geolemon summed up the clipping arguement nicely, but lets see if i can dumb down what Dan and I are talking about. We really have a few arguements going on here. transients are sudden changes in music, like a sudden BOOM of an explosion, or a flute playing softly then suddenly a sharp, loud note. both are examples of a transient. A speaker's transient response is just a fancy term for how well it can react to a sudden change in music. What Randawg is saying, is that the heavier a speaker cone is, the poorer it's transient response will be. This is not true, inductance is the limiting factor, not mass. A quick primer on inductance before I continue. "An inductor is an electronic device which consists of a coil of wire which may have a metallic or ferrite core. If it appears to have no core, it is considered to have an air core. If everything else stays constant, increasing the number of turns of wire around the core, will increase the value of the inductor." - http://www.eatel.net/~amptech/elecdisc/caraudio.htm An inductor will resist a change in current. The more inductance you have, the more it will resist a change in current. The Henry is the measure of inductance. OK, now back on topic. Since inductors resist a change in current, and a transient is a large change in current, the more inductance a speaker's voice coil has, the more it will try to resist the transient. After all, a voice coil is merely an inductor glued to a cone. So inductance is the dominating factor for transient response, not mass. Mass does play a role, but it is a far smaller role. The main thing mass does, is require more current to reach the same volume. Many people will say a heavier cone is "slower" than a lighter cone, but this is wrong. Think of it this way, if the speaker was any "slower" it will produce a lower frequency, and if it was "faster" it would produce a higher frequency. Therefore, a heavier cone can not be slower than a lighter cone if both are playing the same frequency.

 

> Since inductors resist a change in current,
>and a transient is a large change in current, the more
>inductance a speaker's voice coil has, the more it will try
>to resist the transient. After all, a voice coil is merely
>an inductor glued to a cone. So inductance is the
>dominating factor for transient response, not mass.
>
So a good take-away for this one is that you hope your subwoofer's voice coil is somehow an ideal electromagnet... without being a strong inductor!

>
>Mass
>does play a role, but it is a far smaller role. The main
>thing mass does, is require more current to reach the same
>volume. Many people will say a heavier cone is "slower"
>than a lighter cone, but this is wrong.
>
> ...Think of it this way,
>if the speaker was any "slower" it will produce a lower
>frequency, and if it was "faster" it would produce a higher
>frequency. Therefore, a heavier cone can not be slower than
>a lighter cone if both are playing the same frequency.
>
That's the best, easiest to understand way of wording it yet..

 

Posted by quinton_h
Also, distortion won't be found in a clean signal.
So if there is no distortion coming from that underpowered
amp, how does it blow the speaker?

Posted By RanDawg
I guess it can't, atleast I'm not proving it will, but a bigger amp will sound just as good if not better and your risk for damage will go down greatly

Ok so now, you have admitted that under the above conditions, it can't, but you still think that it has the possibilty because of the reason below.

Posted By RanDawg
"There is a fallacy that a heavy cone will produce better bass. WRONG! There is also the fallacy that a stiff cone suspension means higher power handling. WRONG AGAIN! The truth is that if the cone is heavy, it will not react quickly to the input signal. Hence without the application of considerable wattage, the signal will be gone from the line before the cone can move and thereby causing an undesirable noise, kind of a flopping honk sound. Not to mention the other restrictions placed on a speaker with a heavy cone. The same thing can happen with a suspension that is too stiff." (Thomas P. Colvin -- Musicians Hotline)
http://www.musicianshotline.com/archive/tech/reconing.htm

Ok so in general, Thomas stated that without considerable wattage, the speaker will make an undesireable sound. Ok, now he doesn't mention anywhere in there that the amp has to be stressed to do so, so this leads to when you turn down the volume ****, you are sending considerably less wattage to your speakers. Now, heres where you would say "but it wouldn't be stressed anymore". But wait, Thomas didn't mention it had to be stressed to do this, so I'll take Thomas' word with the same belief of a hooker telling me she has no STDs.

So, now you have turned all your links against you.

 

>i was being sarcastic. actually i was almost kidding. you
>just certified yourself as an idiot. why dont you ease up a
>little bit. well i guess that only applies to people that
>have a life. find a crowbar and get your nose out of
>everybody's ***. seriously man, you just made that post
>apply to yourself. ;-)


Now istn that a clever way to back out now? If you were sincerely kidding, which I doubt, and probably everybody else too who has kept up with this thread, I do apoligize.

But looking at you history of both useless and rather stupid posts throughout this thread, I feel you are just trying to back out of a yet another stupid remark on your part.

If you'll notice, I didnt really post anything about the argument after like page 6 or something, because I know enough to stay out of an arguement when it reaches such a level that this one has. It seems you neverlearned that.

AS said by the character Donnie Astricky in Gone In 60 Seconds, "I know I cant swim, honey. So I keep my black *** outa teh water" THink about that, I think it applies.

EVERYBODY in this thread has posted useful info at some point, but you.

Hows the search for the prybar coming?

 

>>>>BTW, why haven't you changed that password on that email?
>>
>>>No one said to. No one said anything was there, I thought
>>>you gave up.
>
>>In my response right after you questioned me posting the
>>password, I stated that you could change the password if you
>>felt more comfortable and left that decision up to you.

>I'm not sure what that means?

Are you serious, you don't understand how to change a hotmail account password? Let me be of some assistance then.

Step One - Open the Hotmail account using the name and password Dnewma04 provided.

Step Two - Select OPTIONS from the tabs on the top of the page, then select change password



[font color=red]Deleted By Administration for Content
[/font]

Step Four - Tell Dnewma04 you have changed the password so he can send you the tech paper which you will likely either ignore, or quote from out of context.

 

>
>Here's a good summarization:
>
>The less power you present to a subwoofer, the safer it is
>for your subwoofer... although you will also have less
>output, the lower you go.
>
>If you clip your amp, you could send up to two times the
>rated RMS power of the amp through your subwoofer...
>(although in reality it is less than that)
>If that clipped power exceeds your subwoofer's RMS power
>rating, you could indeed cause thermal damage to the
>subwoofer..
>But that's not because you were using too small of an amp,
>it's actually because you made your amp put too much power
>through the sub... not too little.
>
>However, if you have a very small amp, and you are clipping
>it.. but even the clipped power doesn't exceed your
>subwoofer's power rating (and as long as the sub is in a
>proper enclosure), you simply won't harm it.
>
>But you shouldn't clip your amp anyways, because it sounds
>bad.
>
>

>So, it's not that "too little power" kills subwoofers at
>all..
>In fact, the less, the safer.
>
>It's not "clipping causes damage" either, because you could
>clip the snot out of the amp, and still not harm the sub, as
>long as the clipped power remained at safely low enough
>power levels for the sub to handle.
>
>There's only two things that kill subwoofers:
>1) Too much power (causing thermal damage).
>2) Too much excursion (user error - enclosure/music/power
>level issue, causing mechanical damage from bottoming or
>other physical collision)
>
>Concise? That really does sum up what we have discussed.
>
>



IMHO, this post should be closed, as this most certainly cleared it up....can't get any better discription that this.......

 

>HAD TO EDIT - THIS FORUM WILL NOT PRINT BRACKETS, SO I USED
>()
>
>>The only thing you brought to the table was that you
>>disagreed with Newton and then tried to discredit Adire
>>Audio by simply saying the paper was merely trying to sell
>>their subs. As I stated earlier, Adire doesn't have any
>>subwoofers that have an extremely low inductance. Why would
>>they try to "sell" low inductance when it isn't a feature
>>that they an especially good spec on?
>>
>>Can't we discredit any of your industry tech papers as
>>merely marketing jargon by saying they are just trying to
>>sell larger amps? I would never do it, but it seems like
>>the kind of response you would use.
>
>
>I am agreeing with Einstein, who said mass increases with
>velocity. Therefore, if your acceleration approaches
>infinity, your mass will be very heavy indeed.
>
>consider this equation M = Mrest/(1-(v/c)^2)^.5
>
>as v approaches c, you get a very large mass.
>
>If this isn't enough to prove his argument bunk, then he
>himself used assumptions to claim fact.
>
>That does it for me, sealed up tight. The guys is
>practicing PR, whether he knows it or not.

I dont know if you guys caught this or not, i kinda got tired of wading through the forums, but RanDawg is trying to say something about the mass of the cone being larger because it is moving. His formula M = Mrest/(1-(v/c)^2)^.5 while being correct is entirely worthless. For the mass to change an ammount that is at all significantly v (the velocity) would have to be slightly close to 300,000,000 meters per second, this is equivalent to 675,000,000 miles per hour. Lets say the cone is moving at 1,000 miles per hour, which is way high, but if it were then the change in mass would be .000000000109739368998808898824%, since the velocity is even lower the change in mass is too.

 

Me and Dan Wiggins caught it, its why we kepts saying m in BLi = ma is always constant hehe. Just another of a textbook education on the part of randawg

 

Thread closed for Obvious reasons

Dennis

[i]F.T.E. Assistant Administrator

http://www.clubfte.com/users/mil1ion/starfleet_command_e0.gif

[link:www.ford-trucks.com/guidelines.html|Club FTE]

[link: motorhaven.autoanything.com|How YOU Can Support This Site]

[link:www.clubfte.com/users/mil1ion/Mil1ion.html|My Website,"North Of The 49th"]