Fundamental resonance is clearly the most extreme case and yes, you are 100% correct, it makes a significant difference.
Isn't that what they were trying to do in China?
Yeah. I thought the professor just designed the things. I wasn't aware he was right down in the trenches like Santa working with the elves.
I had more of a David Wilson or Richard Vandersteen impression. But then, I suppose he is from Michigan - different work ethic, perhaps.
You should retire earlier. Realestate is at it's low over there right now. Many places only 1/3.
Hello All,
Too cold and wet.
Sacramento, California (95835) Conditions & Forecast : Weather Underground - Sacramento, CA&wuSelect=WEATHER
Blue skies and puffy white clouds today.
DT
All just for fun!
Earl, you catched me. You remind me of a watch dog. This 40, 80, 100 liter comparison was a bit apple and oranges. At least i said that the isobaric " waists energy ". When you read the thread as a whole you may find a post of mine, that i am thinking about to run the bass section active. So i think i can afford a missmatch in the bass of 3 dB or so. Also i could use the active section for analog EQ. For example the 40 liter isobaric is 15dB down at 20Hz so i whould equalise it to +6dB at 20Hz. The woofer section whould then have -9dB at 20 Hz and that is aproximately the room gain in a typical european room. A 25cm bass in 40 liter box can of cause not break down hell but again, this will be a nearfield monitor for medium volume.
The data speaks for itself and a myriad of people have confirmed the results and come to the same conclusions. It's not really even in contention anymore. You don't have to believe it if you don't want to - heck, lots of people believe that evolution is wrong or that global warming is a farce.
I just get tired of the endless propagation of falsehoods based on faulty arguments and data. Like the discussion that a loudspeaker at resonance is inherently nonlinear because the impedance isn't flat - or whatever the argument is. It's no wonder people believe some crazy things when so much misinformation is about.
Box enclosure seems to have reduced benefits once beyond a certain volume depending on the individual driver, and from a low frequency extension point of view. However, the variation of in box pressure will affect the modal vibration of the diaphragm. If the driver is used in the piston mode frequency range, then it will be less of a problem.
Earl, i can simulate box speakers well enough. My wrong asuption was that people here know what happens when i put the driver i choose in a 40 liter isobaric, a 80 liter closed and a 100 liter reflex. Should i publish the simulations ? No, i will not. That is too damn stupid. Sorry. I hope i did not set too much lies in this world so that Petrus throws me out of paradise.
Well, who could / should keep you from this ?
I mean – in audio „everything goes“ - as you already should know.
Looking at the many ill technical explanations you presented as to why you decide somthing to do like this or like that - you nevertheless seem to have made it to some speakers in the past.
So – in the end *if* you come towards a design that works for you (and some otheres) on some levels – who cares ??
- anybody will have had some fun - you with a speaker of your taste - others having a new toy of desire - others in having got another lesson on how less it takes after all
Michael
You are being pretty harsh and judgmental for someone who "apparently" has such a weak grasp on the fundamental concept of energy storage as it relates to transducer resonance. You may not like the term but it IS in fact well documented and laid out here.
Q factor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
And contrary to you, nothing I've said disagrees with any of the information presented there. As I suggested earlier, if you hate the term "energy storage" so much and feel we are engaging somehow in a gross misunderstanding - why not start your own Wiki and present details instead of sweeping, generalized attacks. I may be a lot of things when it comes to this subject. Certainly, I'm not the most intelligent person around. But crazy?
Joachim - I was not accusing you of any falsehoods, but I do try and make sure that all aspects of a position are presented - like when comparing two box volumes that have different sensitivities - there is more to the story.
I personally would have liked to see the simulations. I can certainly relate to those.
I was frustrated with some others inability to change their position when shown in no uncertain terms that they were incorrect.
Last edited:
You still contend that the statement
is correct? I don't see that reference supporting your comment in any way.
It is this use of the term "energy storage" where this all started.
I contend that when the energy largely responsible for the diaphragm's motion is stored energy, the response to voltage input becomes non linear. Anyone who has bothered to use an active crossover or equalizer to boost response by even a 4 or 5 db at or near the driver's resonance band has witnessed a significant increase in distortion with a modest increase in actual acoustic gain at the selected frequency. The system is highly non linear because of the phenomenon of energy storage.
Thanks for finally getting specific about what you actually had a problem with instead of simply hurling labels at me.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.