On 10/30/2010 6:20 AM ChrisCoaster spake thus:
Just thought I'd throw this out there - partially to punctuate the
endless Google Groups posts hocking knock-off handbags and Nike
merchandise - and to see if this idea might actually go somewhere(!)
I'm thinking about a speaker line, both a bookshelf and a
floorstanding model. Standard 8-16ohm impedance, current state of art
materials, with as low-resonance a cabinet as humanly possible.
Speaker would be a sealed unit, capable of handling anywhere from
50-200W.
The two key differences a
1. All drivers(2 in the bookshelf and 3 for the floor-standing) would
be in the same plane. That is, the mid and hf elements would be set
back so as to be "in lne" with the resting position of the woofer.
This is not new, and many mfgs have done it for 20 years or more.
2.(the big one!) - The woofer - and the midrange in the case of the
floor-standing, would have a range of travel unprecedented for their
size.
Heh; this reminds me of my own thinking as a kid fooling around with
building speakers[1] and thinking of how to make the "ultimate woofer".
So as absurd as this proposal seems to have been, it raises some
interesting questions (non-absurd, I trust). In particular, if one were
to try to design such an "ultimate woofer", what would be the main
limiting factors to powerful low-frequency response?
1. Cone size (area)
2. Cone compliance (maximum excursion)
3. Motor strength (voice coil size, power capacity, magnet size)
4. Cabinet size & shape
5. Other
(Hopefully Dick Pierce might be interested enough to answer this.)
[1] My first was an acoustic-suspension bookshelf system, built to plans
in Popular Electronics. I remember getting the 6" woofers, really cheap,
from McGee Radio in Kansas City. They're long gone, of course; anyone
else remember this company? They had an amazing selection of raw
speakers and all kinds of other electronic stuff.
--
The fashion in killing has an insouciant, flirty style this spring,
with the flaunting of well-defined muscle, wrapped in flags.
- Comment from an article on Antiwar.com (
http://antiwar.com)