shallow vs standard speakers
Printed From: the12volt.com
Forum Name: Car Audio
Forum Discription: Car Stereos, Amplifiers, Crossovers, Processors, Speakers, Subwoofers, etc.
URL: https://www.the12volt.com/installbay/forum_posts.asp?tid=93793
Printed Date: May 14, 2024 at 2:03 PM
Topic: shallow vs standard speakers
Posted By: bellsracer
Subject: shallow vs standard speakers
Date Posted: May 10, 2007 at 7:46 PM
hehe... so for once I can't find the answer, but this girl's gotta know Anyone know what the advantages (besides mounting depth) and disadvantages of slim speakers versus standard depth speakers? I would like real facts, not assumptions please. I am particularly interested in how sound quality is affected. Thank you very much! Lots of love to everyone!
Keiika ------------- Never send your ducks to eagle school.
The difference between ordinary and extraordinary is that little extra.
The 3Ls of life: Learn from the Past, Live for the Present, Look to the Future.
Replies:
Posted By: deonjones
Date Posted: May 10, 2007 at 8:03 PM
well if u take 2 12inch subs ones slim line and one is standard, the slim line 'should' be at most times have a more punch base like a 10 than a standard 12inch. due to the greater depth of the speaker face.
-------------
Automotive Electrical Accessory Fitter
______________________________
1x TA3404
1x TA81001
1x T9515-44
1x TS-C160R
1x TS-D691S
1x AVHP-5950DVD
Posted By: bellsracer
Date Posted: May 10, 2007 at 8:36 PM
ok... This sounds like an assumption, but I guess it makes some sense. But wouldn't the air displacement be the same? I was referring to how sound would be affected in full range speakers in particular, not subs. See, I am in the middle of a personal project (microbike, not pocket bike; details further below) and for sound, I want to use shallow mount speakers. I found a company that has "standard" and shallow mounts and they claim that the frequency response is the same (65Hz - 20KHz) but I do not know how the sound will flow from them. I was hoping somebody with experience in shallow mounts could tell me what they found out. Please and thank you! ------------- Never send your ducks to eagle school.
The difference between ordinary and extraordinary is that little extra.
The 3Ls of life: Learn from the Past, Live for the Present, Look to the Future.
Posted By: speakermakers
Date Posted: May 11, 2007 at 12:39 AM
The differences in performance will not be reflected in the specs that the manufacturer supplies. Typically a manufacturer will supply only “small” parameters that are based on tests conducted at 1 volt of input. The problem with these type of tests is that they are conducted at low power, and there fore do not reflect the possible shortcomings of a shallow motor structure and suspension at even moderate power levels. The result is that the T/S parameters that the manufacturer supplies you with might have a decent fs, qts, and even a good bl factor but all to often the suspension and magnetic flux are not linier (the cone has more or less control while traveling in one direction). This results in poor power handling and various distortion modes that color the sound of the mid range. In cases where the actual cone shape has been flattened there is usually problems with the cone flexing at higher volumes due to the structural compromise. When a manufacturer decides to make a low profile speaker they also decide to either compromise on performance or increase the price by a substantial amount. Usually you end up with both. It costs the manufacturer a lot to retool for a speaker like that with a limited customer base. Also many speakers of this type of design use neodymium magnets due to their small size and high magnetic strength. These magnets cost several times more than conventional magnets and also require even more retooling.
That might all sound very pessimistic, but it is all valid and worth consideration. Having said that, I must point out that a shallow design is achievable and a reasonable design goal. They do exist, though my experience with Focal and Hertz has been very poor. These are two very respected companies and they both fell short of an acceptable product in my opinion. Your only real option is to go do some listening tests. Unfortunately car audio sound rooms are a poor place to make comparisons for many resons.
Wish I had a speaker that I could recommend, but I don’t. Although I am sure that there is something out there that will fit your need. Good luck!
Posted By: KarTuneMan
Date Posted: May 11, 2007 at 5:39 PM
At the very best, they are mearly a solution to a problem. (lack of space) (not an assumption)
-------------
Posted By: haemphyst
Date Posted: May 11, 2007 at 10:31 PM
...and don't forget fleas! mosquitos and fleas...
No, wait, fleas employ the flea collar industry... ok, JUST mosquitos!!!!
-------------
It all reminds me of something that Molière once said to Guy de Maupassant at a café in Vienna: "That's nice. You should write it down."
Posted By: KarTuneMan
Date Posted: May 12, 2007 at 9:42 AM
here's another...... people are funny, they want the front of the bus, the middle of the road....and the back of the church! I could go on forever....... but I will spare ya'all. -------------
Posted By: abergdc
Date Posted: May 14, 2007 at 12:31 PM
speakermakers wrote:
Having said that, I must point out that a shallow design is achievable and a reasonable design goal. They do exist, though my experience with Focal and Hertz has been very poor. These are two very respected companies and they both fell short of an acceptable product in my opinion.
Bummer, I was about to get the Focal 165v3E for my 2006 Jetta GLI (stock locations), because my installer says that the 4" midrange of the JL Xr-653CS I had chosen didn't fit. The 165v3e has a "slim" 100 mm mid-range. Is that the one you had in mind as having been very poor? Thanks, Andy
Posted By: zhalverson
Date Posted: May 15, 2007 at 1:41 AM
The focal's midrange is 4" too so I think it is a moot point.
Posted By: Steven Kephart
Date Posted: May 15, 2007 at 2:54 AM
Differences will greatly depend on the design. There are definitely some compromises forced upon you with going with a shallow mount design, but they can be overcome with some clever engineering. The biggest compromise would probably be excursion capabilities. bellsracer wrote:
ok... This sounds like an assumption, but I guess it makes some sense. But wouldn't the air displacement be the same?
That depends on the cone size (Sd) and excursion capabilities. bellsracer wrote:
See, I am in the middle of a personal project (microbike, not pocket bike; details further below) and for sound, I want to use shallow mount speakers. I found a company that has "standard" and shallow mounts and they claim that the frequency response is the same (65Hz - 20KHz) but I do not know how the sound will flow from them. I was hoping somebody with experience in shallow mounts could tell me what they found out.
I rarely pay attention to frequency response claims like that, especially without more information acompanying it. How smooth is that rated response; +/-3dB? At what level was that response measured at? How much smoothing was applied to that response measurement? I have seen quite a few cheap and expensive speaker systems with rated responses down to 40-65 Hz and when installed be lucky to play an octave higher at a reasonable level. Again it will depend on the design of the speakers. Your best bet is to do what Speakermakers suggested and go out and listen. Nothing will tell you what sounds best to you better than your ears. bellsracer wrote:
Bummer, I was about to get the Focal 165v3E for my 2006 Jetta GLI (stock locations), because my installer says that the 4" midrange of the JL Xr-653CS I had chosen didn't fit. The 165v3e has a "slim" 100 mm mid-range.
There are a lot of shallow mount coaxial speakers out there. Some that we sell are Eclipse, Memphis, and Planet Audio. |
speakermakers wrote:
The differences in performance will not be reflected in the specs that the manufacturer supplies. Typically a manufacturer will supply only “small” parameters that are based on tests conducted at 1 volt of input. The problem with these type of tests is that they are conducted at low power, and there fore do not reflect the possible shortcomings of a shallow motor structure and suspension at even moderate power levels.
Why wouldn't they? If the design lacks available magnetic flux in the gap then that will be seen in the Qes (as an example). T/s parameters are derived from the physical parameters of the speaker design so they will be affected by any of the compromises. The trick is to make the best compromises possible.  speakermakers wrote:
The result is that the T/S parameters that the manufacturer supplies you with might have a decent fs, qts, and even a good bl factor but all to often the suspension and magnetic flux are not linier (the cone has more or less control while traveling in one direction).
Why would the BL curve or KMS curve be any less linear than on a non-shallow speaker? That has to do more with the type of spider and surround chosen, and stiffness of each for the suspension, as well as coil height/thickness and gap height for the motor. Now I can see limited coil height effecting this a little. But again there are ways to have just as linear BL (and more linear) in a shallow design as in a standard design.
Posted By: abergdc
Date Posted: May 15, 2007 at 9:28 AM
zhalverson wrote:
The focal's midrange is 4" too so I think it is a moot point.
I think it's a question of depth. The focal midrange is a few mm shallower.
Posted By: bellsracer
Date Posted: May 16, 2007 at 2:49 AM
Thank you everyone for your input and knowledge. I appreciate it very much. I think I can figure everything for the project from here.
I love you guys (and girls)!
* hugs and kisses *
Keiika
-------------
Never send your ducks to eagle school.
The difference between ordinary and extraordinary is that little extra.
The 3Ls of life: Learn from the Past, Live for the Present, Look to the Future.
|