John Curl's Blowtorch preamplifier part II - Page 2884 - diyAudio
Go Back   Home > Forums > Member Areas > The Lounge

The Lounge A place to talk about almost anything but politics and religion.

Please consider donating to help us continue to serve you.

Ads on/off / Custom Title / More PMs / More album space / Advanced printing & mass image saving
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 2nd November 2012, 06:24 PM   #28831
diyAudio Member
 
Esperado's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: France
Quote:
Originally Posted by gedlee View Post
My waveguides can be proven to have the least HOMs not "high HOMs"
Can-you, please, provide third party numbers, compared to some JMLC, as an example ?
__________________
Ultimate Protection and more.The Only Source of Knowledge is experience, everything else is just information” ©A. Einstein
  Reply With Quote
Old 2nd November 2012, 06:39 PM   #28832
diyAudio Member
 
Esperado's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: France
Quote:
Originally Posted by RNMarsh View Post
I read them.... same stuff.... only Geddes has something new to offer.
I would bet that you would write something like that.
__________________
Ultimate Protection and more.The Only Source of Knowledge is experience, everything else is just information” ©A. Einstein

Last edited by Esperado; 2nd November 2012 at 06:42 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 2nd November 2012, 06:40 PM   #28833
gedlee is offline gedlee  United States
diyAudio Member
 
gedlee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Novi, Michigan
Quote:
Originally Posted by Esperado View Post
Can-you, please, provide third party numbers, compared to some JMLC, as an example ?
Can you provide otherwise? I know of no way to directly measure the HOMs (practically that is) and so I know of no one who has actually done this. I have seen what Mr Leclearc (SP?) claims to be a measurement of them, but it is not, its not that simple. Until someone actually does come up with a way to directly measure them then theory is all that we have. I will stand on that.

I can show in the theory how an OS waveguide will generate the least HOMs because it is a catenoid of revolution and hence has the minimum of rate of change of the boundary slope with axial propagation. Since diffraction and HOMs are directly dependent on the slope change the OS will have the least for a given throat size and entrance angle and mouth angle. Nothing can be lower. A cone is lower, because there is no slope change, except that there is a large slope dsicontinuity at the throat which generates a large amount of HOMs.

Hence, if you can find me some measurements of HOMs that are believable and show my claim to not be true then I would love to see it.

You need to understand that one cannot use the incorrect Webster Horn equation and compare the results to the exact formulation of "Waveguide Theory". It's just not possible or reasonable. HOMs do not even exist in Horn theory.
  Reply With Quote
Old 2nd November 2012, 06:42 PM   #28834
gedlee is offline gedlee  United States
diyAudio Member
 
gedlee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Novi, Michigan
Quote:
Originally Posted by Esperado View Post
I would bet that you would write that.
And the French always see things the way that you do, and propagate misinformation about anything to the contrary.
  Reply With Quote
Old 2nd November 2012, 07:00 PM   #28835
diyAudio Member
 
Esperado's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: France
Quote:
Originally Posted by gedlee View Post
I know of no way to directly measure the HOMs (practically that is) and so I know of no one who has actually done this.
So how can-you justify your "My waveguides can be proven to have the least HOMs "
Quote:
Originally Posted by gedlee View Post
And the French always see things the way that you do, and propagate misinformation about anything to the contrary.
And blacks have great sens of rhythm, while whites, not.
One thing is true, about French, some of us had been tough to not believe blind to commercial arguments. JMLC have this advantage, he do not pretend, nor sell anything, he just provide calculation sheets with a very scientific attitude.
__________________
Ultimate Protection and more.The Only Source of Knowledge is experience, everything else is just information” ©A. Einstein

Last edited by Esperado; 2nd November 2012 at 07:09 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 2nd November 2012, 07:12 PM   #28836
gedlee is offline gedlee  United States
diyAudio Member
 
gedlee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Novi, Michigan
I just did, or didn't you read it.

I have no interest in arguing with you about this, it has all been said before in "Geddes on Waveguides", for example. I stand by my work since no one has ever shown it to be faulty and all tests of it have found it to be completely correct, not to mention the wide acceptance of it in the marketplace. I just want to state here that I do not agree with your statements and I have shown why. A responsible scientist would cease using questionable statements until HE can prove them to be correct. And you cannot.

Last edited by gedlee; 2nd November 2012 at 07:14 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 2nd November 2012, 08:33 PM   #28837
diyAudio Member
 
Esperado's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: France
Quote:
Originally Posted by gedlee View Post
A responsible scientist...
"And the French always see things the way that you do, and propagate misinformation about anything to the contrary. "
__________________
Ultimate Protection and more.The Only Source of Knowledge is experience, everything else is just information” ©A. Einstein
  Reply With Quote
Old 2nd November 2012, 08:56 PM   #28838
diyAudio Member
 
jneutron's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: away
Quote:
Originally Posted by gedlee View Post
I just did, or didn't you read it.
Actually, you said you can show it by theory. You didn't provide a measured proof, but it seems you can provide a mathematical proof.

Quote:
Originally Posted by gedlee View Post
I stand by my work since no one has ever shown it to be faulty and all tests of it have found it to be completely correct, not to mention the wide acceptance of it in the marketplace.
I assume you mean by "shown faulty", is to prove it mathematically incorrect?

What tests were done to show it correct?

I ask only because it is an interesting set of comments in a really really boring argument..

I've no problem with theoretical proofs by the way..seeings as I kinda live in that world.

Oh, btw. What is HOM, and why is it bad?

Cheers, jn
  Reply With Quote
Old 2nd November 2012, 09:09 PM   #28839
diyAudio Member
 
Esperado's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: France
Quote:
Originally Posted by jneutron View Post
Oh, btw. What is HOM
According to Mr. Gedlee himself:

"Higher Order Mode, its a term that I coined to define waves that propagate in a waveguide that do not go down the axis, but travel by bouncing off of the walls. They are not predicted by the Horn Equation, so most people didn't even know that they existed (I was the first person to hypothesize there existance). The Waveguide Theory predicts them, and low and behold, it turns out that they are quite significant to audibility. Minimizing them yields a far better sound quality. But with "horns" its not possible to minimize them because you don't know what to do - the equations aren't rigorous enough to predict them so they are simply ignored."


Now, you can appreciate my initial joke and all what follows :-)
(Happy to see you here, jneutron)
__________________
Ultimate Protection and more.The Only Source of Knowledge is experience, everything else is just information” ©A. Einstein
  Reply With Quote
Old 2nd November 2012, 09:20 PM   #28840
diyAudio Member
 
jneutron's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: away
Quote:
Originally Posted by Esperado View Post
According to Mr. Gedlee himself:

"Higher Order Mode, its a term that I coined to define waves that propagate in a waveguide that do not go down the axis, but travel by bouncing off of the walls. They are not predicted by the Horn Equation, so most people didn't even know that they existed (I was the first person to hypothesize there existance). The Waveguide Theory predicts them, and low and behold, it turns out that they are quite significant to audibility. Minimizing them yields a far better sound quality. But with "horns" its not possible to minimize them because you don't know what to do - the equations aren't rigorous enough to predict them so they are simply ignored."


Now, you can appreciate my initial joke and all what follows :-)
(Happy to see you here, jneutron)
OH...thanks. Very interesting. It's like fiber cables.

Man, I can see how that would be very difficult to measure. The path length differences would cause response variations in frequency, time, as well as horizontal/vertical dispersion patterns.

Trying to test the temporal/amplitude shifts across the entire front of the horn would be a test nightmare. It'd certainly require some kind of measurement which is "non contact", and trying to measure phase shifts in the 10's of microseconds would be a bit "difficult".

I guess the only way to really see the effect would be farfield measurements of dispersion. I don't believe that would be sensitive enough to detect localization perturbations caused by HOM though.

Difficult argument...glad my work involves really simple stuff.
jn
  Reply With Quote

Reply


Hide this!Advertise here!
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



New To Site? Need Help?

All times are GMT. The time now is 11:47 PM.


vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright ©1999-2014 diyAudio

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2