John - talk is cheap - prove it and show me. I've never seen better data - put up or ...
Don't know about communism, but the cost of entry is pretty cheap to try Linux. Doing so may provide you some insight that, in hindsight, might make some of your comments look a little silly.
/soapbox
I´m not using HOLM but WinMLSPro.
I went to work today to get all my toys here so I can take the measurements needed.
I´m on vacation so The Wife goes first - trying to get data before sunday anyways.
About mouth termination (sorry, I can't keep up with the big guys here), would a waveguide that extended to 15" with an abrupt mouth to baffle transition have advantages over, say, a 9" waveguide with rounding over to say, 12"? and then what if the 15" mouth was damped using foam compared to the other without mouth damping?
I have been in the software business for 23 years now. Run my own company for 18 years.
One of the BEST development package I have seen is a free one called Python!
We use Python to run automated stacker systems (24/7 365 days a year ) that cost 30 million to put in!! People should realize how much is actually written in python (especially in the linux, web world).Dr. Geddes can choose to believe free isnt good but the real proof is in the packages used every day in the business world. Another great example is Apache, its the best web server out there and guess what its free too
Of course this is all soapbox stuff and nothing to do with building a better waveguide speaker.
Can we get back to measurements and waveguide discussions and less Linux vs Microsoft stuff?
Last edited:
Thats your opinion, send me the RAW data and I'll add it to the list and we'll see. They look highly smoothed to me - even simulated (that would be very cheap!!)
Last edited:
I don't know if the data from your program will fit the correct format. What I am not going to do is reformat the data. It has to be in the format that HOLM writes. Why not just use HOLM?
Dr. Geddes can choose to believe free isnt good but the real proof is in the packages used every day in the business world. Another great example is Apache, its the best web server out there and guess what its free too
Another good example is the software that he, you and I are using to post these messages on. vBulletin, is open source. The list goes on and on.
I don't recall mentioning Microsoft... However, you're correct. I was also done prior to your response. Now I'm really done.
Back on topic... IMO the only way that Earl's slick utility will see wide use (and not shrivel up and die) is to release it as open source software. Just the opposite of what he stated as his preference...
Or they could use this:
Vacs - Screen-Shots - Frequency Directivity Plot
..which is free-use as long as you don't expect to save project files.
Or just use Arta to take the measurements and then do the plot..
http://www.fesb.hr/~mateljan/arta/images/directivity-sonogram.gif
..same pay scheme.. but only 79 euros for the personal use license.
I personally find the waterfall directivity plot easier to read than the sonogram version, and Arta does this (..page 124 of the manual.)
Last edited:
You threw down the gauntlet.... It's not a matter of opinion. It's my data in comparison to you data. Anyone who looks at it can come to their own conclusion and form their own opinion. My preview web page has been around since March. The latest polar data was taken in April. I don't think making false accusations about my data sits well with anyone around here. I've never challenged you claim or suggested that your data was manipulated. Why would you respond in such a manner? I guess when confronted with something better your response is to attempt to discredit the results. That is very unbecoming.
FWIW, the polar response of the original NaO II speaker system can be found here. These show the problems typically encountered dynamic driver dipole where the mid/tweeter panel is a 2-way design. Apparent is the broadening of the polar response as the frequency rises through the crossover to the tweeter (2.2 k Hz). This issue was addressed in the NaO Note by going to a 3-way panel where an 18cm mid is coupled to a 10 cm upper mid and then to the tweeter on a contoured baffle.
When I release the NaO Note anyone who builds it correctly will obtain similar polar data.
Last edited:
What you see is the measurements for the Note Panel. It will be combined with a woofer system like the NaO II. I amd currently considering different woofer configurations. As witht he NaO II I want the builder to have some choices with regard tot he woofer system. The Note woofer will most likely be able to be built in either of two formats. 1) A single or dual 10" U-frame, like the NaO II, or 2) a single 10" woofer in a ported enclosure. Unlike the NaO II, it will not be convertable between formats. You will build it one way of the other.
I will try to get a picture of the Note panel up next week. It's summer you know. I'm off doing a lot of other things at the moment. Speaker design is low priority.
And yes, I do have a wave guide on the tweeter, if you care to call it that. (added for relevance to the thread.)
Last edited:
Only after the rude comments about my speakers.
You don't seem to understand (or choose to ignore it), the difference between Controlled Directivity and Constant Directivity. You show data that may have better Constant Directivity but its not Controlled in the sense that it is far too wide - its simply dipole. Data like you show is trivial to achieve - two small tweeters on each side of a sphere, out of phase. This simple design will achieve what you show - big deal. You can also get Constant Directivity from a monopole.
I do Controlled Directivity which means that the directivity is controlled to be narrow - not wide like your data shows. This is NOT trivial (unlike the monopole and dipole cases) and part of its solution is going to be a less than perfect smoothness of the directivity.
Then you selectively pick that data that makes your situation look best, falsely normailizing the data to the normal axis - which IS NOT the axis I design to.
If you think your design so superior (as indead you think all you do is), then submit a FULL set of data and not just select pieces that make your situation look better than it really is.
What you are doing and saying are cheap tricks, obviuosly to try and forstall all the former Nao customers that now buy my products.
Gentlemen. Keep it civil or action will be taken. You are warned.
Remember the old punchline, "you are all right."
I like a certain strong thrust of argument between informed people, providing it isn't personal. It should even be possible, in my view, to say, "... your analysis reflects a misunderstanding of X principles...." and that could still be civil.
So, I would welcome seeing what comments above fall outside the civil parameter, please? That way all of us can be more careful to stay on the right side of the line.