tinitus said:I dont believe any of it...sounds too much like wanted/wishfull theory
If you have a plate with 500hz ressonance and strike it with 200hz
It wont be silent but ressonate with 500hz and more
Agreed Tinitus.
The stimulus doesn't need to centred on the resonance for it to be excited. But level with be lower of course.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: and???
OK I understand now, you've been made aware of another approach to bracing.
But I find the claims that say method X is more efficient than method Z dubious without defining efficiency. Would such a thing mean less weight, minimum cost and minimum material for a given target of panel resonance damping? Or is it to be taken as the method that delivers the largest reduction of cabinet borne noise?
P10 braces the way he does for a reason - he sells loudspeakers, ships them and, above all, has a preference. He needs something light that's still doing an OK job. I don't think that can be stated as superior, correct, more efficient or whatever over the methods already mentioned in this thread.
If you don't have a specific target and a reason for efficient bracing but instead have a goal of the most dead cabinet possible then brute force will likely get you further and that's where my preference comes in.
What annoys me is when someone says something is wrong or is unsuitable compared to another method(usually what they use) especially if it flies in the face of experience and the realm of audibility from other parties. What that person should have said is that its their preference and if they want to get all high and mighty then they better show some evidence. Even then people approach problems differently and with bracing there isn't one correct method, just the goal of making the cabinet an inaudible part of the playback chain.
MJL21193 said:
OK I understand now, you've been made aware of another approach to bracing.
But I find the claims that say method X is more efficient than method Z dubious without defining efficiency. Would such a thing mean less weight, minimum cost and minimum material for a given target of panel resonance damping? Or is it to be taken as the method that delivers the largest reduction of cabinet borne noise?
P10 braces the way he does for a reason - he sells loudspeakers, ships them and, above all, has a preference. He needs something light that's still doing an OK job. I don't think that can be stated as superior, correct, more efficient or whatever over the methods already mentioned in this thread.
If you don't have a specific target and a reason for efficient bracing but instead have a goal of the most dead cabinet possible then brute force will likely get you further and that's where my preference comes in.
What annoys me is when someone says something is wrong or is unsuitable compared to another method(usually what they use) especially if it flies in the face of experience and the realm of audibility from other parties. What that person should have said is that its their preference and if they want to get all high and mighty then they better show some evidence. Even then people approach problems differently and with bracing there isn't one correct method, just the goal of making the cabinet an inaudible part of the playback chain.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: and???
One thing that I find is lots of people asking for proof are really just asking others to do work for them.
I think if they have actually done the research, it seems quite acceptable if the test or analysis conditions and methods were specified without actually showing the data. It will also allow others that with doubts to kind of follow a similar route to verify whether they conclude the same results or not.ShinOBIWAN said:
One thing that I find is lots of people asking for proof are really just asking others to do work for them.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: and???
Explain to me how a 200Hz tone will excite a 500Hz resonance?
I completely agree. There are many effective ways of dealing with resonance. The drawbacks with Dave's are dissipation of the energy in a sealed box, when panel vibration doesn't do any and increased construction complexity.
A side note: It is ridiculous to suggest that these methods don't work, and the contribution to this thread saying such, shows a complete lack of understanding of the subject matter and a fully closed mind. Some of these remarks seem to be aimed directly at my comments, with the intent to incite an argument.
I will only discuss reasonable things, not BS.
ShinOBIWAN said:
Explain to me how a 200Hz tone will excite a 500Hz resonance?
ShinOBIWAN said:
I completely agree. There are many effective ways of dealing with resonance. The drawbacks with Dave's are dissipation of the energy in a sealed box, when panel vibration doesn't do any and increased construction complexity.
A side note: It is ridiculous to suggest that these methods don't work, and the contribution to this thread saying such, shows a complete lack of understanding of the subject matter and a fully closed mind. Some of these remarks seem to be aimed directly at my comments, with the intent to incite an argument.
I will only discuss reasonable things, not BS.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: and???
In these forums this is a real problem. I for one am not about to go out and take data to prove a point that I make here - its just not going to happen. If I have data, then I will quote it, but I won't create it. These places are for fun, not work.
And this is what makes them so dangerous. Its easy to shut me up with a barage of posts, I'm simply not going to respond. What is the reader to conclude? - all too often the appearance is one of concession to the contrary points made, which need not be the case at all.
This leads to a tremendous propagation of misinformation by the shear weight of the posts and not by any science or relavance. It then becomes difficult to correct these misconceptions because the previous falty arguments are raised as "proof".
I'm not sure that the truth ever gets through on these long winded arguments.
Over on another post, I alluded to the idea that the voice coil will heat instantaneously and this could be what we hear as "dynamics" differences in tweeters. Then someone posted some very well done mathematical analysis of the situation and showed that this was unlikely to be an audible effect. End of discussion.
If the discussion goes on and on its usually because it is pointless and going nowhere.
soongsc said:
In these forums this is a real problem. I for one am not about to go out and take data to prove a point that I make here - its just not going to happen. If I have data, then I will quote it, but I won't create it. These places are for fun, not work.
And this is what makes them so dangerous. Its easy to shut me up with a barage of posts, I'm simply not going to respond. What is the reader to conclude? - all too often the appearance is one of concession to the contrary points made, which need not be the case at all.
This leads to a tremendous propagation of misinformation by the shear weight of the posts and not by any science or relavance. It then becomes difficult to correct these misconceptions because the previous falty arguments are raised as "proof".
I'm not sure that the truth ever gets through on these long winded arguments.
Over on another post, I alluded to the idea that the voice coil will heat instantaneously and this could be what we hear as "dynamics" differences in tweeters. Then someone posted some very well done mathematical analysis of the situation and showed that this was unlikely to be an audible effect. End of discussion.
If the discussion goes on and on its usually because it is pointless and going nowhere.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: and???
Yes but in this case that hasn't happened. The question was posed as to MDF's unsuitability to loudspeaker construction.
Isn't it easier to say the word preference? If you say MDF is unsuitable for loudspeaker construction or a particular bracing scheme is more effective than another then surely you need a pretty conclusive data set to affirm these absolutes?
Why would others want to tread down a path that is obviously just someone's preference. Shame that P10 didn't say as such and hid such things behind arguments proving nothing.
The Enabl threads are, ahem, special. Please don't bring the sentiments spilling over in those into this one. Yes I have seen the sentence you typed a number of times in Enable topics.
Any claim needs to backed up especially if its touted as making the others methods unsuitable. If your sceptical then asking someone to define, quantify and prove a claim is natural.
The way you put it would have us believe its wrong to do so because your then effectively become a leech.
soongsc said:
Yes but in this case that hasn't happened. The question was posed as to MDF's unsuitability to loudspeaker construction.
Isn't it easier to say the word preference? If you say MDF is unsuitable for loudspeaker construction or a particular bracing scheme is more effective than another then surely you need a pretty conclusive data set to affirm these absolutes?
Why would others want to tread down a path that is obviously just someone's preference. Shame that P10 didn't say as such and hid such things behind arguments proving nothing.
The Enabl threads are, ahem, special. Please don't bring the sentiments spilling over in those into this one. Yes I have seen the sentence you typed a number of times in Enable topics.
Any claim needs to backed up especially if its touted as making the others methods unsuitable. If your sceptical then asking someone to define, quantify and prove a claim is natural.
The way you put it would have us believe its wrong to do so because your then effectively become a leech.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: and???
The person who is finished learning, who knows it all and refuses to accept other ideas will gain nothing from any lengthy discussion.
The person with an open mind will gain volumes though, when he takes the time to consider the new ideas and research the validity of it.
gedlee said:
The person who is finished learning, who knows it all and refuses to accept other ideas will gain nothing from any lengthy discussion.
The person with an open mind will gain volumes though, when he takes the time to consider the new ideas and research the validity of it.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: and???
Learning is up to the individual. To take everything at face value is not learning. To question the idea, to think about how it works, to research is to learn.
Dave didn't invent this. There are other reliable sources that give the same information.
ShinOBIWAN said:
Learning is up to the individual. To take everything at face value is not learning. To question the idea, to think about how it works, to research is to learn.
Dave didn't invent this. There are other reliable sources that give the same information.
Comments on Unity Horn--Unity Waveguide
Mr Geddes,
Have you studied Tom Danley's Unity Horn enough to present a technical summary of the value and issues?
Would a Unity Waveguide have superior performance to the flat sided CD horns Mr. Danley produces? Would your foam lining help Unity horns or waveguides?
Mr Geddes,
Have you studied Tom Danley's Unity Horn enough to present a technical summary of the value and issues?
Would a Unity Waveguide have superior performance to the flat sided CD horns Mr. Danley produces? Would your foam lining help Unity horns or waveguides?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: and???
I agree that there are many ways to express optinions. As far as I have read through this thread, I cannot see anything really claiming other methods unsuitable, just different opinions on what works better. As long as nobody gets too agressive in requesting the so called "proof", we should be able to have good discussion on how to come up with better design applications. For example, most panel tests might have assumed rectangular panel, and we all know that the panel modes will also differ with shape, so it seems perfectly good practice to use shape to reduce panel resonances such as in your own designs.
So I really think which material to use depends on design and other constraints.
To ask for data is not wrong, but to impose the responsibility on the person sharing experience to provide proof is not good practice. There may be many circumstances where people willing to share experiences are bound by non-dislclosure terms about specific data. Why should they be obligated to provide data prove anything if others can just do their own research accordingly if they wish? For example, there are various data showing differences between different material type. Since specific brand or specifications are not revealed, is it the responsibility of the data provider to provide more specific information? Or do we just accept the fact that the issue still needs individual investigation, and the final performance depend on specific implementation and design skills?ShinOBIWAN said:
I agree that there are many ways to express optinions. As far as I have read through this thread, I cannot see anything really claiming other methods unsuitable, just different opinions on what works better. As long as nobody gets too agressive in requesting the so called "proof", we should be able to have good discussion on how to come up with better design applications. For example, most panel tests might have assumed rectangular panel, and we all know that the panel modes will also differ with shape, so it seems perfectly good practice to use shape to reduce panel resonances such as in your own designs.
So I really think which material to use depends on design and other constraints.
What is this person called in english...he is walking through the town palying his flute, and all the rats follow him out of town and over the cliff
I must state that I have no one in particualar in mind, but its a known fenomena in deluting the human mind
You can see it today in climate debate where "experts" claim CO2 to be the cause of climate changes
More skilled scientists has proven that there are other much more powerfull factors in play, but too late, the ball is rolling and billion of dollars wasted on bringing down CO2, money that could be used much better
I must state that I have no one in particualar in mind, but its a known fenomena in deluting the human mind
You can see it today in climate debate where "experts" claim CO2 to be the cause of climate changes
More skilled scientists has proven that there are other much more powerfull factors in play, but too late, the ball is rolling and billion of dollars wasted on bringing down CO2, money that could be used much better
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: and???
Where'd you read that? A Chinese fortune cookie?
In this case no research is needed for me. Plenty of common knowledge knocking around as to why MDF is a suitable material for loudspeaker cabinets. I've built loudspeakers out of MDF, it works and pretty well too. I've also built loudspeakers out of ply so have a feel for the coloration each provides.
If something performs better and its in the realm of practicality for my situation you can believe I'll give it a go. I'm often trying out new ideas or products, generally they focus on area's that give larger performance gains ie. new drivers, crossover methods, new loudspeakers, room etc.
Which reminds me. I already found an approach to loudspeaker construction that isn't far off negating audible cabinet borne noise so why on earth am I arguing? Shutting up and going back to more important things.
MJL21193 said:
Where'd you read that? A Chinese fortune cookie?
In this case no research is needed for me. Plenty of common knowledge knocking around as to why MDF is a suitable material for loudspeaker cabinets. I've built loudspeakers out of MDF, it works and pretty well too. I've also built loudspeakers out of ply so have a feel for the coloration each provides.
If something performs better and its in the realm of practicality for my situation you can believe I'll give it a go. I'm often trying out new ideas or products, generally they focus on area's that give larger performance gains ie. new drivers, crossover methods, new loudspeakers, room etc.
Which reminds me. I already found an approach to loudspeaker construction that isn't far off negating audible cabinet borne noise so why on earth am I arguing? Shutting up and going back to more important things.
More data here pertaining to your question.tinitus said:
http://www.indiana.edu/~librcsd/etext/piper/
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: and???
I am sounding rather zen-like today...
excuse me, I need to fresh the water in my hookah...
No, don't get me wrong, I wasn't referring to MDF. I still think MDF is fine for speaker building. It's not my first choice anymore though.
ShinOBIWAN said:
Where'd you read that? A Chinese fortune cookie?
In this case no research is needed for me. Plenty of common knowledge knocking around as to why MDF is a suitable material for loudspeaker cabinets.
I am sounding rather zen-like today...
excuse me, I need to fresh the water in my hookah...No, don't get me wrong, I wasn't referring to MDF. I still think MDF is fine for speaker building. It's not my first choice anymore though.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.