No need to get personal (again).
In earlier posts TC/G were depicted as similar. They aren't? Care to elaborate?
I don't know which one is commonly used. Why are only two of interest? Did you measure them, do you have data you could share?
Sorry, but I don't understand the meaning of that sentence. English is not my first language.
I just told you that. Very clearly. You appear to be informing me about something I told you.
I just told you that. Very clearly. You appear to be informing me about something I told you.
I was just seeking for confirmation that you don't have any data to share that would help answering the question raised in post #1. That's all.
You already have the answer to that, and again I point out that
are not objective but subjective terms. Please state how you define both. Then some reasonable narrowing down can be achieved. Until you do, you are talking to the wind. Or, as is more likely, people will post, and you will either insult them, or the driver for not adhering to some form of unspecified requirements. People are trying to help where they can, and you are insulting them for it. If they do not have raw data of unspecified type (although you seem happy to compare irrespective of whether methodologies or definitions are the same or not), that does not mean they have nothing valuable to contribute, or suggestions they make are not worth looking at. You may need to pursue some investigations yourself of course -presumably that is not too taxing for you.
are not objective but subjective terms. Please state how you define both. Then some reasonable narrowing down can be achieved. Until you do, you are talking to the wind. Or, as is more likely, people will post, and you will either insult them, or the driver for not adhering to some form of unspecified requirements. People are trying to help where they can, and you are insulting them for it. If they do not have raw data of unspecified type (although you seem happy to compare irrespective of whether methodologies or definitions are the same or not), that does not mean they have nothing valuable to contribute, or suggestions they make are not worth looking at. You may need to pursue some investigations yourself of course -presumably that is not too taxing for you.
Last edited:
^
I'm capable of assessing polar response data when the data is complete (and not just one or three axes) and presented with details on how it was measured and how the data was processed. You don't have shown any such data, yet you keep posting in this thread. I don't mean to insult you but you don't have anything to offer that would answer post #1 so why do you keep on posting?
I'm capable of assessing polar response data when the data is complete (and not just one or three axes) and presented with details on how it was measured and how the data was processed. You don't have shown any such data, yet you keep posting in this thread. I don't mean to insult you but you don't have anything to offer that would answer post #1 so why do you keep on posting?
Last edited:
There seems to be a constant requirement for polar response data. Well, at least one mfg provides some figures:
Fullrange Systems
Check any driver and then look for more details.
As a short, Visaton shows polar plots with FR units up to 8k.
More data can be achieved by downloading a Visaton version of "Boxplot" software, whitch includes more accurate FR & polar responses for all their drivers. The "Boxplot" can also simulate front panel baffle step response.
All this story is not to tell that I think Visaton is the king of all mfg's or has the greatest drivers... but some of their tools maybe worth to look for.
Drivers: B200 has some fan club. B80 falls to the topic size, not especially cheap though. FRS8 is a well known cheap option, with quite good price/performance ratio.
Edit: Holy cow, it seems that before I can write one reply, there are 25 new mesages I have not read before...
Fullrange Systems
Check any driver and then look for more details.
As a short, Visaton shows polar plots with FR units up to 8k.
More data can be achieved by downloading a Visaton version of "Boxplot" software, whitch includes more accurate FR & polar responses for all their drivers. The "Boxplot" can also simulate front panel baffle step response.
All this story is not to tell that I think Visaton is the king of all mfg's or has the greatest drivers... but some of their tools maybe worth to look for.
Drivers: B200 has some fan club. B80 falls to the topic size, not especially cheap though. FRS8 is a well known cheap option, with quite good price/performance ratio.
Edit: Holy cow, it seems that before I can write one reply, there are 25 new mesages I have not read before...
Last edited:
B&C also shows nice data like polar and directivity map - but they don't have fulrange. Here is a 6.5 in coax point source - kind of close to a full range.
You will see data like this:
But man that is a ragged freq response:
Great sensitivity (93dB) and xmax (5mm) though, with a DSP and bi-amp you can really make this look good.
You will see data like this:
But man that is a ragged freq response:
Great sensitivity (93dB) and xmax (5mm) though, with a DSP and bi-amp you can really make this look good.
Last edited:
Sorry, Boxsim is the one I meant.
For what I have found, it seems that their public FR response curves (in the driver data page) are not exactly similar to the data what their Boxsim driver data files tell. You have to build some box simulation to see the final result of course.
That is a minor annoyance, isn't it.
I'm fortunate in having access to a "quiet room" that permits a 25 ms gate, but it involves working around the facility schedule and trucking in and setting up (and then removing) all the gear, including 12' pole stand and all the rest. And a modest fee. It only gets done if it matters . . . I wouldn't bother testing a driver other than on the baffle it's going to be used with, for example, since that's the only data that can't be accessed elsewhere that is of any real use in the design process.
You don't need an anechoic chamber for accurate measurements. By gating, taking nearfield measurements and splicing nearfield and farfield data, you can get quite an accurate picture of the frequency response. These techniques have been well documented in several texts. In fact, a gander around the internet should produce enough information for anyone to learn the techniques. For those who believe otherwise, please educate yourself.
The ballroom at the City Club (gets some traffic noise from Bancroft), and the Large Assembly Room at FCCB. Both at night, of course.
Last edited:
Nearfield implies omnidirectional response. Dipole response in the HF is no different than directional response from regular forward firing speakers. If you have directional response in the low frequencies, outdoor measurements or ground plane techniques could be used. You can raise the speaker off the ground as well to get clean reflection-free response.
Yes, that's the theory, isn't it.
But what we're talking about here is taking off-axis measurements of real devices to determine when . . . scratch that, "when" is always . . . to determine how they deviate from what "theory" dictates. When you are making real measurements of real drivers the first thing that goes out the window is "theory" . . . that's why we measure, after all.
I agree but it's obviously too much to ask for. As a result moderation will close this thread.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.