The point that I was making is that in all of this discussion the compression driver seems to be being treated as some form of mysterious black box that emanates what we fondly hope are plane waves because the compression driver gods have told us so.
In other words the o.s. waveguide seems to be a device intended to extract the maximum from an inherently flawed device, (in that it does not produce a wavefront that can be propagated in any real useful waveguide, the wavefront needing to be manipulated into the best fit approximation), and that this is a thing we just have to put up with.
The Celestion device in question is intended to drive a 25 degree conical horn, and it doesn't take much of a stretch to imagine that if we make an o.s. waveguide that has a throat starting at the point where the plane wave would have been transitioned into a spherical cap of the correct curvature then there might well be benefits from such an arrangement, (I would suggest that amongst these might well be the generation of a lesser amount of higher modes at high frequencies).
After all this is a diy forum and not a get someone else to do and I will bolt the bits together forum.
rcw
In other words the o.s. waveguide seems to be a device intended to extract the maximum from an inherently flawed device, (in that it does not produce a wavefront that can be propagated in any real useful waveguide, the wavefront needing to be manipulated into the best fit approximation), and that this is a thing we just have to put up with.
The Celestion device in question is intended to drive a 25 degree conical horn, and it doesn't take much of a stretch to imagine that if we make an o.s. waveguide that has a throat starting at the point where the plane wave would have been transitioned into a spherical cap of the correct curvature then there might well be benefits from such an arrangement, (I would suggest that amongst these might well be the generation of a lesser amount of higher modes at high frequencies).
After all this is a diy forum and not a get someone else to do and I will bolt the bits together forum.
rcw
rcw said:
And we never give up either
btw, at the moment I think the "gedlee project" is helped as good as it gets, and has to prove its own worth from now on, not much further to exstract from that
no answer yet to my question about what matters most in an asymmetric waveguide in integration with woofer ... mouth horisontal width or mouth area
rcw said:
The facts here are quite to the contrary. In a subjective study that I did with B&C (AES Journal about a 18 months ago) some thirty blind listeners could not detect a signal passed through a compression driver from one that wasn't. The implication here is clearly that the drivers themselves are quite good reproducers of sound signals. Your obviuos bias against them is not well founded in real data. Nor are they supported by listening tests of my own system.
Dr Geddes,
Thought you might enjoy these mathematical toys:
http://demonstrations.wolfram.com/
If you get bored with Complexified Psuedospheres you could always mess around with Electromagnetic Energy Density and Poynting Vector of a Relativistic Oscillator and perhaps end up with, ( as I did ) Nodal Surfaces of Degenerate States.
Cilla
Thought you might enjoy these mathematical toys:
http://demonstrations.wolfram.com/
If you get bored with Complexified Psuedospheres you could always mess around with Electromagnetic Energy Density and Poynting Vector of a Relativistic Oscillator and perhaps end up with, ( as I did ) Nodal Surfaces of Degenerate States.
Cilla
gedlee said:
I'll take a good two way over this any day:
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
Can you say "comb filtering" kids?
gedlee said:
So name calling instead of proof, science and truth? Figures.
You have no valid argument. You already have proven your speakers sound the SAME as the direct radiators. Soooooooooo, if this is not true( as you have repeated over and over again in writing and at your dog and pony show) - then the test and your paper is a farce. Now, see if you can reply without resorting to attacking me (the truth) .
Magnetar said:
I can't answer for Dr Geddes, but I'll tell you this much:
My Summas sound like a conventional two way speaker. Except they have 10x the dynamics and imaging which puts audiophile mini-monitors to shame.
Is that a bad thing?
We're basically talking about the holy grail here -
The dynamics of a horn, without the tizzy etched treble and the shouty midrange.
Now you'll have to excuse me, I'm going to go watch a movie. I've been listening to music on the Summas for a minimum of four hours a day this whole weekend, and I can't WAIT to hear how this movie is going to sound. This is audiophile nirvana, I don't miss tweaking my DIY projects one bit.
Hi Patrick, since the amount of comb filtering is dependant on crossover frequency, slope and driver middle point distance, i dont think Magnetars speakers will comb filter much more than gedlees speakers. Magnetars speaker is bigger, which implies more comb filtering, but the lower crossover will also be lower than the 900hz of the summa, so it kind of equals out.
I dont want to fuel the fire, quite on the contrary, i think its fine to see all the different approaches to audio. No reason to start burning things.
I dont want to fuel the fire, quite on the contrary, i think its fine to see all the different approaches to audio. No reason to start burning things.