That would change the impedance of my cab. Do you think I might rather then stick to the CA-10?
Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
Let's wait until Eminence publishes the specs of the CA1059 8ohm version so I can run a simulation. Maybe you can ask Eminence for the specs, just send them an email
That's a great advice!Maybe you can ask Eminence for the specs, just send them an email
Thanks again for you commitment
Well yeah, I've seen the lower Q values and more xmax with the 16 ohm version, but I would like to know the TSP's (Thiele Small Parameters) to do a proper simulation of the 8 ohm version
The 16 ohm version performance well in that Goliath cabinet, the volume and tuning frequency work for that driver.
- Feb 12, 2006
- 60,984
- 5
- 220,754
- Disclosures
- Development Engineer-Mesa Boogie, Development Engineer-Genzler (pedals), Product Support-Genz Benz
No, not if the cabinet and all of the other parameters are not in line with the SYSTEM response. It just means that there's greater potential for additional linear excursion, but it's just one variable out of many.
You want the TSPs for this?Well yeah, I've seen the lower Q values and more xmax with the 16 ohm version, but I would like to know the TSP's (Thiele Small Parameters) to do a proper simulation of the 8 ohm version
[Invalid or Expired Link Removed]
and [Invalid or Expired Link Removed]Let's wait until Eminence publishes the specs of the CA1059 8ohm version so I can run a simulation. Maybe you can ask Eminence for the specs, just send them an email
Great, they changed the default CA1059 pdf to the 8ohm version
, and......(running simulation)....it "fits" with the volume and tuning of the Goliath cab 
It will have more mid/highs though (peak at 2.8khz), so it will sound different then the original drivers. But, I think the higher xmax is worth it, and you can always use EQ to adjust the mids.
All-in-all I think this is a great driver for bassguitar, it has a good balance between xmax and extended mids.
Last edited:
According to my simulations the CA10 can't handle mechanically what it can handle thermally, it only takes 70 watts at 80hz to push them beyond their xmax which will of course muddy the sound when pushed. The CA1059 can take a lot more before reaching that point. So if you want your notes to sound clear at higher volume my vote goes to the CA1059.
Well..... I'm now seriously considering the CA1059. The thing is that I own 2 GIII. That would require to swap all the speakers. Which is not useful at the moment and pretty expensive too.
I don't think I could swap one speaker and leave the rest with OEM speakers. I'm I right?
I don't think I could swap one speaker and leave the rest with OEM speakers. I'm I right?
No, definitely not when you would like to use the CA1059. These drivers share the same internal volume so they all need to have the same TSP's.
All I need is the same TSP? I could choose any speaker as long as is'nt it the same TSP?
Although both the CA10 and CA1059 work in that cab doesn't mean you could mix m up. If you decide to only swap the broken driver with a new one then go for the CA10 since it's TSP's will look more similar to the original one.
It's the small signal specifications, named after Thiele and Small who came up with them. You can see those in the pdf's I posted.
