Adire Sadhara (1 Viewer)

[Andrew S]

... still a driver that's out of my pricerange, but has anyone been anticipating this or have any future plans involving this new driver. Just curious.
Adire Sadhara
(this is the Canadian Adire dealer by the way, so that's 509 Canadian)
- Andrew

 

[Jack Gilvey]

This came out a few days ago, I've been modelling it a bit.
Looks as good as a 12" gets, this one seems to like ~3ft^3 tuned to 20Hz or so. I think I'm done with 12's, though, I'm currently beating the hell out of my AV12 with a QSC RMX 2450. It's not happy. :frowning:

 

[Martice]

I think I'm done with 12's, though, I'm currently beating the hell out of my AV12 with a QSC RMX 2450. It's not happy.

Hi Jack. Does this mean that you may move up to a 15 inch driver? Is a Tumult or AV15 in your future?

On another note, how's the singing coming along?

 

[Anthony_Gomez]

ya...I too am done with most 12's give me a 15 "er or 18 when I get a place of my own!

 

[Dan Wesnor]

Sometimes I wonder how much money Adire has to charge before they start putting rubber surrounds on their drivers. This, what, $300-400 US? I've seen $70 US 12" woofers that have rubber surrounds.

 

[Allen Ross]

but do they have 27mm of Xmax?

thought not

 

[Scott Simonian]

Ive been waiting to see something of the Sadhara since I first saw it at CES. I was very impressed with the performance. The only thing that would discourage me from getting this driver is the limited wiring options and low efficiency.

Otherwise, I like it!


BTW - I am more of a 15 inch guy myself.

 

[Jack Gilvey]

On another note, how's the singing coming along?

Depends on who you ask.

 

[Lewis Besze]

Jack didn't you have the BP 1803,or have you sold it?
Sorry,but I'm not up to date of your current count of woofs.

 

[Dan Wesnor]

My point being, it only costs a few bucks to put a rubber surround on a speaker. Foam vs. rubber has nothing to do with Xmax. In fact, I would guess than foam introduces more non-linearity to the driver because it tends to be stiffer.

And synthetic rubber lasts a lot longer than foam.

To most DIY'ers, a foam surround is the most visible sign that the designer wasn't willing to spend any money making a good driver.

 

[DanWiggins]

Actually, foam tends to be much more linear with temperature, excursion, and pressure than rubber.

Foam also is considerably more compliant than rubber, meaning that - for a given thickness - you can have a softer surround. You need thickness to avoid suckback issues in small sealed boxes (surround reversal from large pressure differentials), and rubber would be excessively stiff.

Also, I prefer to have a very compliant surround and put all the suspension stiffness in the spider. The spider tends to be much closer to the center of intertia of the moving mass, as opposed to the surround. The closer the suspension is to the center of intertia the less issues with rocking. Stiff surrounds actually create more problems from a rocking standpoint than soft surrounds.

It is true that foam surrounds can deteriorate after 10+ years or so (we have Shivas out there that are 5+ years old, and are still going strong. Even one down in Costa Rica for the last 4 years). However, rubber surrounds tend to stiffen as they age, and while they will not fall apart, they will change compliance to such a degree that the fundamental capabilities of the driver significantly change.

Overall, I believe foam surrounds to have more positives than negatives, so that's what we chose to use.

Dan Wiggins
Adire Audio

 

[Dan Wesnor]

Foam also is considerably more compliant than rubber, meaning that - for a given thickness - you can have a softer surround.

The key phrase is "for a given thickness". I don't see how suckback is based on thickness alone, and not the compliance of a given thickness of material. It would seem that two materials of the same width and compliance would have the same likelyhood to bend regardless of thickness. Suckback is essentially the surround bending, and the force required to bend is proportional to 1/compliance. Width only enters into the equation because it changes the bending moment (equal force * distance) applied to the edge of the surround.

Thicker foam is less prone to suckback than thin foam, but 5mm thick foam is not less prone to suckback than, say, 1mm thick steel. Of course steel is crappy surround material (in general), but examining the extremes allows you to see the effects of going in one direction or another.

 

[DanWiggins]

I guess I wasn't clear enough - please accept my apologies, I'll try again here...

Suckback is a definite concern, especially with high excursion drivers in small cabinets (sealed or vented). There's only two ways to avoid suckback:

1. Thick surround
2. Stiff surround material

The drawback to a stiff surround material is greater rocking. When you move more of the system compliance away from the center of inertia/center of gravity, you end up with more rocking as the driver operates. This, in turn, forces you to even more suspension stiffness to overcome, as well as wider (lossier) gaps.

Now, if you can use a thicker material that is still quite soft, then you let the geometry of the surround solve the whole suckback issue. You can keep most of the suspension stiffness in the spider (near the center of inertia), so you can have an overall softer suspension, as well as tighter gaps for more flux.

For a given thickness of material, you can only get your rubber surround so soft; foams can be up to 5X as soft as rubber, for a given thickness. This is a pretty significant advantage when all is consider.

Additionally, foam surrounds really don't save you much at all over rubber surrounds, in terms of cost. It's literally pennies per surround, meaning a savings of perhaps $10 on a run of 100 units. If you're that interested in saving money, then drop the painted baskets or motors, magnet boots, or stamped dustcaps - each of those are easily 20-50X the cost increment as compared to the rubber or foam surround selection.

Overall, I think our use of a foam surround wasn't a "sign that the designer wasn't willing to spend any money making a good driver"; rather, it was a sign that the driver designer understood the tradeoffs inherent in high excursion drivers used in smaller boxes, and chose appropriately.

Dan Wiggins
Adire Audio

 

[Brian Knauss]

Sheesh Dan, do you just spend your days viewing various audio forums?? I see your name popping up everywhere I go! haha

 

[Bryan Michael]

av12 27mm x max and around under 200 how much beter would the new saraha be? and for 200 you can get a av15 and for the same price you can get 2 and blow the doors off the 12. when i uprrade to a front projector i think i will upgrade to 4 av15 and have a wall of sub

 

[Jack Gilvey]

Sorry,but I'm not up to date of your current count of woofs.

Neither am I.

 

[Dan Wesnor]

Thanks, Dan.

I know that some of your foam surround drivers aren't low-quality, I was just saying that that was the general opinion or foam surround drivers.