no problem, even if MTM config can reach down to atleast 300hz or 250hz, with smaller baffle. i can augement with OB sub/woofer using 12 or 15" drivers to cover below 250/300 hz. have plan for Uframe or Hframe based dual woofer in push-push mode. something like Linkwitz's Orion partly.
Suffice it to say that vented speaker is "more sensitive" than sealed speaker. If that's not true or accurate, then first please find a better words for me (assuming that you can read between the lines).
English is not my first language, but yes, I think so
Now please be on the same page.This is a difficult subject, even if both of us understand where each other stand. If one doesn't understand, it is even more fun
Please mention if there is any other possibility, because I cannot see it.
I simply hoped you would realize that there is something illogical in asking if such graphs are lacking sensitivity.
My point was, I have a strong reason to dismiss flat impedance from criteria to choose box alignment (i.e. TL).
Whether flat impedance is better than not, no doubt about it. But how critical, to me it is still theoretical. I mean, I haven't proved it in practice. Oh, I have tried that in crossover simulation (manual flattening, without any components used to correct the impedance) in absence of an amplifier, and cannot see clear simulated improvement.
In amplifier simulation, I also never simulated the impedance curve (even tho it is very easy), as I'm sure it is not critical (not in the worst case scenario of bad loads).
This is the "hardest" part. Analogy is like 2 camps where one is in preference of ultra low THD amplifiers, no matter what, and the other is in preference of enjoyable sound, with less requirements from THD. No need to rationalize one's decision, I'm with the second camp, that's it.
I can see clearly where you stand. To make you also see where I stand you have to cooperate more because I cannot choose more proper words than you can
You use formula and the formula works for you. I use formula too, but there are so many "formula" so it is not enough for me. You can make 5 different filters with similar measured performance, yet they sound differently (not so much different for common ears, but can be critically difference for some ears).
Remember, since the beginning my benchmark is the same set of drivers used in another box alignment. Head to head comparison.
For me, simpler crossover is better, if it works. Now can you see if a design will work before building/prototyping it? To me, NO. So, if 2nd order doesn't work (unacceptable, that is), which is a natural case for a bookshelf, I will try 3rd order, which will work just okay for any drivers.
Now that 2nd order (with its good phase tracking characteristics) doesn't work in a bookshelf, it still has POSSIBILITY to work in a TL because the TL can absorb, suppress the peaky sounds of a simple crossover more than a bookshelf enclosure can.
no problem, even if MTM config can reach down to atleast 300hz or 250hz, with smaller baffle. i can augement with OB sub/woofer using 12 or 15" drivers to cover below 250/300 hz. have plan for Uframe or Hframe based dual woofer in push-push mode. something like Linkwitz's Orion partly.
True, but this is pretty far a field of the implied intent of driver usage in your original post to the point where it’s no longer on topic.
GM
This is total falacy that TL speakers absorb the back wave any better than a well damped sealed box. For a TL to have any useful bass benefit it must have marginal back wave absorption and some mid range ripple will always result. In any case an enclosure can not absorb "the peaky sounds of a simple crossover".
Damping does not fix crossover errors.
David S
Hmmm, I'm not really into theory so I have no confidence to backup my "hypothesis" with theory, if I go further with what I think is the cause of effects that I hear or perceive in practice.
Anyhow, I'm quite confident with my observations of many phenomena in audio including this one. I actually thought that there were two reasons. First, it is because TL enclosure is very rigid and does not allow vibration (so...). Second, it is because... let me say it in non-scientific words... the energy from the amplifier (whether V or I) is transferred to low frequency enforcement so less energy remain for the rest of the band.
I'll help you repeat what you've already said, Dave.
Jay, these are for you:
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/multi-way/215133-box-colourations-really-17.html#post3081510
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/mult...pletely-supressing-back-wave.html#post3101885
Jay, these are for you:
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/multi-way/215133-box-colourations-really-17.html#post3081510
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/mult...pletely-supressing-back-wave.html#post3101885
It would be a wasted effort anyway because Jay hasn't the slightest idea of what he's trying to express, most of which, perhaps none of it having any basis in science, common sense or logic. He has apparently found ways to get a certain sound he likes and we shouldn't confuse him with facts that dispel his obtuse and incorrect assumptions on what's really going on or why.
Paul
Paul
If you think I don't know that, or have no idea what others are talking about, you're absolutely wrong.
It's easy if what you have to do is to repeat someone or something else. But if you have observed something or tried to think beyond that, then the burden is on you.
For example, once, my gut feeling told me that there was something wrong with one of Einstein theory (Relativity?). So I tried to read everything I could find about it (and if you do, you will come up with many mathematical expressions, similar like if you read about speaker, but I have sufficient background to understand that). Then I had a debate with a Physics expert. Even tho there was no conclusion (which is expected), it was not that hard because I did it in my OWN language (and this one cannot be discussed with ordinary man
).If I repeat here my effort to prove that Einstein theory was wrong, somebody might refer me to a line or two about his theory as well.
There are many phenomena in audio (electronics side), where to prove it is very difficult especially if you don't have strong background about it (like me), but many prefer to make use of those phenomena for their personal use. These are all based on observations and statistics.
Yes, most of the time, most people will try to make me understand, or teach me about a few things. But I think smart people should be able to go beyond that. They should be able to recognize the cause of my observation, what is I'm talking about, and prove it themselves (in any way).
But this never happens in audio, a proof about what kind of people inside.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.