how'd we get here (or where is this)? [message #70698] |
Sat, 31 December 2011 02:55 |
grindstone
Messages: 46 Registered: May 2010
|
Baron |
|
|
Advance apology for an apparent troll but it's just honest ignorance in its native habitat.
Been all over the map trying to answer a sort of simple question caused by stumbling on this catalog page tonight.
Basically, if we're 47 years past this, how come we need LF (and/or HF) reinforcement, too? Not talking about a specific design, more the whole type. Is it just different priorities or is it something else?
Do people not make parts that'll do that anymore?
Were those just marketing claims (and maybe optimistic)?
Did they not care as much about pattern and traded a hole at xo?
Do people hate big cabs so much that they trade LF and efficiency?
Do "2-way people" all use them for HT so subs are already there?
Do current preferences align more for clarity from swanky motors than FR?
...
on and on--I got a million of 'em, but that's sort of my point.
As near as I can tell, people have been making reflex + horn boxes for almost 80 years
The priorites have moved a few times already. But, save for adopting some whole other thing, why do people seem to forego wider range responses?
Even granting bunches of money--for example, those nice-motored midbass drivers are not so inexpensive--and we still need bass supplementation (?)
Do the current standards for acceptable clarity at higher efficiency preclude reaching lower even in giant boxes even when granted non-trivial expense?
I mean, why work soooo hard on driver spacing and phase and waveguides and all that--just to be band-limited and need one or both ends to be supplemented?
Is it just because the drivers don't sort neatly into higher-volume "pro" or "auto" categories so there's just not work being done in those areas?
At least these are what I'm wrestling with...not pointing at any one thing, just the "2-way way" in the higher-efficiency sandbox.
Thanks for the bandwidth, the time, and the education.
|
|
|