John
Yes, it is wrong for the piston, nice catch. As I said before, the piston is simply a ficticious data set created to make sure that the program worked correctly. In this vein the DI was simply guessed and put in as some convenient function 1/f here, just so that I had data to plot.
I am still concerned with the absolute scaling of the DI, even though I have absolute confidence in its shape. Scaling in the process turns out to be a problem since from the first - in HolmImpulse - there is no scaling. So somewhere down the line you have to scale the DI to an absolute number. I do this based on the assumption that at some LF the polar response must be omni and the DI 0.0 dB. But at LFs there is a slew of errors and this scaling does not turn out to be that stable. And then there is a dipole! Thats a real problem.
But I'll get there at some point. And anyways, just as with the SPL, the absolute numbers aren't as important as the spectral aspects which are very accurate.
Yes, it is wrong for the piston, nice catch. As I said before, the piston is simply a ficticious data set created to make sure that the program worked correctly. In this vein the DI was simply guessed and put in as some convenient function 1/f here, just so that I had data to plot.
I am still concerned with the absolute scaling of the DI, even though I have absolute confidence in its shape. Scaling in the process turns out to be a problem since from the first - in HolmImpulse - there is no scaling. So somewhere down the line you have to scale the DI to an absolute number. I do this based on the assumption that at some LF the polar response must be omni and the DI 0.0 dB. But at LFs there is a slew of errors and this scaling does not turn out to be that stable. And then there is a dipole! Thats a real problem.
But I'll get there at some point. And anyways, just as with the SPL, the absolute numbers aren't as important as the spectral aspects which are very accurate.
It shows polar responses in three different views. There are screen shots on my web site now.
But the program is interactive and you can see the frequency response at different angles along with the DI, and the polar angle response at a particular frequency. It helps people to understand how the polar maps shows it all in one, albeit complex, plot.
It's beyond me how someone can not be able to run IE, simply because its MS. Seems to me like only Apple would be arrogant enough to exclude everything MS. Like Itunes and WMA. I find it simply ridiculous.
It needs to be "native" because thats what I program in.
But the program is interactive and you can see the frequency response at different angles along with the DI, and the polar angle response at a particular frequency. It helps people to understand how the polar maps shows it all in one, albeit complex, plot.
It's beyond me how someone can not be able to run IE, simply because its MS. Seems to me like only Apple would be arrogant enough to exclude everything MS. Like Itunes and WMA. I find it simply ridiculous.
It needs to be "native" because thats what I program in.
I agree whole heartedly about Apples exclusion of anything MS! I wouldn't use a PC at all if they'd just make them Apples compatible with all my needs. The funny thing is, after using an Apple, I figured out how to better use my PC. My cousin works for MS and I have a hard time figuring him out as well.
Your program runs on all my machines with IE. It does not run with Firefox, Chrome, or Safari on any of my machines as of today.
Dan
Your program runs on all my machines with IE. It does not run with Firefox, Chrome, or Safari on any of my machines as of today.
Dan
So is the viewer doing some heavy number crunching, FFTs etc, or just displaying data that has already been calculated?
IE ran on mac from the time it was created and was the default browser for Mac until Microsoft announced they were discontinuing it in 2003. No coincidence that this was the same year Apple released Safari. Today approximately 50% of all internet users are using IE and that's been dropping steadily for years.
IE ran on mac from the time it was created and was the default browser for Mac until Microsoft announced they were discontinuing it in 2003. No coincidence that this was the same year Apple released Safari. Today approximately 50% of all internet users are using IE and that's been dropping steadily for years.
The problem is that I am just not that good a programmer for web apps - never done it before. Most of the errors seem to come from countires other than the US, but as I said, it ran fine in China. I could see that if the connection "times out" then anything is likely to happen since I don't do anything to detect that. The program failed for me a couple of times when I didn't have an internet connection.
Rudolf - the right part of the top plot is not part of anything that I wrote, so there seems to be a conflict with something on your computer. The solid read means that it had data, but they were all the same value - sounds like a connection problem.
I'll see if I can post an installation file so you can run it stand alone without a connection.
Rudolf - the right part of the top plot is not part of anything that I wrote, so there seems to be a conflict with something on your computer. The solid read means that it had data, but they were all the same value - sounds like a connection problem.
I'll see if I can post an installation file so you can run it stand alone without a connection.
Just curious, did you measure the Orion yourself, or did someone send you the data? The front on-axis FR looks... pretty bad, I'm not sure how else to describe it. Maybe I'm reading the data wrong. Makes me wonder about the possibility of errors in the construction / wiring, or in the measurements, especially if someone else measured them and sent you the data.
I measured the data myself and was assisted by Dave Clark - who is no amatuer either (just to fend off any suggestions of tampering). He set them up and I measured them. He was present the whole time.
The Orions were direct from Linkwitz and made by his factory. I will swear by the data as being accurate of what we had. I can't speak to what we had as working correctly or not, but it is exactly what someone would get if they bought it from Linkwitz.
The Orions were direct from Linkwitz and made by his factory. I will swear by the data as being accurate of what we had. I can't speak to what we had as working correctly or not, but it is exactly what someone would get if they bought it from Linkwitz.
Fair enough. "Powered" and "203x" narrows it down a fair amount. But they do have a lot of stuff.
(I was hoping your comments would be about their passive ones. ~$180 each for an 8" 2-way. Might make useful surrounds regardless.
I'm sure if MS would want to make OSX compatible versions of .net and IE, nobody at Apple would complain. But there isn't one, so we can't run it.
You are kidding of course!! It's Apple that is so restrictive on who "gets" to use "their" platforms, not the other way arround. You are aware that Apple is being investigated by the FTC for "unfair trade practices" regarding restricting "fair competition" - in two seperate cases!
No you're wrong here. Apple's iTunes/iPhone ecosystem is without a doubt restrictive and wrong, but that's not the reason there never was .Net on mac or why there's is no longer IE on mac os. That's 100% a microsoft decision. There's no .Net for linux or any other operating system either, is the evil steve responsible for all that too?
Last edited:
Earl,
Your plots are very nice but I think the contour maps would be more enlightening if the data were normalized by the on axis response. For example, what ever the problem is with the Orion on axis response, it would be taken out of the picture so that only the effect of directivity (as shown in the polar plots) is present on the maps.
FWIW, I measured a pair of Orions a few years back. The response of the Orion on axis was nothing like you present. The behavior at 2k was much smoother and there was no drop in the tweeter response at higher frequency. Assuming your measurements are correct (I have no reason to believe otherwise) there has to be something wrong with the system you measured.
Your plots are very nice but I think the contour maps would be more enlightening if the data were normalized by the on axis response. For example, what ever the problem is with the Orion on axis response, it would be taken out of the picture so that only the effect of directivity (as shown in the polar plots) is present on the maps.
FWIW, I measured a pair of Orions a few years back. The response of the Orion on axis was nothing like you present. The behavior at 2k was much smoother and there was no drop in the tweeter response at higher frequency. Assuming your measurements are correct (I have no reason to believe otherwise) there has to be something wrong with the system you measured.
I strongly disagree with axial normalization because of what that does to off axis results in the case of an axial hole. No, showing the data "as it is" is what's important.
I would talk with Mr. Linkwitz about why he is shipping defective products if you don't like what you see. That's the way they were sent.
But I will say this - there ius a small possibility that the HF response droop could be the mic calibration, but I would doubt that since I don;t see a droop on my speakers. But then maybe mine have a rise ... Possible, but not likely.
The 2 kHz response is real, I'll post the raw data if you want to see it.
I would talk with Mr. Linkwitz about why he is shipping defective products if you don't like what you see. That's the way they were sent.
But I will say this - there ius a small possibility that the HF response droop could be the mic calibration, but I would doubt that since I don;t see a droop on my speakers. But then maybe mine have a rise ... Possible, but not likely.
The 2 kHz response is real, I'll post the raw data if you want to see it.
Last edited: