gedlee said:
Yes, I remember you stating this somewhere (issues concerning Bob’s work). Has any manufacturer expressed interest in your phase plug design? If I recall correctly, it dealt with equal velocity pathways.
Rgs, JLH
P.S. I was waiting for your response on the radial phasing plug. I knew you were not a fan.
"Has any manufacturer expressed interest in your phase plug design? If I recall correctly, it dealt with equal velocity pathways."
No, and I don't expect that any will. Changing designs is not desirable and so if no one is complaining or asking for the change its not likely to happen. And even if the change was desirable they would go out of their way to do it in-house so that they wouldn't have to license something.
I recently had a major manufacturer tell me - with extreme pride - that "We have never licensed a patent from anyone and don't see any reason to start now". Real opened minded approach I would say.
Yes, each channel has an equal volume velocity to and from equal areas, thus insuring that the velocity distribution across the aperature is uniform. Bob Smith's design ensures that it is not. It does this in an attemp to fix a non-existant resonance. Even his own data is not conclusive that it does anything positive. Most people just do it this way because they don't know any better.
No, and I don't expect that any will. Changing designs is not desirable and so if no one is complaining or asking for the change its not likely to happen. And even if the change was desirable they would go out of their way to do it in-house so that they wouldn't have to license something.
I recently had a major manufacturer tell me - with extreme pride - that "We have never licensed a patent from anyone and don't see any reason to start now". Real opened minded approach I would say.
Yes, each channel has an equal volume velocity to and from equal areas, thus insuring that the velocity distribution across the aperature is uniform. Bob Smith's design ensures that it is not. It does this in an attemp to fix a non-existant resonance. Even his own data is not conclusive that it does anything positive. Most people just do it this way because they don't know any better.
salas said:
Hmmm that's dangerously near to subjective criteria. Naahh, just teasing the good Doc.You probably have ABXed the foam plug addition.
I have to develop Humor Oriented Mathematics, I am hopeless in normal ones.
Surely not a subjective "criteria" but yes, a subjectively based rational. The plug has been AB'd, but not ABX'd because of the difficulty. As people who have done the AB test will tell you its sound is not something that anyone would not hear. In other words in an ABX test it would be easy to get 100% - you would never get it wrong.
If it is not possible to get 100% correct answers on AB test then ABX is required to PROVE that you can even hear a difference. But if on AB you can tell the difference 100%, and anyone else who takes the test can also, then you can dispense with ABX. But ABX HAS TO BE assumed as the standard in most cases. I have heard people say that something was "absolutely audible" and I couldn't hear it. How could it be abosultely audible if 100% of people could not hear it 100% of the time?
Then I also did a test for a guy who claimed he had discovered something important. Sure I could hear a difference, but to me it sounded worse, to him it sounded better. Just hearing a difference does not address the question of better vs. worse. Thats a whole nother level of complication.
My criteria is that it be audibly different (in blind tests) AND that it measure better in some objective way. Then you can be pretty confident that its the right thing to do.
Then I also did a test for a guy who claimed he had discovered something important. Sure I could hear a difference, but to me it sounded worse, to him it sounded better. Just hearing a difference does not address the question of better vs. worse. Thats a whole nother level of complication.
My criteria is that it be audibly different (in blind tests) AND that it measure better in some objective way. Then you can be pretty confident that its the right thing to do.
I am thinking that AB vs ABX has the element of just a difference vs identification. In first case people play, in second case they need to perform. So you never really know how each individual reacts when asked to perform. Better know the patterns of the individuals by having had many ABs with them after you trust them for ABX. At least it would occupy my mind if I was organizing such tests. Maybe I am wrong.
Ed LaFontaine said:
Thanks Ed, we think alike, getting the CD unit first was my aim
Earl, nothing I would like better than building your Abbey+ kit, but it would probably be waveguide only as my whole life is set on doing as much as possible myself, I need to fiddle
lets see if I can raise the money when we there
Earl, a bit oftopic, but does the DE500 match your waveguide, it has a short ring so I would like to know why you dont use that one
The main purpose of the OS wave guide is the directivity pattern I believe. HOM is what one would want to reduce in any horn or waveguide design. The issue now seems that there is no way to reliably compare magnitude of HOM during measurements. Normally CSD is very high on my priority list, but I also realized that somehow CSDs come out differently on different systems.tinitus said:In order to make a HOM free waveguide I would have to understand WHY an OS performs better than others ... and I dont, so maybe I will give up on this
Sure the DE500 would work, it would be near the top of my list, but it is too expensive for almost no benefit except for lighter weight. In general I prefer the polyamide diaphragm. I've used DE500's before, its a good driver, very small and lightweight. But its use would push the system cost almost $100, not a good value IMO.
Ed LaFontaine said:Earl,
If I had the discretionary funds to do so it would have happened in the first round. As God has blessed (and challenged) me in other ways I must use the tools he has provided.
In the meantime, Thank You for staying on and your patience with the likes of me.
Ed, my post was not so much aimed at you. I just don't understand "tweakers". I have always had a fixed audio system to listen to as music is what I do this for. Only in the last five years have the speakers in this system been my own. For most of my life I listened to a good setup and played arround with things in other ways.
John VanOmmen recently realized that this was really the best approach and I think that he is very happy that he did. He still plays arround with things, but he has a system that he doesn't have to feel is second rate because he is still working on it.
Seems to me that people who are always tweaking are also never satisfied. I would find that frustrating.