Sundown 2012 Frames : Cone Samples

[sundownz 197]

I got the first pictures in of all of the new cones / surrounds -- they are on the way to me for testing so hope to have some mocked up soon!

10" cone / surround (with revised material from last picture) :

12" cone / surround :

15" cone / surround :

18" cone / surround (for the 6-spoke) :

[swift 501]

Damn those look awesome!!!!!

[kkk4 3]

spectacular!

[SS Teacher 177]

I'd love to get one of the 10"s add an inverted dust cap and use it as a cereal bowl. Those things look seriously cool.

[stevemead08 752]

How much usable cone area is lost with a surround that wide. Looks huge on the ten, maybe my phone is distorting the photo.

[altoncustomtech 773]

How much usable cone area is lost with a surround that wide. Looks huge on the ten, maybe my phone is distorting the photo.

My thoughts exactly on the 10 and the 12. I think I can see the line where the dust cap goes, and if so, there's almost no cone area at all on the 10 and little on the 12.

[sundownz 197]

Of course there is a small Sd reduction; we can either be sticklers for every tiny piece of Sd and stick with the current level of excursion forever -- or move to the next level of surround geometry and open up higher excursion

Part of the surround is part of Sd as well so the reduction is not dramatic. The benefit of additional travel will most certainly out-weight the trade-off as well.

[onebadmonte 235]

Can I get my ten with a weezer cone? Looks funky. Cant wait to see'em wangin.

[edouble101 314]

Those soft parts look nuts! I am anxious to see the completed drivers.

[pmureika 31]

Which driver are those going to be used on?

[OuTLaWeD 110]

[stealth 113]

nice!

[SPL_Man 20]

nice !

reminds me of the old eclipse TI pro subs

[Impious 1,476]

Of course there is a small Sd reduction; we can either be sticklers for every tiny piece of Sd and stick with the current level of excursion forever -- or move to the next level of surround geometry and open up higher excursion

Part of the surround is part of Sd as well so the reduction is not dramatic. The benefit of additional travel will most certainly out-weight the trade-off as well.

We've had 3" wide surrounds since the '90s. Looks like you've essentially just made them taller. I don't know that I'd call that an innovative progression. There have been some other innovations during that time that allowed not only for suitable surround geometry to meet an excursion goal but also not eat into Sd at the same time (actually it increased Sd)....and that was a decade ago.

I'd be interested in seeing some actual measurements of the linearity of that surround compared to some of the more standard implementations.

Any issues with additional stress placed upon the cone?

[ImBob 2]

Which driver are those going to be used on?

I was wondering that too, but would guess the X series Jacob has talked about maybe?

[sundownz 197]

Of course there is a small Sd reduction; we can either be sticklers for every tiny piece of Sd and stick with the current level of excursion forever -- or move to the next level of surround geometry and open up higher excursion

Part of the surround is part of Sd as well so the reduction is not dramatic. The benefit of additional travel will most certainly out-weight the trade-off as well.

We've had 3" wide surrounds since the '90s. Looks like you've essentially just made them taller. I don't know that I'd call that an innovative progression. There have been some other innovations during that time that allowed not only for suitable surround geometry to meet an excursion goal but also not eat into Sd at the same time (actually it increased Sd)....and that was a decade ago.

I'd be interested in seeing some actual measurements of the linearity of that surround compared to some of the more standard implementations.

Any issues with additional stress placed upon the cone?

You may be surprised how limited the throw is on some "high throw / high Sd" surrounds out there. The TC "LMS" surround is limited to mid to high 30s one-way -- I've got a slew of taller surrounds around the shop also limited to the mid 30s to low 40s at best. That isn't going to cut it for what I want (I've had customers bottom out, to the point of crushing the former, a motor with 47.5mm of clearance... while ALSO tearing the current surround tools -- for reference). If the surround is to grow too much in height alone it becomes unstable. Our new surrounds geometrically allow the following :

10" model - 50mm one-way (42mm x 42mm)

12" model - 55mm one-way (46mm x 46mm)

15" model - 60mm one-way (50mm x 50mm)

18" model - 60mm one-way (50mm x 50mm)

Each one with about 5mm one-way more than the frame can handle so we don't stretch / fatigue / prematurely destroy the surround with an even shape to keep them stable.

As an example of a tall surround design we could use for the 10" that is an "Sd saving" 30mm wide -- we would need a 58mm tall roll assuming a regular half ellipse shape. Not going to be incredibly stable laterally or act very well at high levels of travel. We'd gain about 11% Sd with the 1/2 surround Sd method -- or about 0.3 dB -- not sure about everyone else but I'd prefer a more stable surround design when high stroke is involved.

While a big surround is not a new idea -- I am using them in a forward thinking manner where I will not be exhausting the surround capacity well before the rest of the design. Often times big surrounds on drivers have been eye candy with no intent to use the capacity... these surrounds can handle any motor design the new frames can support and we will be pushing towards that with this platform with new designs in the works. At the moment the frames and surrounds will be ahead of all of our motors -- I say that is great -- plenty of room to work without re-developing all the other parts along the way.

I am sure not everyone will agree with my design approach -- but the more drivers I get on the market the more clear it is to me that soft parts limiting travel is responsible for a very high percentage of failures... it's also responsible for limited what is possible in SPL towards the extreme end. I've already collected some nice data on the issue with the "Hi-X 12" option we've been offering on the Z v.3 model.

That being said... the new units I'm designing are not necessarily for a casual user or for everyone -- they are for users that will be pushing the products to their limits.

PS: Once it's all said and done we'll have Klippel reports coming in on new products.

Edited October 31, 2012 by sundownz

[Ricci 0]

Jacob,

I have always preferred a soft bottom design where the suspension runs out of travel while the motor has also lost a large percentage of its force. You can still break these of course but they are more forgiving of a few instances of abuse than allowing full linearity right up to the point that the former cracks into the back plate or the triple joint into the top plate. You mentioned the new surrounds being capable of more than the clearance built into the new frames which seems to imply that these may lead to a mechanical hard bottom design. Do you plan to limit the stroke through reduction in motor force at high excursion and the spiders chosen or simply by having such a large amount of excursion that it would rarely if ever be utilized? Combo of all 3?

Tooling your own frames and surrounds is a big effort that most would not undertake. Not to mention having the balls to get your drivers Klippel tested and posting the results. I like your Zv3 and SA series and will definitely be grabbing a couple of your 18" drivers using these new parts when they are available. I believe I even heard something about a copper pole sleeve at some point...Keep up the good work.

BTW how much does the current Zv3 surround support, 40mm? Because it is no slouch when it comes to displacing some air.

One more question that you may have answered some where already...Are the new frames compatible with the cut-out diameter and hole pattern from the common frames? 12 spoke, 4 and 6 spoke( Zv3 style), TC/Ti type and TC LMSR/Axis style plus a few other frames are all close enough to drop right in for each other in most cases. Just wondering if these are off sized.

Edited October 31, 2012 by Ricci

[sundownz 197]

Jacob,

I have always preferred a soft bottom design where the suspension runs out of travel while the motor has also lost a large percentage of its force. You can still break these of course but they are more forgiving of a few instances of abuse than allowing full linearity right up to the point that the former cracks into the back plate or the triple joint into the top plate. You mentioned the new surrounds being capable of more than the clearance built into the new frames which seems to imply that these may lead to a mechanical hard bottom design. Do you plan to limit the stroke through reduction in motor force at high excursion and the spiders chosen or simply by having such a large amount of excursion that it would rarely if ever be utilized? Combo of all 3?

Tooling your own frames and surrounds is a big effort that most would not undertake. Not to mention having the balls to get your drivers Klippel tested and posting the results. I like your Zv3 and SA series and will definitely be grabbing a couple of your 18" drivers using these new parts when they are available. I believe I even heard something about a copper pole sleeve at some point...Keep up the good work.

BTW how much does the current Zv3 surround support, 40mm? Because it is no slouch when it comes to displacing some air.

One more question that you may have answered some where already...Are the new frames compatible with the cut-out diameter and hole pattern from the common frames? 12 spoke, 4 and 6 spoke( Zv3 style), TC/Ti type and TC LMSR/Axis style plus a few other frames are all close enough to drop right in for each other in most cases. Just wondering if these are off sized.

Ricci,

All of the designs in the works to use specifically with these frames so far will run out of motor force before the suspension or mechanical clearance is spent -- either coil to back plate or triple joint to top plate bottoming would be nearly impossible. When paired with some existing motors we've made the new parts will open up a possibility of hard bottom -- on most of our motors that is past 40mm one-way still.

I'll likely end up using a bit of spider limiting on future designs that are pushing towards what we can support mechanically. In car audio designs if the motor still has force and the suspension runs out the end-users will break neck joints -- so I've tried to steer away from that as a limit

The Z v.3 18" surround is a pretty good high roll unit -- it's linearity is good to the 30s -- it will move into the ~40mm range without tearing -- and I have seen it stretch a bit beyond that but it's in the range where it would fatigue and tear over time and certainly not linear.

I do have several ideas in the works that would support full copper pole sleeves as well, yes!

The cut-outs are not exactly standard -- they are as follows before paint :

15 -- 352mm (13.85") // ~14-14.125" standard range (OD and screw holes are the same as a 12-spoke so can still mount in the hole if centered)

12 -- 282mm (11.10") // 11-11.125" standard range (close enough to fit most cut-outs)

10 -- 255mm (10.04") // 9.25-9.375" standard range (this one is farthest off... had to push it out slightly to fit the right spider)

Thanks for the comments

[Ricci 0]

Thanks for the detailed info. Looks like the larger drivers drop in for the most part. Awesome. Any plans for 4" coil drivers using these parts?

[sundownz 197]

Thanks for the detailed info. Looks like the larger drivers drop in for the most part. Awesome. Any plans for 4" coil drivers using these parts?

Once I get all the parts fully launched on 3" coil designs we'll start on some 4" coil designs -- perhaps 1/2 way through next year for prototypes.

[Ricci 0]

Jake,

You didn't list the 18" frame dimensions above. Do you happen to have those?

(Saw your proto's video BTW... Gotta break some eggs to make an omelet. )

[sundownz 197]

Jake,

You didn't list the 18" frame dimensions above. Do you happen to have those?

(Saw your proto's video BTW... Gotta break some eggs to make an omelet. )

I am still using the 6-spoke for now for 18s -- the tooled 18" will come later in 2013.

I did make a 257mm spider adapter for the 6-spoke, though !

[Ricci 0]

Ok gotcha. You will be putting together some drivers on the 6 spoke frame with the spider adapter and new cones/ soft parts though correct? What does the 6 spoke frame limit you to mechanically?