Why so negative?
Hey guys,
I thought I'm in a constructive forum...
If "planot" would live in Germany, I would just give it try and drive over to listen!
All this thesis / anti thesis just don't equals the real expirience...Its quiete typical for us humans to disbelieve new ways. But would he has done all the work if there's nothing?
I doubt that he would have! For me thats enough to give it try and go for listening...
Even if we would just receive a poor sound...It would be still be worth to know and listen to! Its an expirience! Something new - who knows maybe someone can optimize or gets ideas for new ways. I personally welcome your research because the sound reproduction technologies needs new ideas!
For all the other forum members: Forgive me
but I had to write these lines - I grew up by just listening to audio developments and I'm still convinced that's the only way to do. We don't really need to understand the physics first - ours ears will tell us for sure.
So let Planot some respect, he'd some work for sure. Reading the last 15 replies would let me going away from this forum - I'd doubt this is what anyone wants...
Jochen
PS: waiting for someone of you Americans to visit him...
and don't forget: Hifi is just fun isn't it?
Hey guys,
I thought I'm in a constructive forum...
If "planot" would live in Germany, I would just give it try and drive over to listen!
All this thesis / anti thesis just don't equals the real expirience...Its quiete typical for us humans to disbelieve new ways. But would he has done all the work if there's nothing?
I doubt that he would have! For me thats enough to give it try and go for listening...
Even if we would just receive a poor sound...It would be still be worth to know and listen to! Its an expirience! Something new - who knows maybe someone can optimize or gets ideas for new ways. I personally welcome your research because the sound reproduction technologies needs new ideas!
For all the other forum members: Forgive me
but I had to write these lines - I grew up by just listening to audio developments and I'm still convinced that's the only way to do. We don't really need to understand the physics first - ours ears will tell us for sure.So let Planot some respect, he'd some work for sure. Reading the last 15 replies would let me going away from this forum - I'd doubt this is what anyone wants...
Jochen
PS: waiting for someone of you Americans to visit him...
and don't forget: Hifi is just fun isn't it?
If a loudspeaker reproduces sound analogous to a musical instrument, it's not worth debating, in my opinion.
Something I have found difficult regarding 'long thread debates' is that people will enter into them without going back even a few pages to prepare. It eventually becomes so chaotic, and statements are so taken out of context, that it's not worth pursuing further..
Something I have found difficult regarding 'long thread debates' is that people will enter into them without going back even a few pages to prepare. It eventually becomes so chaotic, and statements are so taken out of context, that it's not worth pursuing further..
Last edited:
To be fair though, it's really no ones fault. We are ALL guilty of this. It just makes it very difficult to stay on track..
Last edited:
Presently, One of the best woofers in the world (used in the Niagara room...) is a "rotary" one :
Eminent Technology: home
Eminent Technology: home
Last edited:
Great for some music recordings, especially if you wan't to hear that previously inaudible dump truck driving past the concert hall or studio in perfect fidelity. Actually, I take that back. 3% THD at 90db/1m is a little too high for that purpose..
In all seriousness, it's an amazing invention. I have the perfect space in my attic for it. Now all I need is ten grand..
Last edited:
I've heard that woofer at its introduction several years ago, IIRC San Francisco AES. IIRC, the RPM is constant but the pitch of the blades is modulated with the signal frequency.
jan
Alright I have just finished reading both this thread and the other one on the same topic and I have to admit I am totally befuddled.
Before you read this keep in mind that I would love to have it turn out that this is the sliced bread of the audio industry, but as an analytical and curious person I feel the need to question something that seems too good to be true.
It seems that there is no clear consensus on how the thing makes sound, on one hand we have the intended operation, in which all points are moving forward on the triangular diaphragm therefore producing positive pressure (which doesn't make sense to me because there is no way it only create positive pressure, otherwise the room would slowly become higher and higher pressure). And on the other we have that it is acting like a balanced mode radiator, both along the diaphragm and everything around it, including what its sitting on. Also there is the possibility that its a little bit of both...
One very obvious test to me, which was pointed out in the other thread but it doesn't look like anyone ever tried, is to replace the triangle with a cylinder and see what happens. If it sounds the same as the triangle then it would seem to be coming from BMR/NXT type excitation. If there is no sound at all, or very little then bingo, we have sliced bread, and the sound actually comes from the triangle creating pressure as explained by planot.
After all of the talk and time that has taken place I find it amazing that no one on this forum has gotten a chance to hear one in person. We established in the last thread that there were several people within driving distance. It seems that between 2009 when most of the conversation took place and now not a whole lot of new information has been made available.
I would love to see some plots, preferably from an independent source like zaph. What I mean by that is CSD, THD, polar, and frequency response. I know there was a lot of controversy about how Planot didn't want to disclose that for fear of... something. I can't say that I see how releasing those graphs would risk the security of the design.
I know there is one graph on the website:
But please, I have an incredibly hard time believing that. That response is TOO good. A couple of dB down at 23Hz, with a diaphragm with no net displacement? I don't think so. At best it looks heavily smoothed. Or maybe it was badly made, or maybe it was totally fabricated. I can't say which of those is right but I know its not the real raw response. I seem to remember some of the people who heard and reviewed it saying there was useable response to 100 or so Hz. That I might believe, but that is a loooong step off from nearly 20 Hz. Also that response is utterly at odds with every other prototype response anyone has published.
What I would love to see is:
1) An explanation on how the thing actually works based on real tests, not conjecture. If it is proven that the majority of the sound comes from pressure created by the rotational motion of the diaphragm, and not the vibration of various components, then I will be fully willing to accept it.
2)An independent review from a reputable source WITH independently generated test data.
I don't feel that this is too much to ask, really I just want to see the scientific method followed, on what is supposedly a scientific advancement.
Once again, I am not saying all this because I hate you Planot and I hope that you fail miserably. I am saying this because I would love to see this succeed and work, but at this point there is not that much hard evidence to go off of. From reading these threads it seems that a lot of what has been said has been taken far too personally. It seems that many people need to do less
and more this 
Go easy fellas
Before you read this keep in mind that I would love to have it turn out that this is the sliced bread of the audio industry, but as an analytical and curious person I feel the need to question something that seems too good to be true.
It seems that there is no clear consensus on how the thing makes sound, on one hand we have the intended operation, in which all points are moving forward on the triangular diaphragm therefore producing positive pressure (which doesn't make sense to me because there is no way it only create positive pressure, otherwise the room would slowly become higher and higher pressure). And on the other we have that it is acting like a balanced mode radiator, both along the diaphragm and everything around it, including what its sitting on. Also there is the possibility that its a little bit of both...
One very obvious test to me, which was pointed out in the other thread but it doesn't look like anyone ever tried, is to replace the triangle with a cylinder and see what happens. If it sounds the same as the triangle then it would seem to be coming from BMR/NXT type excitation. If there is no sound at all, or very little then bingo, we have sliced bread, and the sound actually comes from the triangle creating pressure as explained by planot.
After all of the talk and time that has taken place I find it amazing that no one on this forum has gotten a chance to hear one in person. We established in the last thread that there were several people within driving distance. It seems that between 2009 when most of the conversation took place and now not a whole lot of new information has been made available.
I would love to see some plots, preferably from an independent source like zaph. What I mean by that is CSD, THD, polar, and frequency response. I know there was a lot of controversy about how Planot didn't want to disclose that for fear of... something. I can't say that I see how releasing those graphs would risk the security of the design.
I know there is one graph on the website:
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
But please, I have an incredibly hard time believing that. That response is TOO good. A couple of dB down at 23Hz, with a diaphragm with no net displacement? I don't think so. At best it looks heavily smoothed. Or maybe it was badly made, or maybe it was totally fabricated. I can't say which of those is right but I know its not the real raw response. I seem to remember some of the people who heard and reviewed it saying there was useable response to 100 or so Hz. That I might believe, but that is a loooong step off from nearly 20 Hz. Also that response is utterly at odds with every other prototype response anyone has published.
What I would love to see is:
1) An explanation on how the thing actually works based on real tests, not conjecture. If it is proven that the majority of the sound comes from pressure created by the rotational motion of the diaphragm, and not the vibration of various components, then I will be fully willing to accept it.
2)An independent review from a reputable source WITH independently generated test data.
I don't feel that this is too much to ask, really I just want to see the scientific method followed, on what is supposedly a scientific advancement.
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
Once again, I am not saying all this because I hate you Planot and I hope that you fail miserably. I am saying this because I would love to see this succeed and work, but at this point there is not that much hard evidence to go off of. From reading these threads it seems that a lot of what has been said has been taken far too personally. It seems that many people need to do less
and more this Go easy fellas
Ooh, an air-jet with controllable pitch propeller.
Marine Controllable pitch propeller - CP propeller - CPP - YouTube
Isn't it wonderfull that there's (close to) always a comparative example in nature and/or science.
The US is considerably larger than Germany- no one is going to drive thousands of kilometers given the pitiful data presented to date. And, that's moot anyway- John has not offered demos at his home/workshop. The public demos he HAS offered have all been canceled. At this point, it's vapor. Period. No-one can "hear" it.
That's been discussed in this thread several times. No one knows what it's a measurement of or how it was taken. The only thing one can tell from the plot is that it was taken by someone who had no idea how to use whatever measurement software was involved, nor had any understanding of magnitude/phase plots. It's decoration for his website, not data.
This and that and thanks for your post.
Point A) This is why I have been reluctant to publish data when people don't even believe me when I say it works. The measurements were made with a calibrated Dayton microphone with a separate USB preamp/DAC that provides phantom power to the microphone. I used Room EQ Wizard v5 open source software following all of the pre-calibration methodology outline in the instructions using a Radio Shack digital meter. I did fudge a bit and took the reading at a little closer than one meter.And yes if you look at the published plot it says I did apply a small amount of smoothing. Pretty nice plot, huh? It did not look so great when I tried to adjust the dampening by ear. But then I used this setup to adjust it and voila! Looks great and sounds great. It did sound good before but now it was like silky smooth. I will post picture of the hardware later.
Point B) I have asked for that many times but no one has been willing to come and listen. Except one. He was here for three days measuring and talking. Thing is his product stands to loose big time when I succeed in the market. He refused to let me reveal who he is and what product he represents.
But an independent review is In the works. An individual, one who is on this forum, has purchased an experimental license from Planot and he is building prototypes. I have arrange for an independent review of his prototypes.
Point C) As I have state before in this forum and on others I have attempted to in the past and wasted a lot of time on it. I was awarded a $38,000 discount on Fluent software from ANSYS* to run on a simulation on a supercomputer( in my home town of Omaha, Nebraska) and I found a scientist that was a Fluent user but it was determined no one knew how to use the tools at hand to model the Planot.
*My proposal was reviewed by a panel of physicists and since I was working with an educational institution this was considered an education grant. I would still have to pay $2,000 to rent the software. Later I was in contact with a university that already had Fluent software and was willing to do the model but they were also stymied as to how to proceed.
John
Point A) This is why I have been reluctant to publish data when people don't even believe me when I say it works. The measurements were made with a calibrated Dayton microphone with a separate USB preamp/DAC that provides phantom power to the microphone. I used Room EQ Wizard v5 open source software following all of the pre-calibration methodology outline in the instructions using a Radio Shack digital meter. I did fudge a bit and took the reading at a little closer than one meter.And yes if you look at the published plot it says I did apply a small amount of smoothing. Pretty nice plot, huh? It did not look so great when I tried to adjust the dampening by ear. But then I used this setup to adjust it and voila! Looks great and sounds great. It did sound good before but now it was like silky smooth. I will post picture of the hardware later.
Point B) I have asked for that many times but no one has been willing to come and listen. Except one. He was here for three days measuring and talking. Thing is his product stands to loose big time when I succeed in the market. He refused to let me reveal who he is and what product he represents.
But an independent review is In the works. An individual, one who is on this forum, has purchased an experimental license from Planot and he is building prototypes. I have arrange for an independent review of his prototypes.
Point C) As I have state before in this forum and on others I have attempted to in the past and wasted a lot of time on it. I was awarded a $38,000 discount on Fluent software from ANSYS* to run on a simulation on a supercomputer( in my home town of Omaha, Nebraska) and I found a scientist that was a Fluent user but it was determined no one knew how to use the tools at hand to model the Planot.
*My proposal was reviewed by a panel of physicists and since I was working with an educational institution this was considered an education grant. I would still have to pay $2,000 to rent the software. Later I was in contact with a university that already had Fluent software and was willing to do the model but they were also stymied as to how to proceed.
John
Patent pending
Oh yes. This patent probably will be pending indefinitely. The application is simply too obvious and the principle is too well known in other contexts to be patentable IMHO.
Aside from being used in ships, variable-pitch propellers in aviation are ancient news, even for fixed-wing aircrafts. Helicopters use the principle, too. And in more than the simple respect of hovering/ascending/descending. (That could, in principle, be achieved by only varying the speed of the main rotor). Without it choppers simply couldn't fly very well, if at all. The blades change pitch with each (approximately) half revolution, having no pitch when they move forward (whatever that actually means. But usually in the direction of the chopper's nose - at least if speed and fuel-economy matters!). Then they get more pitch when turning backwards to shovel air and provide propulsion as well as lift.
I have spend much time in and around helicopters. And I can assure you they are perfectly capabable of making some pretty loud low-frequency noise, even in open baffle configuration
But I would love to actually hear one of those tiny fan-driven subwoofers. Did they really manage to make them without any disturbing woosh, hum or 'flap-flap' sounds?
Perhaps someone could make a DIY-project out of attaching a fast servo-motor to the pitch control of an old chopper and mount it on a big enough front-loaded horn?
One of those hollow cooling towers from a decomissioned nuclear plant should do nicely
http://www.stockpodium.com/en/image...r-Nuclear-Power-Plant-Temelin-Czech-Republic/
(Sorry about persuing this little off-topic track in the thread)
Oh yes. This patent probably will be pending indefinitely. The application is simply too obvious and the principle is too well known in other contexts to be patentable IMHO.
Aside from being used in ships, variable-pitch propellers in aviation are ancient news, even for fixed-wing aircrafts. Helicopters use the principle, too. And in more than the simple respect of hovering/ascending/descending. (That could, in principle, be achieved by only varying the speed of the main rotor). Without it choppers simply couldn't fly very well, if at all. The blades change pitch with each (approximately) half revolution, having no pitch when they move forward (whatever that actually means. But usually in the direction of the chopper's nose - at least if speed and fuel-economy matters!). Then they get more pitch when turning backwards to shovel air and provide propulsion as well as lift.
I have spend much time in and around helicopters. And I can assure you they are perfectly capabable of making some pretty loud low-frequency noise, even in open baffle configuration
But I would love to actually hear one of those tiny fan-driven subwoofers. Did they really manage to make them without any disturbing woosh, hum or 'flap-flap' sounds?
Perhaps someone could make a DIY-project out of attaching a fast servo-motor to the pitch control of an old chopper and mount it on a big enough front-loaded horn?
One of those hollow cooling towers from a decomissioned nuclear plant should do nicely
http://www.stockpodium.com/en/image...r-Nuclear-Power-Plant-Temelin-Czech-Republic/
(Sorry about persuing this little off-topic track in the thread
)So from listening tests done by yourself, would you say that this thing has output at 23Hz that is similar level to the rest of the spectrum? Because I seem to remember someone saying it dropped off around 100Hz.
I am a little confused by this whole licensing process. If I wanted to build one of these things I would have to first pay you $500 for the blueprint and license. But we have seem many prototypes already without the license and no sort of attempt to stop them so what then does this license actually get me?
Would you be willing to post the raw, unsmoothed response with no editing of any kind? Also the sensitivity measurement to give that graph some context.
Also info on the room would be great. Distance from walls, nearby large objects, etc. Total room dimensions. Carpet, windows, wood floor, etc, anything that could affect it. Also this will include information on your floor noise. For all we know a jet happened to fly by while simultaneously your furnace turned on, providing all of your low end output. And then your cat came along and meowed and then your kid ran by and knocked over a vase. Then after all of that happened the response was smoothed and walla we have a perfectly flat response.
Once again don't read this negatively, it's just necessary background object. The scientific method asserts that an experiment should be controlled enough that the results will be relevant to the change of only one variable. And without knowing everything there is to know about the test setup we have no idea if you adhered to this principle.
Regards
One more thing. A great example of a manufacturer working with the diy community and using our input as much as possible, and also facing quite a lot of scrutiny, is Mark from Mark Audio. He has his own sub-forum here (which I keep tabs on).
I'm sure you would be able to find plenty of questions just like the ones being asked of you over at that forum. So really, it's not a personal thing
I'm sure you would be able to find plenty of questions just like the ones being asked of you over at that forum. So really, it's not a personal thing
Blueprints, but for some reason there's no public demo of the version in them. You absolutely do not need a license to build experimental prototypes- patent law is extremely clear about this, John's protests notwithstanding. He is certainly free to charge whatever he wants for blueprints, and (taking John's claims at face value) apparently there's at least one person who was willing to pay money for vapor.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.