High Efficiency Speaker Asylum

Need speakers that can rock with just one watt? You found da place.

Use this form to submit comments directly to the Asylum moderators for this forum. We're particularly interested in truly outstanding posts that might be added to our FAQs.
You may also use this form to provide feedback or to call attention to messages that may be in violation of our content rules.

You must login to use this feature.

Inmate Login

By default, logging in will set a session cookie that disappears when you close your browser. Clicking on the 'Remember my Moniker & Password' below will cause a permanent 'Login Cookie' to be set.

Moniker/Username: The Name that you picked or by default, your email. Forgot Moniker?	Examples "Rapper", "Bob W", "joe@aol.com".
Password:	Forgot Password?
	Remember my Moniker & Password ( What's this?)

If you don't have an Asylum Account, you can create one by clicking Here.

Our privacy policy can be reviewed by clicking Here.

Inmate Comments

From:
Your Email:
Subject:

Message Comments

Original Message

That was a line of thinking of the person who invented it.

Posted by sser2 on March 12, 2007 at 12:26:20:
In fact, the high mass of the whizzer cone does not allow it to move as an entity at high frequencies, even though it is relatively rigid. Instead, it goes into multiple breakup modes. With proper material, breakup resonances can be dampened, which allows achieving more or less flat frequency response. But don't be misled by flat response. Distortion and stored energy tests of whizzer cones are uniformly unfavorable.
It doesn't take sophisticated tests to tell the difference between a whizzer cone and a dome tweeter. With demanding acoustic material like vocals, piano, and strings, it is very apparent.
For certain kinds of music where high frequency content is essentially noise, whizzer cones may be OK.