Size of Midrange Drivers

Of course every designer has different priorities, but one of Siegfried Linkwitz's top priorities in the Dvorak was radiation pattern control. His target radiation pattern called for fairly large diameter midrange cones.

Impact and dynamics are preserved when the loudspeaker system doesn't impose audible thermal or mechanical compression on the signal. Mechanical compression of midrange drivers shouldn't be an issue in a well-designed system, as the crossover should protect them from reaching their linear excursion limits.

Minimizing thermal compression is not necessarily a function of cone diameter; it is more a function of efficiency and the thermal capacities of the motor/voice coil assembly. Generally, the more powerful the motor and larger the voice coil, the less thermal compression. Obviously increasing the number of drivers reduces the thermal compression at a given SPL. (Thermal compression is a rather complicated subject and detailing it is beyond the scope of this post, so I'm painting with a broad brush here.)

I'm very much a fan of Linkwitz's work, and his designs combine excellent performance in many areas. In my opinion, radiation pattern control where his designs really excel.

Duke
dealer/manufacturer

Kijanki, yes larger diameter voice coils are definitely desirable from a thermal standpoint, all else being equal. Ferrofluid helps as well, assuming it's a good heat conductor, which it probably is. On the other hand I don't recall seeing any prosound company using ferrofluid, so it may have downsides when subjected to high temperatures over time.

I can't comment on the unorthodox suspension system of the cone drivers in the Hyperion; I don't know enough about suspension systems.

Duke