Anyway, this 6dB per octave roll-off, if real, could very easily be "equalizable" with DEQ2496, or others.
In fact, the curve in a room needs more to be decraesed at low Hz than else ... Sure it depends on the room volume !
Be carefull with these curves ... We need them to fight false ideas about dysfunction of dipoles in infra bass, but in real situation, listening adjustment is another matter.
"The wavelengths in question are too long with respect to room dimensions."
This implies that we cannot feel infra in a small living-room ? Why can we ear them in intra-auricular devices for phone music ?
Have-you a scientific study showing correspondance between the dimensions of the room and the lowest hertz you can ear ?
This implies that we cannot feel infra in a small living-room ? Why can we ear them in intra-auricular devices for phone music ?
Have-you a scientific study showing correspondance between the dimensions of the room and the lowest hertz you can ear ?
Last edited:
With typical room lift there might be reasonable output at that frequency.
But I see not much reason that this is a superior solution to multiple cone drivers of equivalent surface area and similar free air resonance and of course Qt.
The other way to look at it is as the mouth of a large horn... of course this is a dipole, but the mouth size and surface size wrt radiation impedance would seem to have similarity and some relationship...
I think if you want to do this right you want to make the entire wall of a room driven - multiple "shaker" units that are sold for cars and a careful selection of the "wall" material would do well... then you'd get some serious thunder.
One might suck the windows out of a tightly sealed room.
_-_-bear
But I see not much reason that this is a superior solution to multiple cone drivers of equivalent surface area and similar free air resonance and of course Qt.
The other way to look at it is as the mouth of a large horn... of course this is a dipole, but the mouth size and surface size wrt radiation impedance would seem to have similarity and some relationship...
I think if you want to do this right you want to make the entire wall of a room driven - multiple "shaker" units that are sold for cars and a careful selection of the "wall" material would do well... then you'd get some serious thunder.
One might suck the windows out of a tightly sealed room.
_-_-bear
Hi
What i see is :
1- an increase from 310 up to 150 Hz (~12dB/oct)
2- a decrease from 150 down to 30 Hz (~6dB/oct)
3- an increase from 30 up to 18Hz (~6dB/oct)
4- a decrease from 18Hz down to 10 (~24dB/oct)
Feel free to believe it confirms the "well established" roll-off prediction.
It's my turn to be not convinced, particularly because of the same value of spl at the beginning, the center, and the end of the domain you chose for your observation : for 310Hz the curve is at 90dB, and too for 30 Hz, and too for 15 Hz.
The average SPL line drawn by Infraplanar is horizontal, not declining towards the infrabass.
Measures confirm : 92.5 dB for : ~18Hz, ~53Hz, ~260Hz, ~350Hz to 850Hz. And a small elevation of 2.5 to 5 dB between70 to 220Hz.
Not too bad for me.
What i see is :
1- an increase from 310 up to 150 Hz (~12dB/oct)
2- a decrease from 150 down to 30 Hz (~6dB/oct)
3- an increase from 30 up to 18Hz (~6dB/oct)
4- a decrease from 18Hz down to 10 (~24dB/oct)
Feel free to believe it confirms the "well established" roll-off prediction.
It's my turn to be not convinced, particularly because of the same value of spl at the beginning, the center, and the end of the domain you chose for your observation : for 310Hz the curve is at 90dB, and too for 30 Hz, and too for 15 Hz.
The average SPL line drawn by Infraplanar is horizontal, not declining towards the infrabass.
Measures confirm : 92.5 dB for : ~18Hz, ~53Hz, ~260Hz, ~350Hz to 850Hz. And a small elevation of 2.5 to 5 dB between70 to 220Hz.
Not too bad for me.
Hi Bear,
Yes, it's another possible solution among a lot of others.
The first advantage is the same mode of function between planars and Infraplanar : large flexible membrane. Homogeneity is not a small factor. You know this is important for speed, clarity, precision of these type of drivers, and less for cones, even in dipole mode... specially for frontier problems at the cut frequency.
Secondly, what is the number of cones to reach the same emitting surface ? With cones, a very large area is non emitting, thus lost, because cones are ... circular. This is the "quadrature of the circle" well known problem... No comparison with large lonely active membrane. The volume of displaced air wouldn't be the same at all, nor the efficiency. To compensate that, what would be the necessary xmax of cones?
Third, which cone can go down to 15 Hz with satisfaction ? I know that this frequency is hardly found in classical music, but in earthquake films ... (Yes, I know that buttkikers do exist).
I am not going to try finding all the arguments... You have by yourself found what are some of the problems : "of equivalent surface area and similar free air resonance and of course Qt"...
Let cones go with cones, and planar marry with infraplanars.
Yes, it's another possible solution among a lot of others.
The first advantage is the same mode of function between planars and Infraplanar : large flexible membrane. Homogeneity is not a small factor. You know this is important for speed, clarity, precision of these type of drivers, and less for cones, even in dipole mode... specially for frontier problems at the cut frequency.
Secondly, what is the number of cones to reach the same emitting surface ? With cones, a very large area is non emitting, thus lost, because cones are ... circular. This is the "quadrature of the circle" well known problem... No comparison with large lonely active membrane. The volume of displaced air wouldn't be the same at all, nor the efficiency. To compensate that, what would be the necessary xmax of cones?
Third, which cone can go down to 15 Hz with satisfaction ? I know that this frequency is hardly found in classical music, but in earthquake films ... (Yes, I know that buttkikers do exist).
I am not going to try finding all the arguments... You have by yourself found what are some of the problems : "of equivalent surface area and similar free air resonance and of course Qt"...
Let cones go with cones, and planar marry with infraplanars.
Last edited:
If I can (Yes I can), I profit of this curve to mention that Infraplanar present the other advantage to cover from infrabass to almost 1000 Hz. It's not so often with other classical subwoofers...
That permits to have a very large zone of superposition with any planar, so that it is possible to find the best cut frequency to relieve planar of the burden to produce bass notes.
Each time you can upper the cut frequency, you can observe that your planar benefit of a real gain in richer, clearer, smarter sound for the smaller domain of sounds it has now to produce.
This a very comfortable & convient advantage when you have to re-equilibrate your system after adding a sub.
That permits to have a very large zone of superposition with any planar, so that it is possible to find the best cut frequency to relieve planar of the burden to produce bass notes.
Each time you can upper the cut frequency, you can observe that your planar benefit of a real gain in richer, clearer, smarter sound for the smaller domain of sounds it has now to produce.
This a very comfortable & convient advantage when you have to re-equilibrate your system after adding a sub.
Last edited:
No, it doesn't. It implies that at wavelengths that are long with respect to room dimensions, the room pressurizes and depressurizes, rather than waves bouncing around as in a ray model. Another way to view this is that the travel time for front-to-back cancellation is small compared to the period of the produced wave.
Remlab
Your short sentence contains one or two somewhat suspicious judgements on me, no ?
I am not a salesman, i have nothing to sell and no commercial promotion to do. Everybody can explain here why he finds a system wonderfull to his eyes and ears. So I do, nothing else.
About large planar subwoofer, i can see that the opinion has generaly changed. Several years ago, about 2007, the finder and contructor of this new and original audio technique, Infraplanar, was ejected from several forums, particularly this one. From this time, opinions have changed. Some of professional critics on audio system has now writen on Infraplanar elogious papers in magazines or on well known websites. I suppose you know them. They do not approach musical systems with a scientific method. They have been charmed by what they simply ear, without needing outside demonstration...
I respect physical laws, but everybody can see that they change to integer new considerations no taken in count before. Physical laws contains a representation of nature that can become obsolete, because not enough complete. I am not a scientific, so i do not want to go further on this.
I simply notice that some of those that put their mind on scientifc approach are unfortunately unable to bring a scientific study, when guys like me - who "posts something on a DIY website that doesn't appear to make much sense" - ask them to present something solid that can sustain their assertions...
Your short sentence contains one or two somewhat suspicious judgements on me, no ?
I am not a salesman, i have nothing to sell and no commercial promotion to do. Everybody can explain here why he finds a system wonderfull to his eyes and ears. So I do, nothing else.
About large planar subwoofer, i can see that the opinion has generaly changed. Several years ago, about 2007, the finder and contructor of this new and original audio technique, Infraplanar, was ejected from several forums, particularly this one. From this time, opinions have changed. Some of professional critics on audio system has now writen on Infraplanar elogious papers in magazines or on well known websites. I suppose you know them. They do not approach musical systems with a scientific method. They have been charmed by what they simply ear, without needing outside demonstration...
I respect physical laws, but everybody can see that they change to integer new considerations no taken in count before. Physical laws contains a representation of nature that can become obsolete, because not enough complete. I am not a scientific, so i do not want to go further on this.
I simply notice that some of those that put their mind on scientifc approach are unfortunately unable to bring a scientific study, when guys like me - who "posts something on a DIY website that doesn't appear to make much sense" - ask them to present something solid that can sustain their assertions...
Hi,
Nothing easy about it as the rolloff is baffle loss, for ever increasing
excursion as you drop in frequency for normal response. Add in EQ
and the excursion becomes a serious problem at low frequencies.
Don't tout yourself as an expert on something you don't understand.
It is real, it is inevitable, and it makes planar a very poor choice for
ultra low bass, to the extent it is essentially practically unworkable.
rgds, sreten.
Last edited:
This transducer may sound more 'beautiful' than anything on the planet, but when it comes right down to it, 'beauty' is a purely subjective experience, while physical laws are not. I would see this speaker as more of a legitimate bass 'supplementer' than a bass extender. I would also love to hear it one day. Maybe at a show? If it sounds as good as it looks, I imagine it would sound very good with the Maggies..
Last edited:
Streten,
"Don't tout yourself as an expert on something you don't understand".
I never said i am an expert, nor a scientific. But i listened a lot of time to something you never have seen.
If not, tell me which large planar sub like Infraplanar you have experimented and found absolutely unable te reproduce infrabass !! What i hardly understand is a scientific that do not believe in a response curve.
Remlab
Congratulations, you admit never have heard this kind of sub. To said the truth is the first condition to begin in science. "Physical laws are very important to the DIY audio community". Yes, but not at the point to forget to hear music through new speakers.
"'beauty' is a purely subjective experience, while physical laws are not". Both belong to what is called reality. And the fact that we are unable to put beauty in equations does not mean that beauty is an artefact. We can have a judgment about beauty and share with others. We can appreciate a good solo of guitar on a bad speaker because we have intelligence between our ears.
Don't be the slave of techniques, because pleasure is the aim and is immediately perceptible, not science. Only the result is the judge.
"Don't tout yourself as an expert on something you don't understand".
I never said i am an expert, nor a scientific. But i listened a lot of time to something you never have seen.
If not, tell me which large planar sub like Infraplanar you have experimented and found absolutely unable te reproduce infrabass !! What i hardly understand is a scientific that do not believe in a response curve.
Remlab
Congratulations, you admit never have heard this kind of sub. To said the truth is the first condition to begin in science. "Physical laws are very important to the DIY audio community". Yes, but not at the point to forget to hear music through new speakers.
"'beauty' is a purely subjective experience, while physical laws are not". Both belong to what is called reality. And the fact that we are unable to put beauty in equations does not mean that beauty is an artefact. We can have a judgment about beauty and share with others. We can appreciate a good solo of guitar on a bad speaker because we have intelligence between our ears.
Don't be the slave of techniques, because pleasure is the aim and is immediately perceptible, not science. Only the result is the judge.
The issue is what you measured- near field and in open space.
And yes, I've heard large planar systems.
In my opinion, the task of a loudspeaker is to accurately reproduce beauty, not to create it.. When I want to hear what a Stradivarius violin played by a virtuoso sounds like, I will take the accurate speaker over beautiful sounding speaker every time.
My favorite paintings are by the French impressionists. If I had photographic reproductions of these paintings all taken with rose colored lens filters, they would still be 'beautiful', but they would not, by any means, be what the artist intended me to see..
Last edited:
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.