Hi,
Your title is a premise that your conclusion reiterates.
However nothing in your paper really justifies either.
Its more wishful thinking than rigorous analysis.
There is no evidence whatsoever that most of the issues with
FR's can be resolved, in any time frame or at any expense.
rgds, sreten.
Last edited:
I'd love for you to elaborate on this feedback, it may be quite insightful, but is also quite terse. It almost reeks of someone who just disagrees with the argument but I think you have more to say. Would love to hear it.
Some tips
Loudspeaker building is a spare time activity for me. Thus, I know little of the underlying theory of loudspeakers (speaker drivers) and how they work. Therefore I may not be able to comment on the technical aspects of your paper (or maybe we should refer to it as a write-up). I may however be able to comment on the presentation. From what I can see it is quite well written. It provides a fairly straightforward introduction to the subject single driver speaker systems vs. multi driver systems.
BUT
To do real scientific research one must be very clear of the problem to be studied (the research question) and the proposed solution (the answer to the research question). In your write-up, the research question, and its answer, is far from clear. In most areas of research, improvements (or developments) are done in small increments. Thus, I would say that your topic is too broad and thereby too difficult to answer (several rather specific topics have been suggested here).
I am pretty sure that doing research within this field requires a very thorough understanding of the underlying theory. That basically means a lot of mathematics. Your research question, and its answer, should be formulated in terms of mathematical models (if you do empirical research you may get of a little “cheaper”). Browsing around diy forums would not help you much in this regard (sorry guys).
I strongly encourage you to keep on writing. It will benefit your future studies as well as your future career.
Good luck
Loudspeaker building is a spare time activity for me. Thus, I know little of the underlying theory of loudspeakers (speaker drivers) and how they work. Therefore I may not be able to comment on the technical aspects of your paper (or maybe we should refer to it as a write-up). I may however be able to comment on the presentation. From what I can see it is quite well written. It provides a fairly straightforward introduction to the subject single driver speaker systems vs. multi driver systems.
BUT
To do real scientific research one must be very clear of the problem to be studied (the research question) and the proposed solution (the answer to the research question). In your write-up, the research question, and its answer, is far from clear. In most areas of research, improvements (or developments) are done in small increments. Thus, I would say that your topic is too broad and thereby too difficult to answer (several rather specific topics have been suggested here).
I am pretty sure that doing research within this field requires a very thorough understanding of the underlying theory. That basically means a lot of mathematics. Your research question, and its answer, should be formulated in terms of mathematical models (if you do empirical research you may get of a little “cheaper”). Browsing around diy forums would not help you much in this regard (sorry guys).
I strongly encourage you to keep on writing. It will benefit your future studies as well as your future career.
Good luck
Last edited:
Speak of the devil, just got a few of these "20 watt" nearly-full-rangers at a previous sale price (a quantity price is currently on the front page of the site):
5.25" Dual Cone 20 Watt Speaker-The Electronic Goldmine
FWIW, resonant frequency is around 120Hz. I'm thinking of using an array of these in a small guitar amp cabinet, though no doubt my money would have been better spent on the blowout sales at Parts Express. and I may still do that.
I can only wonder what research and tests might be done on cheap drivers other than "it sounds good enough for what it is, let's start the assembly line."
You mention doppler distortion as equivalent to intermodulation distortion, and while doppler distortion DOES create intermodulation distortion, I'm not convinced it's the only source, or even the major source, depending on volume level and driver. Various parts of the mechanical systems and magnetic field are not perfectly linear and may cause their own intermodulation (just like nonlinearity in the electronic signal path causes intermodulation). I'm not an expert on drivers and don't know this for sure, but (based on what I recall of Dickason's and Colloms' books) I presume it's true.
The Rod Elliot page on doppler distortion is quite interesting. There was someone on rec.audio.pro about ten years ago who didn't believe the existence of doppler distortion - he was quite intelligent and knowledgeable otherwise, but seemed to think the "source" of loudspeaker sound was the magnet structure or something, rather than the cone. I can only wonder if he was one of the unnamed people Elliot was writing about. I saw later where he had eventually accepted the idea, but this was well after hundreds, perhaps thousands of post between him and many others (including me), and I had tired of the discussion before seeing what had changed his mind.
As for comparison, you seem to gloss over the power handling and sound volume that can be generated by a 2-way compared to a full-range. I think this by itself is enough to explain the great popularity of multi-way speakers over fullrange ones in the "mid-fi" market.
I can find the references at the end, but I'm wondering what it might take to find the reference page numbers, which are NOT given. I've got (for example) the Roads book sitting on the shelf at the office - I haven't looked at it in years, but I recall that it's several inches thick and a bit unwieldy for a paperback. The reference to frequency modulation theory surely helps narrow down what you're referencing in the book, but page numbers for each larger-than-a-web-page reference would help a lot.
Stochastic,
I like your paper. As an introductory paper meant to highlight some technical differences and provide the reader with some background for understanding the issues, limitations, and current issues between multiway and fullrange, I think you did a great job. I don't think you were aiming to write a 'research paper' like one to be submitted to a scientific or engineering journal. I used to write those for a living and know what is involved and their aim is completely different than your paper. Some of the other comments you have received in this thread are good. It could use a little more organization, and maybe clean up the conclusion to make it crisp. It seems a little unbalanced in being a proponent of fullrange, but if it is meant to be an essay that is fine. Fix the imbalance by saying what multiways still excel at if done properly (like state of the art bi amplified studio reference monitors with active eq). I don't think a little 4 or 5 inch fullrange will ever have the sonic impact and punch of a multiway for genres like rock, hip hop, or big classical orchestral pieces with canons, kettle drums and 30 strings and 20 woodwinds playing simultaneously - which is also where spatial stereo imaging is not as important anymore. You did a great job in describing the one place where fullrange excels: vocals. Your paper provided me a lot of info on terminology that is new to me as I have only been in this diy hobby for a couple of months now. So it was useful for me, as an engineer, who does not have a background in hifi audio, but is familiar with other things like Doppler shift, Bessel functions, fast Fourier transforms, resonant frequencies, DSP's etc. For example, I did not know what was meant by 'cone breakup' and your paper gave a good description.
Thanks for sharing.
Regards,
Xrk971
I like your paper. As an introductory paper meant to highlight some technical differences and provide the reader with some background for understanding the issues, limitations, and current issues between multiway and fullrange, I think you did a great job. I don't think you were aiming to write a 'research paper' like one to be submitted to a scientific or engineering journal. I used to write those for a living and know what is involved and their aim is completely different than your paper. Some of the other comments you have received in this thread are good. It could use a little more organization, and maybe clean up the conclusion to make it crisp. It seems a little unbalanced in being a proponent of fullrange, but if it is meant to be an essay that is fine. Fix the imbalance by saying what multiways still excel at if done properly (like state of the art bi amplified studio reference monitors with active eq). I don't think a little 4 or 5 inch fullrange will ever have the sonic impact and punch of a multiway for genres like rock, hip hop, or big classical orchestral pieces with canons, kettle drums and 30 strings and 20 woodwinds playing simultaneously - which is also where spatial stereo imaging is not as important anymore. You did a great job in describing the one place where fullrange excels: vocals. Your paper provided me a lot of info on terminology that is new to me as I have only been in this diy hobby for a couple of months now. So it was useful for me, as an engineer, who does not have a background in hifi audio, but is familiar with other things like Doppler shift, Bessel functions, fast Fourier transforms, resonant frequencies, DSP's etc. For example, I did not know what was meant by 'cone breakup' and your paper gave a good description.
Thanks for sharing.
Regards,
Xrk971
Last edited:
Hi stochastic,
If I've understood correctly, this is your first year as an undergraduate engineering student. I assume your heading towards a Bachelor of Science (or similar). Your paper looks interesting, I hope to read it in more detail over Christmas
I'd urge you in the coming months/years of study to carefully evaluate all your referencing. Don't automatically assume they are authoritative unless they can clearly demonstrate trailed testing and/or repeated/independent research that reliably authenticates their outcomes. When is comes to audio, there's published theoretical material thats rarely backed up by trailed/applied testing; And possibly more "opinion" thats dressed up to look factual.
Enjoy your engineering future!
Cheers
Mark.
If I've understood correctly, this is your first year as an undergraduate engineering student. I assume your heading towards a Bachelor of Science (or similar). Your paper looks interesting, I hope to read it in more detail over Christmas
I'd urge you in the coming months/years of study to carefully evaluate all your referencing. Don't automatically assume they are authoritative unless they can clearly demonstrate trailed testing and/or repeated/independent research that reliably authenticates their outcomes. When is comes to audio, there's published theoretical material thats rarely backed up by trailed/applied testing; And possibly more "opinion" thats dressed up to look factual.
Enjoy your engineering future!
Cheers
Mark.
Last edited:
The text based on someone else's material should have a superscripted 1, 2,... At the end of the thought or quote that matches the reference either at the end of the paper as he did or in a footer on the same page. And as mentioned, should include a page number to. At least this is how I was taught (by more than one) and practice.
The referencing style required by this particular prof is APA style (6th ed.) but that's not usually the style required by the applied sciences in general. I don't like APA, but I did follow its conventions properly.
I do seriously appreciate all the feedback from everyone - slightly more than I was anticipating. I think the thread title gives a pre-conception to some that I was looking to do new research here, which is not the case, this is an overview paper that was required to argue for one side of a controversial topic (while describing both sides of said topic). I will admit that very little re-writing or outline formation occurred and it may show, but in the end I got an A in the class and next semester will pose new challenges. The point primarily was for me to learn about the subject - which I certainly did.
I also quite enjoy the variety of feedback given, gives me a good sense of where I can improve and what my strengths were. Thanks everyone.
I do seriously appreciate all the feedback from everyone - slightly more than I was anticipating. I think the thread title gives a pre-conception to some that I was looking to do new research here, which is not the case, this is an overview paper that was required to argue for one side of a controversial topic (while describing both sides of said topic). I will admit that very little re-writing or outline formation occurred and it may show, but in the end I got an A in the class and next semester will pose new challenges. The point primarily was for me to learn about the subject - which I certainly did.
I also quite enjoy the variety of feedback given, gives me a good sense of where I can improve and what my strengths were. Thanks everyone.
Hi Stochastic
I have written a lot of technical papers and I have an approach that you might find helpful.
First: make sure you understand your audience – you’ll see why in what follows… This is the first law of communication.
Second: having done all your research, figure out what you have learned. Distil that down to two or three nuggets. These are the things that your proposed audience would be interested in, or like to know, or should know. In a scientific paper, these should be novel ideas. These are the main threads of your conclusion.
Third: Figure out why these two or three nuggets are important to your audience. Now you can draft the introduction. Set the scene in a way that helps to explain the importance of the topic, explain what is known and not known, line up the discussion so that it points in the direction of your conclusion. At the end of your introduction provide an outline – two or three sentences at the most – summarising where you are heading so the reader knows what to expect.
Fourthly: You now have the starting point and the end point – the main body of your paper should join the dots – don’t be tempted to stray from that path. It helps to do Steps 2-4 as bullet points before you actually start drafting text.
Fifth: Once you have drafted the text, read and revise (many times). Read it out loud to yourself; make sure the text reads easily. There should be no long sentences with multiple ideas in them. Try to recognise ambiguities or gaps in arguments, and get rid of them. Anticipate arguments against any of your claims. Revisit steps 2 and 3 to remind yourself of what you are trying to achieve – does the paper work? This (recursive) step takes the most time – most of my papers have 10-30 revisions. Some papers take months to get to a point where I’m happy with them.
Finally, remember that all communication is a ‘sales job’. With technical papers, you are selling ideas. If you don’t understand your audience, know what the ideas are, and why they are important to your audience, it is unlikely that the paper will achieve its aims.
I have written a lot of technical papers and I have an approach that you might find helpful.
First: make sure you understand your audience – you’ll see why in what follows… This is the first law of communication.
Second: having done all your research, figure out what you have learned. Distil that down to two or three nuggets. These are the things that your proposed audience would be interested in, or like to know, or should know. In a scientific paper, these should be novel ideas. These are the main threads of your conclusion.
Third: Figure out why these two or three nuggets are important to your audience. Now you can draft the introduction. Set the scene in a way that helps to explain the importance of the topic, explain what is known and not known, line up the discussion so that it points in the direction of your conclusion. At the end of your introduction provide an outline – two or three sentences at the most – summarising where you are heading so the reader knows what to expect.
Fourthly: You now have the starting point and the end point – the main body of your paper should join the dots – don’t be tempted to stray from that path. It helps to do Steps 2-4 as bullet points before you actually start drafting text.
Fifth: Once you have drafted the text, read and revise (many times). Read it out loud to yourself; make sure the text reads easily. There should be no long sentences with multiple ideas in them. Try to recognise ambiguities or gaps in arguments, and get rid of them. Anticipate arguments against any of your claims. Revisit steps 2 and 3 to remind yourself of what you are trying to achieve – does the paper work? This (recursive) step takes the most time – most of my papers have 10-30 revisions. Some papers take months to get to a point where I’m happy with them.
Finally, remember that all communication is a ‘sales job’. With technical papers, you are selling ideas. If you don’t understand your audience, know what the ideas are, and why they are important to your audience, it is unlikely that the paper will achieve its aims.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.