陶瓷盆、编织盆、PP盘，哪种低频最好？

xzl88

陶瓷盆、编织盆、PP盘，哪种低频最好？

martin

LZ的问题没法回答，低频好本身就是个模糊概念，是指低频响应更宽还是低频更有力、更清晰？而且这个问题不单单和振膜材料有关，还和很多其他因素有关。

superxo

喜欢（纸盘＋阻尼胶）

jason2511

原帖由 martin 于 2007-11-16 15:27 发表
LZ的问题没法回答，低频好本身就是个模糊概念，是指低频响应更宽还是低频更有力、更清晰？而且这个问题不单单和振膜材料有关，还和很多其他因素有关。

1999

个人观点,参数基本一致的话,听感是陶瓷盆(或者加了陶瓷粉的复合盆)的低频听感好

土豆

请教7楼的,金属材料的盆如何,例如铝合金的.会不会声音的速度快一点.

贝贝龙

编织盆，个人观点

12315

像二楼所说 我还是赞成纸盆

okra

口径大的好。

因心

原帖由 okra 于 2007-11-16 18:17 发表
口径大的好。

果然！！！！！

chl1983gxlz

原帖由 因心 于 2007-11-16 23:12 发表


果然！！！！！

如此

太阳升起时

金属材料的盆，不喜欢。编织盆分好多种，玻璃纤维，防弹纤维，炭纤维，植物纤维......都不一样。陶瓷盆一般是纸基的，声音不错。PP则多种多样，做的好的，声音也不错

VLTAVA

没有最好只有最合适的相比之下都有有优点只有达配好才是最好的

1999

原帖由 土豆 于 2007-11-16 17:23 发表
请教7楼的,金属材料的盆如何,例如铝合金的.会不会声音的速度快一点.

会,但是只是在(月同)体中的传播而已,基本上不会决定到你耳朵的时间
这类材料作的CONE(锥盆),一般,会在高频上限处发生激烈的分割振动,因此作为低音可以,如果要分到中频段的话就不是很自然了,个人观点

lakerblue

at的中低单元都使用pp盆的，好像他的网站上解释了几种盆的区别，我去找找

lakerblue

Why does Audiotechnology use Polypropylene cones?
There are always advantages and disadvantages when choosing a material for a product. In the world of transferring electrical signal into acoustic signal one must choose carefully. All materials have their own sound. Some at high frequencies and some at lower, some with a high Q breakup and other with lower. Polypropylene is the material we find with the most neutral sound, among the materials known in the business. Paper cones, liked by many serious audiophiles, have a “crispy” sound with a lot of “edge”. But this “crispy” sound is really the sound of paper adding to the sound. All materials add to the sound. One of the worst is a magnesium cone. The break-up is very pronounced and the Q of the break-up is among the highest. The faults can naturally be annulled using notch filters, but these have to be with an equal high Q and therefore far from ideal. P/P adds little to the sound and with a low Q and therefore sound natural. Some companies add a coating to paper cones, which helps damping of the high-Q break-ups and approaches the qualities of the P/P cone. Why not use a P/P cone then? Building and establishing the cone geometry and making a moving system with a good balance takes time. In house we have all the machinery for producing the tools for P/P cones. A nice tool for production costs around 7000 to 10000 US$. A paper cone tool costs almost 10 times the amount. If you do not hit the right geometry within the first couple of times, it will very fast become a costly affair. The P/P tools can be adjusted into hitting the right geometry and you therefore have much more attempts with a relative low cost. It is quite seldom one comes across a driver with paper cone and a nice useable frequency response. We believe P/P cones, all things taken into consideration, are the best.
懂英文的看看吧

lakerblue

大概把大意翻一下吧，欢迎大家拍砖
每种材质都有各自的优缺点，pp盆的声音是最中性的，纸盆的声音会加入一种“脆”的声音，金属盆（镁盆）是最差的，分频时必须要加入很多的补偿网络（这点同意，参考seas的excel系列），很多公司在纸盆上加涂层来阻尼q值来接近pp盆的特性，那为什么不直接用pp盆呢？我们用于制造pp盆的工具价值7000到10000美金，如果是用于制造纸盆的工具，要比这个贵10倍（！！？？）所以pp盆综合考虑是最好的

lakerblue

嘿嘿，再来一个英文的，同一款箱子采用漂尔c95陶瓷盆和西雅士w18金属盆的对比：
1801B
> I found to be extremely detailed with a soundstage on plane or slightly
> forward of the speakers. It was excellent from the upper midrange though
> the mid-bass. It became slightly less distinct in the dilineation of bass
> notes as it moved lower in the scale of the bass range. Decay is superb,
> particularly notable when hearing the dying resonances of instruments in
> the fade out at the end of songs. In some music coherence of the overall
> presentation is lessened due to the sharp relief of the detail presented.
> Instruments can seem more forward from the whole of the music than usual
> because of an aggressive attack. It walks very close to "edgy" but never
> gets there. Realistic and accurate reproduction of the input signal with
> minimal colorations are the hallmarks of this speaker.
>
> 1801C
> This version sounds very natural in its delivery of musical tones
> sacrificing only the smallest bit of detail to the 1801B. I was more
> impressed with the smooth presentation of difficult to reproduce piano
> notes and female vocals with the "C" than the 1801B. Again superb through
> the upper mids, mids and upper bass and having a better tonal quality in
> the lower bass region though not going much deeper. The decay is wonderful
> like the 1801B revealing instrument and vocal nuance. The attack is much
> smoother. The layering and texture of music is better to my ear than the
> 1801B because it suits my preference of coherence and musicality in
> speakers. There is accuracy in the presentation a more refined delivery.