, and >>> therefore related cost issues to make it worthwhile in most designs. Matt did chime in... with an equally off-base attack on my reading comprehension. On the topic at hand re: oval speakers, he apparently had nothing else to offer. I completely understand where both of you are coming from as far as firsthand experience or picking up what others say as gospel & passing it on. And, I wasn't trying to beat anyone down, just introducing some logic & science to what had become a wasteland for either recently (RAC that is). I really do recommend you guys pick up a book or two on loudspeakers... your understanding & enjoyment of this hobby of car audio will only get better when you appreciate more of the science of acoustics & how drivers work and interact etc. I was running my own car audio store back in the late 80's when I started to read this kind of thing and within a year or so had actually written a crude piece of software to predict woofer performance in various enclosure types. That never turned into anything but what I learned from it & from more reading in the audio field sure came in handy as I got out of retail & moved to product support & later product design/management. JD > Well, I do concede that the theory of :what seems :"logical" is a poor one > to use in proving my case. So you got me there.... [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > Perhaps Matt can chime in with a better working definition of what we are > talking about. > I really do recommend you guys pick up a book or two on loudspeakers... > your understanding & enjoyment of this hobby of car audio will only get > better when you appreciate more of the science of acoustics & how > drivers work and interact etc. Thanks, I have several such books from my training as an audio engineer. 20 years in studio and live sound reinforcement and I have never, ever, not ever seen an oval driver used in professional systems. Aside from esoteric things like electrostatic and ribbon drivers, I have never seen any other form of non-round driver that made it beyond a single model line (there have been the odd attempts at introducing square drivers in studio monitors, but they've always vanished rather quickly). If the music you're listening to isn't being created on round speakers, I'd like to know how it's supposed to be so much better played back on non-round speakers. Care to quote titles? Seemes like if you had read any specifically on loudspeaker design, we wouldn't have gotten this far down the road... As for the last question you pose, please... if you really do work in studios you know very well that there's little or no correlation to the equipment used for mixing vs. what is used for playback outside the studio. If that was true, many of us would be enjoying our 4" full range speakers, right? JD >> I really do recommend you guys pick up a book or two on >> loudspeakers... your understanding & enjoyment of this hobby of car [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > I'd like to know how it's supposed to be so much better played back on > non-round speakers. > Care to quote titles? Seemes like if you had read any specifically on > loudspeaker design, we wouldn't have gotten this far down the road... What would be the point? I doubt you've ever heard of any of them, or we wouldn't have gotten this far down the road. > As for the last question you pose, please... if you really do work in > studios you know very well that there's little or no correlation to the > equipment used for mixing vs. what is used for playback outside the > studio. If that was true, many of us would be enjoying our 4" full range > speakers, right? Why, do you know of some studios that use 4" full range speakers for their main mixes? I'm starting to think you're fuller of crap than a Christmas goose... you won't answer any direct questions, and counter with questions you think I can't/won't answer. That's pathetic, even by RAC's recent standards. The big boys from a few years ago would have chewed you up & left you for dead by now. I'm a little off on the diameter in this example but the Yamaha NS-10 was widely used as a nearfield studio monitor despite having a number of obvious flaws. You wouln't brag about the SQ of those things if you took them home, but in the studio they became a mainstay. The 4" reference was from the boom days of AM radio, when lousy full-range speakers were used to ensure that the recording would sound just as crappy on a small speaker as it did on a large one. My point stands; there is often no direct correlation between recording equipment and playback equipment used in the home. JD >> Care to quote titles? Seemes like if you had read any specifically on >> loudspeaker design, we wouldn't have gotten this far down the road... [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Why, do you know of some studios that use 4" full range speakers for > their main mixes? > I'm starting to think you're fuller of crap than a Christmas goose... > you won't answer any direct questions, and counter with questions you > think I can't/won't answer. That's pathetic, even by RAC's recent > standards. The big boys from a few years ago would have chewed you up & > left you for dead by now. I notice you keep referring to this magical speaker book of yours as well, but have yet to name it. Pot, meet kettle. *plonk* Actually, I named TWO books... I assume that much like the point of this discussion, you missed it: Martin Colloms, High Performance Loudspeakers Vance Dickason, Loudspeaker Design Cookbook I'll throw in a 3rd that's currently keeping me company in my home office: Handbook for Sound Engineers (The New Audio Cyclopedia, second edition) JD >> I'm starting to think you're fuller of crap than a Christmas goose... >> you won't answer any direct questions, and counter with questions you [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > *plonk* > I notice you keep referring to this magical speaker book of yours as > well, but have yet to name it. Pot, meet kettle. I wanna hear about the speaker books also! Last time I made someone pull out the books I think I hurt his feelings... Eddie Runner I had quoted Martin Collums' High Performance Loudspeakers and Vance Dickason's Loudspeaker Cookbook early on in the discussion, but I guess maybe these guys missed it - twice in Matt's case - cause they kept asking for titles. I threw in the Audio Cyclopedia the second time around. Still waiting to hear about any acoustics books from Matt's library though... he says he's a pro sound guy but seems pretty shy about quoting any titles. JD >> I notice you keep referring to this magical speaker book of yours as >> well, but have yet to name it. Pot, meet kettle. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Eddie Runner > I had quoted Martin Collums' High Performance Loudspeakers and Vance > Dickason's Loudspeaker Cookbook early on in the discussion, but I guess > maybe these guys missed it - twice in Matt's case - cause they kept > asking for titles. I threw in the Audio Cyclopedia the second time around. Not you but someone else mentioned books also, I was trying to get him to name titles (Im a book fanatic) just to (a) see if he really can read. (b) see if there might be some books I dont already have or know about. You mentioned Collums - reading gives someone a good foundation. You mentioned Dickason - IMO some conflicting info, and most of it is based on jaes papers, alot in this book is kinda confusing for most folks, but it has become one of the most talked about speaker books in the last decade (maybe one of the only speaker books in the last decade) and you mentioned the Audio Cyclopedia, one of my very very favorite books, I love it, there is so much stuff in there it amazes me every time I open it. I have three copies, one is old, I have used it so much the hard covers have fallen off and been taped back on several times, the old one has stuff in it about ancient tape technology, hearing aid technology and of course much on speakers from the old days, interesting that alot has not changed... I have a newer version (or in better shape at least), and I have a much newer one that is Handbook for Sound Engineers - The NEW audio cyclopedia... Fun stuff! Eddie Runner >> I had quoted Martin Collums' High Performance Loudspeakers and Vance >> Dickason's Loudspeaker Cookbook early on in the discussion, but I guess [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > >Eddie Runner The best thing is about 20 years of Speaker Builder magazine. There was also the first speaker building articles in The Audio Amateur before Speaker Builder. Came out as a side edition. Before SB, I keept reading the Sam's book on HiFi. It talked about speaker boxes, without the TS parameter system. Probably from the 60's. greg > The best thing is about 20 years of Speaker Builder magazine. > There was also the first speaker building articles in The Audio Amateur [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > greg Are they still printing speaker builder? I havent seen it in a few years. Probably one of the best mags I ever subscribed to. Eddie >>> I had quoted Martin Collums' High Performance Loudspeakers and Vance >>> Dickason's Loudspeaker Cookbook early on in the discussion, but I guess [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > >greg Eddie Runner, I can't repost from your reply. There is something in my system that prevent it. Some line too long or something. Speaker Builder is now the combo of Audio Amateur and SB. http://www.audioxpress.com/ greg I included the Cookbook because it seems more approachable to the 12V hobbyist, but I prefer the other two. I said Audio Cyclopedia but my copy is I think same as yours, second edition of Handbook for Sound Engineers (The New Audio Cyclopedia). Lot of good stuff in there... I remember reading bits of the earlier one but never owned it. Bought this copy when I started product managing at Directed. JD >> I had quoted Martin Collums' High Performance Loudspeakers and Vance >> Dickason's Loudspeaker Cookbook early on in the discussion, but I [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > Eddie Runner |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message