Re: Comments on Unity Horn--Unity Waveguide
- Klaus
I'm interested in this, too, probably worth an new (or different existing) thread. My gut feeling says that the impedance breaks arising from cutouts etc for the MF/LF drivers in the walls along the horn/WG expansion will disturb proper HF waveguiding quite a bit...LineSource said:
- Klaus
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: and???
HEAR, HEAR! No truer words spoken on any forum I've browsed/posted to IMO, so these two posts minus the OT tweeter comment ought to be added as a preamble to any contentious thread such as this one as a warning of sorts.
OT: Please provide the post link to the tweeter 'proof'.
TIA,
GM
soongsc said:
gedlee said:
HEAR, HEAR! No truer words spoken on any forum I've browsed/posted to IMO, so these two posts minus the OT tweeter comment ought to be added as a preamble to any contentious thread such as this one as a warning of sorts.
OT: Please provide the post link to the tweeter 'proof'.
TIA,
GM
soongsc said:
Is there a way to organize the "Smilies" to personal preference of order?
Unfortunately not and its made worse by over half of them being pretty redundant. We have too many smilies here IMO.
In the future the forum software will see significant upgrades and maybe if we're lucky we'll lose some of the smilies.
Re: Re: Comments on Unity Horn--Unity Waveguide
I would be glad to discuss this, I have before, but I won't do it in this tread. Please start one anew.
I always continue to learn. I just finished a book on General Relativity and am now reading one on Organic Chemistry. Its all my research that keeps me from answering posts that are not constructive.
KSTR said:
I would be glad to discuss this, I have before, but I won't do it in this tread. Please start one anew.
I always continue to learn. I just finished a book on General Relativity and am now reading one on Organic Chemistry. Its all my research that keeps me from answering posts that are not constructive.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: and???
I'm looking forward to the new software. I think this will be part of that. I prefer to approach things in a blog style manner because you can put all sorts of random rubbish into them and have it in one place. If someone is interested in what your doing then they look at that and it doesn't clutter up the forums.
MJL21193 said:
I'm looking forward to the new software. I think this will be part of that. I prefer to approach things in a blog style manner because you can put all sorts of random rubbish into them and have it in one place. If someone is interested in what your doing then they look at that and it doesn't clutter up the forums.
MJL21193 said:
Yeah, I should've posted a general post, yours prompted my thoughts on it. Of course, Dave's take seems to be far from an indication of preference. The problem is, however, that there's not data to support it being much other than preference. I'm still wondering where Dave (planet10) gets data to make the early comment:
"MDF just seems to suck the life out of a speaker." There would indeed have to be some significant issues for this to be the case. "suck the life out" must without question be measurable as to where it's sucking it out, whatever that means in the real world. I'd just like to see some objective support for the obviously subjective statements.
The measurements linked earlier that showed actual tests, to my eyes, directly refute any significant differences in the resonant nature of panels with the same dimensions. This goes directly to Dave's contention that BB is superior to MDF where he uses an argument about raising resonance through bracing to make resonances controllable. The error is in the contradiction to measured resonances that show there to be little difference between BB and MDF.
Add to that the fact that both BB and MDF will show raised resonances for the same bracing and I see no evidence to support one as superior to the other. It's all preference.
Dave
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: and???
Seems we're all missing posts.
A 200hz stimulus has energy that propogates through the cabinet material. The material and its resonances are excited by energy acting upon and travelling through it even if the stimulus isn't centered on the resonance peaks.
Think of it in a not completely dissimilar fashion to this - Hit a tuning fork and it sings right? Did you hit it with a frequency that directly corresponded with its tuning? No, the energy transferred to it was enough alone to excite its natural resonance.
At least this is how I remember things. Anyone care to correct or elaborate?
MJL21193 said:
Seems we're all missing posts.
A 200hz stimulus has energy that propogates through the cabinet material. The material and its resonances are excited by energy acting upon and travelling through it even if the stimulus isn't centered on the resonance peaks.
Think of it in a not completely dissimilar fashion to this - Hit a tuning fork and it sings right? Did you hit it with a frequency that directly corresponded with its tuning? No, the energy transferred to it was enough alone to excite its natural resonance.
At least this is how I remember things. Anyone care to correct or elaborate?
A tuning folk will resonate when excited by a tone the same as it's tuning frequency. A different tone will not do this. Like the wine glass doesn't suffer from destructive oscillation when there is loud music playing.
I just did a little experiment. I have a pair of speakers built in Dave's method - very well braced, undamped panels made completely from Baltic birch plywood. I connected a function generator to it. I used a jerry-rigged accelerometer (4"midrange diver) and connected this to my scope.
Strongest output from the box was around the tuning frequency of the box ( It's a small TL, but given the driver used it would be around 80Hz.)
There was another visible resonance at around 1300Hz, but it was 1/10th the amplitude of the lower one.
Once again, these are crude experiments. I lack an accelerometer, so I improvised.
Results: higher resonance was not excited by the lower frequency input to the box. The only thing that excited this resonance was the direct input of that single tone, and still it was very minor.
Not audible to me either (and yes, I had my hearing aid in).
I just did a little experiment. I have a pair of speakers built in Dave's method - very well braced, undamped panels made completely from Baltic birch plywood. I connected a function generator to it. I used a jerry-rigged accelerometer (4"midrange diver) and connected this to my scope.
Strongest output from the box was around the tuning frequency of the box ( It's a small TL, but given the driver used it would be around 80Hz.)
There was another visible resonance at around 1300Hz, but it was 1/10th the amplitude of the lower one.
Once again, these are crude experiments. I lack an accelerometer, so I improvised.
Results: higher resonance was not excited by the lower frequency input to the box. The only thing that excited this resonance was the direct input of that single tone, and still it was very minor.
Not audible to me either (and yes, I had my hearing aid in).
MJL21193 said:
I hadn't really thought of it in these terms, but when I go looking for complex tech info I tend to limit my research to what well respected pros and experienced DIYers have to say, so I guess all things considered, some form of this works for me WRT the more technical aspects of the electrical, acoustical, structural engineering that's required to design high performance sound systems.
GM
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.