0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic. Read 20994 times.
Thanks John,I was waiting for a response from you. My system is active PC XO + EQ so i can 'perfect' any ugly duckling.If you say they are junk your word alone is enough for me.I guess there is no denying it, i have to go with Augies!Ohh man this is SO dangerous if I go to THAT web site I might 'accidentally' order SI Coax to try them too. And i JUST got my B200 a week ago. Little OT:I'm afraid of the harsh sounding crossover point between 15" and horn tweeter in SI coax. B200 has better mid response.BTW John how are our experimentation with Ringed baffle that you mounted directly to B200 (stack of rings equivalent of 18" baffle)?How does it sound? Would you go back to regular baffle?I'm very interested in the design i might do that with a matching Ringed Augie underneath it (both magnet mounted of course).If it doesn't sound too good then i might do do something similar to your other baffle only 40" tall:Thanks for all your help, experimentation and for sharing it with us!
If you click on tech data for another relevant pdf on this page there is a response chart which looks as though the vertical scale was compressed, although close analysis shows the same scale, I think. Puzzling - this one is much more flattering.
Quote from: Russell Dawkins on 25 Feb 2008, 05:41 pmIf you click on tech data for another relevant pdf on this page there is a response chart which looks as though the vertical scale was compressed, although close analysis shows the same scale, I think. Puzzling - this one is much more flattering. Puzzling? Not at all. One graph is directly from the vendor while the other one isnt. A good rule of thumb is that graphs from vendors should be taken with a grain of salt (tm). In this case the graph is cut at 60 dB (Showing 10 dB less) effectively removing most of the breakup region, and one can also see that they've applied some octave smoothing to make it even more "flattering".Let me by the way be clear that I consider the response to look fairly normal for a pro 15 incher and not bad at all. Conebreakup doesn't look to nasty, it is fairly linear with no crazy dips or peaks. For comparison, have a look at the Eminence Alpha (that's been used in many succeful builds!), it has a rough peak (+10 dB !) between 2kHz and 3 kHz. http://www.prodance.cz/protokoly/alpha_15a.pdfRgrds,Jon
Anyway bottom line is listening and apparently this driver passes that test with flying colours, according to those WEIT (whose ears I trust).
I asked this last year without an answer, so I think I will try again.The Selenium 15" graphs drops straight off a cliff below 90Hz.The Tone Tubby 8" graph hangs pretty flat until 50Hz.For $90 I am seriously thinking about a Tone Tubby 8" for bass duties.However, the physics of it just don't make sense to me.How can a smaller cone with less xmax have deeper bass?
According to the graph the Tone Tubby is the clear bass winner by a long long way.So what am I missing in the graphs?I am assuming these measurements are taken on a large or infinite baffle at 1 watt/1meter.