|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
75.109.22.180
In Reply to: RE: Subjective... posted by hollowboy on July 15, 2008 at 04:50:42
is there any diff between HB and HA? - Fs and Vas are higher/lower than some speakers but should work well in a Karlson - CXA has Tannoy type feed versus the ~3"x6" horn. Have you ever tried putting a foam or felt ring behind the horn and over the outer spider (where a dustcap would normally be)? - that cleared up my C15CX somewhat and could be seen on graphsfwiw here's 15cxha's published specs - dunno how accurate ~same specs are given to the hornless model (15cxa)
Thiele-Small Parameters
Resonant Frequency (Fs) 39 Hz
Impedance (Re) 5.6 ohms
Mechanical Q (Qms) 6.45
Electrical Factor(Qes) .25
Total Q (Qts) .24
Comp. Equivelant Vol. (Vas)9.09 ft3 / 257.5 Liters
Voice Coil Overhang (Xmax) 2.75 mm
Surface Area of Cone (Sd) .083 m2
BL Factor (BL) 18.45 T-M
Edits: 07/15/08 07/15/08Follow Ups:
I don't have the HA graphs handy... the pdf I kept has just the CXHB and CXB info. Of the various P-audio's, the CXHB is the one I went for, cos the 3"x6" horn types seemed to give better HF response, and the CXHB's cone section had the "best" specs. From what I can see, all of their coaxes need bass support, so minor differences in their low-end extension are pretty irrelevant... therefore, I decided I may as well get the one that takes the light weight / big magnet thing the furtherest.
I've felted the backs of my horns. It's a nearly invisible tweak, and was easy to do, so it doesn't really matter that there was no noteworthy improvement.
I tried the ring idea ages ago, didn't notice any difference. It looked silly, so I got rid of it. The ring of material was pretty light, and level with the horn mouth (that is, quite far forward of the outer spider). Perhaps I should give other arrangements a try. How is yours set up? What type of listening material does the foam ring make the most noticable improvement on?
- had the foam ring right against the secondary spider - took out some harshness which I attributed to C15cx's horn (which I assume is just like P-audio's copy) - down side is I sometimes play dynamic things loud and even in a Karlson the ring would get kicked forwards - it won't hurt to try other than waste a few minutes which is nothing in this hobby - -stock vintage 604 look about as messy as the ring I used which IIRC was around 4" diameter - their felt ring may be part of their success (???)well this was messier looking - Eminence C15cx from the 1990's- btw - if your lowpass slope is steep the ring might not matter much
Cheers. At the moment I'm using a 1st-order lowpass, so it's worth a go. I'm waiting on 3 pro amps so I can permanently install an active (steeper slopes) X-over setup, but the supplier keeps pushing back the delivery date.
That Eminence speaker is visually very much like mine. I just found a post where you gave specs. They look similar, except the Q values. Since the P-audio has the lower Qts, I guess it would sound relatively thin if dropped into the exact same configuration as the Eminence.
Eminence on left, P-audio specs pulled from a pdf file on my 'puter:
05-RE OHMS 6.39 // 6.1ohm
13-FS HZ 56.80 // 50Hz
06-LE MH .85 // ?? Not stated
14-MMS GMS 53.10 // 71.44g inc airload (approx 58g without airload)
07-QM 9.76 // 4.99 Qms
15-CMS mm/N .1479 // ??
08-QE .400 // .24 Qes
16-RMS NS/M 1.9423 ??
09-QT .390 // .23 Qts
17-VAS LTRS 152.29 // 135.08litres
10-XMAX MM 2.90 // 2.5mm
18-SD SCM 856.34 // 830cm^2
11-BL TM 17.37 // 23.96
19-EBP 141.4 ??
12-EFF % 6.70 // 7.03
20-SPL dB 100.3 // 100dB
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: