I wish I had some sort of proper measuring system set up.
It would be great to buy a shed load of the cheapest $2 drivers I could, and try differing techniques, and measure the effects.
Does anyone know of any software that runs on mac?
Also, as a matter of interest, does anyone know the speed of sound in paper.
m/s or ft/s etc are fine, I can work with both. I know the fostex's are banana pulp, but it will give me a rough idea.
Does (as the standing wave link states) the speed of sound in a material change with frequency? I thought it was pretty constant, or did I read the M Corrington graph incorrectly? (about half way down the page on the right.)
There are also some other things in the article that aren't clear. Seems like a blend of technical thinking and magic!
It would be great to buy a shed load of the cheapest $2 drivers I could, and try differing techniques, and measure the effects.
Does anyone know of any software that runs on mac?
Also, as a matter of interest, does anyone know the speed of sound in paper.
m/s or ft/s etc are fine, I can work with both. I know the fostex's are banana pulp, but it will give me a rough idea.
Does (as the standing wave link states) the speed of sound in a material change with frequency? I thought it was pretty constant, or did I read the M Corrington graph incorrectly? (about half way down the page on the right.)
There are also some other things in the article that aren't clear. Seems like a blend of technical thinking and magic!
bobhayes said:
Means at least you'll need some external audio device, as those iBooks (I have the same) do NOT offer any line in ou mic. in...
(I offered myself a Edirol UA25 for on the road...)
Cheers, Paul
PS: Compu as-such is powerfull enough for 10.4 AND FuzzMeasure...
PPS: FUzzMeasure allows you to make 2 simultanious (or whatever it's writte like) measures in the demo version.... so you can only compare 2 measurement, but hey... to try before you buy...
Paul
Before you proceed with any of this I would suggest that you ask for some quantitative documentation. Just posting the Fostex ad sheet is not enough. There has been enough work done to show that Fostex reports an idealized version of actual performance.
Please have a little healthy skepticism.
Best to all,
Mark
Please have a little healthy skepticism.
Best to all,
Mark
What's panther? and FM? Frequency modulation?
Maybe it would be simpler and far cheaper to buy a PC for these things, as there is a great deal of freeware available for PC's, and absolutely none for mac!
Mathcad, Autocad, Tubecad, numerous spreadsheets and .exe files etc.
Everything I want to use is PC based, and I'm stuck here with my other halves notebook. Depressing.
Maybe it would be simpler and far cheaper to buy a PC for these things, as there is a great deal of freeware available for PC's, and absolutely none for mac!
Mathcad, Autocad, Tubecad, numerous spreadsheets and .exe files etc.
Everything I want to use is PC based, and I'm stuck here with my other halves notebook. Depressing.
bobhayes said:
Panther = Mac OS 3.x
FM = Fuzzmeasure
Certainly is a lot more quantity in Windows....
1st the best PC (not the cheapest -- those can be had for free) is an Intel mac running Parallels.
MethCad granted, but all their competitors have ported to the Mac they will be forced to soon. AutoCad is a far to expensive 3rd rate piece of.... , spreadsheets will all run in Excel on the Mac except the ones using visual Basic (Excel & Word were both out on the Mac years before they were ported to the PC)
please excuse the rant....
dave
The 1st Steve that popped into my mind was Cresswell... (he works for Apple too)
I'm particularily biased on the AutoCad subject... i have been dealing with it snce it was version 1. A large portion of my client base is Architects, and where i live some 75% of arcitects are on macs and most of them using VectorWorks (even thou a as close as possible port to Windows has existed for years, Windows gets in the way of getting work done). Now VectorWorks is, IMHO, quite superior to AutoCad and for the price of a legitamate copy of AutoCad you can but VectorWorks & the machine to run it on (& even have change left over if you want to be frugal)
With a lot of very good Architects in Victoria exporting their work, a lot of fresh technicians are imported, so i have seen many times guys (& girls) with only AutoCad experience being hired and put in front of a Mac with VectorWorks. For th 1st 1-4 weeks they complain bitterly about how things are different, after that they start to mellow, and by about 6 months they are expressing wonder that they ever put up with AutoCad.
dave
I'm particularily biased on the AutoCad subject... i have been dealing with it snce it was version 1. A large portion of my client base is Architects, and where i live some 75% of arcitects are on macs and most of them using VectorWorks (even thou a as close as possible port to Windows has existed for years, Windows gets in the way of getting work done). Now VectorWorks is, IMHO, quite superior to AutoCad and for the price of a legitamate copy of AutoCad you can but VectorWorks & the machine to run it on (& even have change left over if you want to be frugal)
With a lot of very good Architects in Victoria exporting their work, a lot of fresh technicians are imported, so i have seen many times guys (& girls) with only AutoCad experience being hired and put in front of a Mac with VectorWorks. For th 1st 1-4 weeks they complain bitterly about how things are different, after that they start to mellow, and by about 6 months they are expressing wonder that they ever put up with AutoCad.
dave
Good point -I'd forgotten SC does some work for Apple.
I'm not surprised about the superiority the Macs have in terms of their OS over regular PCs. Benefits of proper development, and integrated at that. My next machine will be a Mac, as you suggested, with a virtual Win setup lurking around when required for MathCad.
I'm not surprised about the superiority the Macs have in terms of their OS over regular PCs. Benefits of proper development, and integrated at that. My next machine will be a Mac, as you suggested, with a virtual Win setup lurking around when required for MathCad.
Hi Bob,
"There are also some other things in the article that aren't clear. Seems like a blend of technical thinking and magic"
Now that you have had a few days to simmer those objections to finding some technical thinking, would you discuss your questions about the magic?
Please understand that even after 40 years of messing with this, I still have difficulty with it being creditable. Questions just give me another look into what is really going on, and most importantly, from the point of view of another mind.
Perhaps this little bit should also move over to the collection thread because I am sure there are a lot of people with questions. Not the least of which is, how to measure what is changing, even how to describe it, in a sensible enough fashion, that someone can formulate an idea about how and what to measure.
Bud
"There are also some other things in the article that aren't clear. Seems like a blend of technical thinking and magic"
Now that you have had a few days to simmer those objections to finding some technical thinking, would you discuss your questions about the magic?
Please understand that even after 40 years of messing with this, I still have difficulty with it being creditable. Questions just give me another look into what is really going on, and most importantly, from the point of view of another mind.
Perhaps this little bit should also move over to the collection thread because I am sure there are a lot of people with questions. Not the least of which is, how to measure what is changing, even how to describe it, in a sensible enough fashion, that someone can formulate an idea about how and what to measure.
Bud
planet10 said:
Once upon a time, Autocad was the only game in town, whether it was used for mechanical/arch/civil engineering and design, unless you had a lot of money to spend. Nowadays, there are so many better/cheaper packages available, depending on what discipline we are discussing, I'm surprised Autodesk is still afloat.
Jeff
vinylkid58 said:
They are still afloat because they established a large base when the were the game ... this is the situation (same thing that made M$ Word the #1 WP)... you know nothing of computers... you ask someone you (think is) an expert, and that personal who has only ever experienced one piece of CAD software says... AutoCad.
dave
OT
He...interesting topic, for I'm a CAD-Administrator in a company with 40-50 AutoCad-Licenses.
I love AutoCAD and it will be the CAD-Standard for the next decades.
Of course there are cheaper CAD-Programs and they are good, but AutoCAD is like building your own boxes...it's like a DIY-CAD that can do everything you teach to it...a little LISP a little VBA or C# and it's a great base for your own CAD without any limitations. That's what I'm doing for living and I love my job
Edit:
OK...there is one thing I really don't like about AutoCAD. No support for Linux
He...interesting topic, for I'm a CAD-Administrator in a company with 40-50 AutoCad-Licenses.
I love AutoCAD and it will be the CAD-Standard for the next decades.
Of course there are cheaper CAD-Programs and they are good, but AutoCAD is like building your own boxes...it's like a DIY-CAD that can do everything you teach to it...a little LISP a little VBA or C# and it's a great base for your own CAD without any limitations. That's what I'm doing for living and I love my job
Edit:
OK...there is one thing I really don't like about AutoCAD. No support for Linux
HI BudP,
I have never tried it or even heard about it before, but I'm just not convinced from the information given that the EnABL process (just the blocks), is actually having any audible effect on the driver. I'm sure it will have a minor effect, just not audible. Bear in mind I am not a scientist of any fashion, so maybe my pea brain just can't handle the data, but I don't understand the following:
I just think that if the returning reflection is of such low amplitude to be arrested by these blocks, it wouldn't really be a problem in the first place. Why does the high compliance surround not absorb the wave? At what frequencies is the pattern supposed to be effective?
I have seen many cones with a ridged surface, or with one or two raised concentric rings. Do these work on the same principle?
Also, wouldn't this process have more effect on radial modes, if the blocks were glued in a pattern from centre to edge? There is no terminus or surround to prevent radial modes propagating.
I thought that the speed of sound in paper, or any material denser than air, was greater than that in air. I would have imagined that this coating, having more density would counter the effect of the blocks, increasing cone internal damping, which I would have thought would add considerable MMS, changing lots of other driver parameters.
Why not use a driver made from a different material such as PVC, GRP or CRP instead?
I would have thought any phase transfer dislocations would be inaudible or immeasurable at anything over a few inches from the driver, where the wave becomes spherical in the bass and lower mids, and directional thereafter due to the complete mush of interacting waves off axis. Would the coating not simply alter these dislocations, rather than 'overcome' them? Surely the coated driver cannot be immune to the phenomena.
What is depth of field information? Is it resolution or dynamic range or something else?
So the cone is stiffer? That would make the drivers HF rolloff earlier wouldn't it? (Voice coil coupled to less flexible cone would imply the VC impedance rising at a lower frequency than that of the original cone driver, due to seing more mass, more quickly.)
So the traversing wave is moving faster? How does this benefit the driver? Since the wavefront propagating from the cone nearest the voice coil moves through the air very slowly compared to the wave in the cone, the emitted wave front will be initially concave (assuming a normally mounted driver) at all frequencies that the cone is capable of reproducing (due to size limitations), regardless of what the cone is composed of (within reason) IMO.
I make that a 57.333kHz square wave. My hearing is duff over 16kHz.
I don't know what the gates are, but they are set at (high) infinity Hz and (low) 62.5kHz?
There are no labels on the y graph axis, is it SPL dB?
There is no doubt the graphs show changes to the driver, but I cannot see the relevance of 0.19mS (1.8MHz), 0.35mS (983kHz) and 1.19mS (289kHz) in audio transducers. (unless they were hypersensitive to RF instability or something.)
Sorry if I got it all wrong, but it seems to be 'talking up' the actual problem, and I'm not sure the EnABL process (the blocks part) described is effectively combatting any audible driver cone anomalies. I think the coating is the major contributer to any measuable or audible changes.
I'm hoping to get a cheap test setup together soon, to measure changes in response for different mods to generic drivers, but I have no ability to test and interpret such complex cone resonance issues, so I'll still be non the wiser.
That said, I will try these mods out and compare, because after all, it's not a test setup, computer or microphone that will be listening to the drivers, and there is no better judge than the ol' ears
For any change made to the characteristic of a transducer, it is purely subjective as to whether it sounds 'better', as there has never been, and never will be a 'perfect' one (even if there was, everyone would argue it was 'too' perfect). For all the technical advantages in using modern materials and processes, some people would still not trade their paper drivers for anything else. This in itself speaks volumes. Everyone here knows all about compromise, and for every positive action, their will always be a trade off.
If there is discussion of this topic elsewhere, please let me know, so maybe I will get a better grip on what is happening as I still don't fully understand.
Regards, Bob.
I have never tried it or even heard about it before, but I'm just not convinced from the information given that the EnABL process (just the blocks), is actually having any audible effect on the driver. I'm sure it will have a minor effect, just not audible. Bear in mind I am not a scientist of any fashion, so maybe my pea brain just can't handle the data, but I don't understand the following:
I just think that if the returning reflection is of such low amplitude to be arrested by these blocks, it wouldn't really be a problem in the first place. Why does the high compliance surround not absorb the wave? At what frequencies is the pattern supposed to be effective?
I have seen many cones with a ridged surface, or with one or two raised concentric rings. Do these work on the same principle?
Also, wouldn't this process have more effect on radial modes, if the blocks were glued in a pattern from centre to edge? There is no terminus or surround to prevent radial modes propagating.
I thought that the speed of sound in paper, or any material denser than air, was greater than that in air. I would have imagined that this coating, having more density would counter the effect of the blocks, increasing cone internal damping, which I would have thought would add considerable MMS, changing lots of other driver parameters.
Why not use a driver made from a different material such as PVC, GRP or CRP instead?
I would have thought any phase transfer dislocations would be inaudible or immeasurable at anything over a few inches from the driver, where the wave becomes spherical in the bass and lower mids, and directional thereafter due to the complete mush of interacting waves off axis. Would the coating not simply alter these dislocations, rather than 'overcome' them? Surely the coated driver cannot be immune to the phenomena.
What is depth of field information? Is it resolution or dynamic range or something else?
So the cone is stiffer? That would make the drivers HF rolloff earlier wouldn't it? (Voice coil coupled to less flexible cone would imply the VC impedance rising at a lower frequency than that of the original cone driver, due to seing more mass, more quickly.)
So the traversing wave is moving faster? How does this benefit the driver? Since the wavefront propagating from the cone nearest the voice coil moves through the air very slowly compared to the wave in the cone, the emitted wave front will be initially concave (assuming a normally mounted driver) at all frequencies that the cone is capable of reproducing (due to size limitations), regardless of what the cone is composed of (within reason) IMO.
I make that a 57.333kHz square wave. My hearing is duff over 16kHz.
I don't know what the gates are, but they are set at (high) infinity Hz and (low) 62.5kHz?
There are no labels on the y graph axis, is it SPL dB?
There is no doubt the graphs show changes to the driver, but I cannot see the relevance of 0.19mS (1.8MHz), 0.35mS (983kHz) and 1.19mS (289kHz) in audio transducers. (unless they were hypersensitive to RF instability or something.)
Sorry if I got it all wrong, but it seems to be 'talking up' the actual problem, and I'm not sure the EnABL process (the blocks part) described is effectively combatting any audible driver cone anomalies. I think the coating is the major contributer to any measuable or audible changes.
I'm hoping to get a cheap test setup together soon, to measure changes in response for different mods to generic drivers, but I have no ability to test and interpret such complex cone resonance issues, so I'll still be non the wiser.
That said, I will try these mods out and compare, because after all, it's not a test setup, computer or microphone that will be listening to the drivers, and there is no better judge than the ol' ears
For any change made to the characteristic of a transducer, it is purely subjective as to whether it sounds 'better', as there has never been, and never will be a 'perfect' one (even if there was, everyone would argue it was 'too' perfect). For all the technical advantages in using modern materials and processes, some people would still not trade their paper drivers for anything else. This in itself speaks volumes. Everyone here knows all about compromise, and for every positive action, their will always be a trade off.
If there is discussion of this topic elsewhere, please let me know, so maybe I will get a better grip on what is happening as I still don't fully understand.
Regards, Bob.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.