Re: SQUARE SUBWOOFERS: Genius or Lunacy?
- From: Brandonb <brandon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2006 19:39:12 -0600
I've read the reasoning behind circular being better than oval speakers, but I'm unconvinced if it actually affects sound quality. One prime example, is electrostatic speakers. Definitely not round by any means, yet are considered to sound about the best. As far as physical stability when quickly moving back and forth, a circular would be stronger than an oval, which has varying diameters. However, considering the low amount of stress (its not like its supporting a ton of weight on the cone, is it? Its just flexing, but the surround/basket add support), I doubt there's really much to go on for that argument either.
Brandonb
MOSFET wrote:
A while back the subject of 6x9's came up and it was pointed out that this design was really something the automakers came up with to fit larger speakers in cramped places, sound quality was not the biggest priority as this design is NOT optimal..
That got me wondering about Kicker's square subwoofers (and some of the copycats like Bazooka's triangle subwoofers). If a 6x9 is not the optimal shape, then I wouldn't think a square subwoofer would be either. Is a round cone ALWAYS the best as this shape is symmetric with the voice coil? What are the drawbacks (or BENEFITS, if any) of a square design? Just curious.
MOSFET
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: SQUARE SUBWOOFERS: Genius or Lunacy?
- From: Cyrus
- Re: SQUARE SUBWOOFERS: Genius or Lunacy?
- From: Tony F
- Re: SQUARE SUBWOOFERS: Genius or Lunacy?
- References:
- SQUARE SUBWOOFERS: Genius or Lunacy?
- From: MOSFET
- SQUARE SUBWOOFERS: Genius or Lunacy?
- Prev by Date: Re: SQUARE SUBWOOFERS: Genius or Lunacy?
- Next by Date: Re: SQUARE SUBWOOFERS: Genius or Lunacy?
- Previous by thread: Re: SQUARE SUBWOOFERS: Genius or Lunacy?
- Next by thread: Re: SQUARE SUBWOOFERS: Genius or Lunacy?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|