Originally Posted by cschang
Originally Posted by BufordTJustice
Well, "Polygel" is trademarked by Audax. Can't use it without their permission. They also (used to) make woofers that appear identical to the current CBM woofer. You also noted here:
Thread title "Ascend=Audax""Even though the pictures and specs match, my understanding is the drivers are actually custom to Ascend....so there are probably some small differences."
So, custom number of voice coil windings, gap dimensions, etc. Seeing that Dave is a perfectionist and won't stop till he's happy, I don't doubt that he kept tweaking until the design fit his parameters and was to his liking. But it went uncorrected on the Ascend forum that it's an Audax product.
You do realize the thread you are quoting is from 2003....almost ten years ago.
Polygel is not an Audax trademark...Aerogel is. Current SE drivers use Polygel. You need to do your homework better.
Buford, you need to read the thread better. Those posts are pointing out that the baskets look entirely different. I realize you didn't get that because the link for the picture to the Peerless is no longer valid. In fact, the post above the one you referenced, also mentions the multi-vendor.
Originally Posted by BufordTJustice
At this price, suffice it to say that both
Jon at TAI and Dave at Ascend have risen above just picking std parts from OEM vendors' shelves and slapping them into boxes. They are BOTH tweaking existing loudspeaker-driver designs to specifically work in the projects they begin at their respective companies. Both of them. This is normal, and a good thing since they don't bear the burden of R&D for the naked drivers and the technologies used. They simply license at a nominal fee the expertise of OEM's. This is a model where customers win.
Yet another thread where aspersions have been cast about Arx quality by people who have not heard or touched one. This is getting old. Can't the OP just conduct his experiment without Arx being the butt of "preemptive doubts" cast by people who also advocate another brand? Maybe I'm asking too much?
Aspersions? Advocate? You realize that works both ways, right?
Look at what you are trying to do with no credibility...I just showed you have erroneous information
...twice! Some googling would have helped you. Man up to your mistakes.
Done all the homework I need to. If Audax does not make the Polygel woofer, who does? Multiple posts on Ascend Forums about the "Polygel" being a refinement of the "Aerogel". Is this not accurate? It sure didn't get corrected at Ascend forums. I'm just taking info at face-value here. And then there is this thread:
Dave states:"Next up on the CBM-170 SE.. Woofer Improvements:
While not nearly as dramatic a change as the tweeter, we have incorporated a few improvements to the CBM-170 woofers.
We have reformulated the cone material changing one of the components of the original aerogel. We have found over the years that while aerogel offers excellent detail, at loud volumes it becomes a bit “edgy” sounding and we determined that this was due to aerogel being a bit too brittle, corresponding to large cone-breakup modes at medium to loud volumes.
The new woofer sounds and looks the same but the modified cone material is more durable which subsequently allowed us to increase excursion and utilize a more powerful magnet, thus improving bass response and impact."
Seeing that I highly doubt Audax simply relinquished their recipe for the Aerogel woofer to Dave for him to modify as he saw fit, it would seem that he is working with some entity who has knowledge and the rights to "modify" a pre-existing Audax design, no? With words like "we", "reformulate", "sounds and looks the same", and acknowledgments that changes were made to the motor structure ("more powerful magnet", etc.), it would seem that the original design was used and modified, and a new woofer was not constructed for the SE. I have read no information to contradict this.
So, maybe Audax doesn't currently manufacture the SE's woofer, but it is plain to see that it is a modified Audax product design regardless of who currently builds the thing.
NOW, would you like to correct me or does this info stand? Or are we talking about an orthopedic product that just so happens to have a majestic ability to perform as a speaker cone material? http://www.polygel.com/
Dave states here that the OEM for the Classic is Audax, but that they are special runs to his specs:
Further, since you speak on behalf of Ascend, are a forum moderator at Ascend Forum, and generally opine in favor of Ascend products, how are we supposed to interpret what you said about an Arx product that you have not seen, measured, or heard if not less-than-complimentary? All of my comments are focused on YOUR assertions beginning in post # 31. You have cast aspersions on Arx "quality", yet how am I the one poking the tiger with a stick? Post #31 Curtis.
It's there forever. I didn't make you write it.
As for the bolded parts in your quote, substantially similar motor structures can be seen on several peerless drivers and on various tang band drivers. Would you like to clarify who makes the superior Sierra-1 driver, or are you going to leave us guessing?
I haven't said one foul thing about the Sierra-1 (I mean, honestly, what foul thing is there to say? It's a great speaker.)....and between the two of us, there's only one
who's listened to the Arx line and the Sierra-1. And that person is not you Curtis. It's no secret that I am an Arx fan and helped Jon design and test the A5 towers (and soon some new models)....but I didn't enter into this thread casting doubt on anybody else's product. That's where you came in, friend.
If I am guessing incorrectly about an Ascend product, please feel free to set the record straight right here in this thread. No better time than now, no?