Log in
Register
Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New profile posts
Latest activity
News
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Features
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Install the app
Install
Reply to thread
Home
Forums
Pro Audio
Varsity
High Frequency Compression Driver Evaluation
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Jack Arnott" data-source="post: 51519" data-attributes="member: 304"><p>Re: High Frequency Compression Driver Evaluation</p><p></p><p>Hello Art, </p><p>Wow, what a lot of work you put into this. I appreciate that. </p><p></p><p>If I am ever to meet you, I feel I owe to pay for your wife's dinner. </p><p>(I hope this came out right. Just that I want to thank her for her patience with you and this project.) </p><p></p><p>Lot of thought here, and more so as the thread expands. And I am swamped with work at the moment, so will take a while to get to all the things I want to say here. </p><p></p><p>First off, proclaimer. I use BMS drivers. And disclaimer, I sell them. Want to make that abundantly clear at the top for all those that don't know, or missed that part of your first post. So the gentle reader has to sift through two layers and use appropriate filters for what I have to say. </p><p></p><p>I wanted to address the size of the drivers, in relation to V(oice) C(oil) size. You noted that the VC on the BMS was the smallest in the group, 1.75", and it indeed has the lowest surface area, and one of the reasons it has less "low end", or more realistically, does not play as low. </p><p></p><p>It was very interesting to me to see the two BMS drivers plots side by side. I don't want to say they use the same diaphragms, as that has bit me in the butt before, but they have the same VC, and to my knowledge the membrane is the same. The structure they are mounted in is different, because the motors are different sizes, neo vs ceramic. </p><p></p><p>Because the 4552 (neo) is smaller than the 4550 (ceramic) the throat opens up faster and has a bigger angle at the mouth of the driver than the 4550. So to me, this is the main difference between the drivers, and why the 4552 does not go as low as the 4550. So there are other things at play besides the size of the diaphragm. </p><p></p><p>Regarding the VC size, and its relation to the surface area of the diaphragm. It is important to note that the VC in BMS drivers is in the middle of the diaphragm, because it is a ring radiator design, not at the very outside as with a traditional compression driver. As such, more than 50% of the surface area of the diaphragm is outside the VC, and there is more surface area than a conventional driver with a 1.75" VC. Also, in the same vein, there is less distance for the VC to support, or control at any one time. </p><p></p><p>More on this later, I have to go.</p><p></p><p>Thanks again for the time, energy and expertise. And the follow up conversations. </p><p></p><p>Regards, Jack</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Jack Arnott, post: 51519, member: 304"] Re: High Frequency Compression Driver Evaluation Hello Art, Wow, what a lot of work you put into this. I appreciate that. If I am ever to meet you, I feel I owe to pay for your wife's dinner. (I hope this came out right. Just that I want to thank her for her patience with you and this project.) Lot of thought here, and more so as the thread expands. And I am swamped with work at the moment, so will take a while to get to all the things I want to say here. First off, proclaimer. I use BMS drivers. And disclaimer, I sell them. Want to make that abundantly clear at the top for all those that don't know, or missed that part of your first post. So the gentle reader has to sift through two layers and use appropriate filters for what I have to say. I wanted to address the size of the drivers, in relation to V(oice) C(oil) size. You noted that the VC on the BMS was the smallest in the group, 1.75", and it indeed has the lowest surface area, and one of the reasons it has less "low end", or more realistically, does not play as low. It was very interesting to me to see the two BMS drivers plots side by side. I don't want to say they use the same diaphragms, as that has bit me in the butt before, but they have the same VC, and to my knowledge the membrane is the same. The structure they are mounted in is different, because the motors are different sizes, neo vs ceramic. Because the 4552 (neo) is smaller than the 4550 (ceramic) the throat opens up faster and has a bigger angle at the mouth of the driver than the 4550. So to me, this is the main difference between the drivers, and why the 4552 does not go as low as the 4550. So there are other things at play besides the size of the diaphragm. Regarding the VC size, and its relation to the surface area of the diaphragm. It is important to note that the VC in BMS drivers is in the middle of the diaphragm, because it is a ring radiator design, not at the very outside as with a traditional compression driver. As such, more than 50% of the surface area of the diaphragm is outside the VC, and there is more surface area than a conventional driver with a 1.75" VC. Also, in the same vein, there is less distance for the VC to support, or control at any one time. More on this later, I have to go. Thanks again for the time, energy and expertise. And the follow up conversations. Regards, Jack [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Pro Audio
Varsity
High Frequency Compression Driver Evaluation
Top
Bottom
Sign-up
or
log in
to join the discussion today!