&#8730;½ instead of the golden ratio - diyAudio
 √½ instead of the golden ratio
 User Name Stay logged in? Password
 Home Forums Rules Articles diyAudio Store Gallery Wiki Blogs Register Donations FAQ Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Search

 Multi-Way Conventional loudspeakers with crossovers

 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
 Thread Tools Search this Thread
 15th March 2009, 08:31 PM #1 diyAudio Member   Join Date: Jan 2009 √½ instead of the golden ratio Do any speakers use it? Any pics?
 15th March 2009, 09:00 PM #2 diyAudio Member   Join Date: Jun 2007 As far as I've been able to discern there is an Architectural Golden Rule and a Acoustical Golden Rule. I always use the Architectural model because that is what was contained in the first speaker design book I even used. But is is for visual appeal, not acoustic perfection, though it comes very close to acoustic perfection too. The rule is simple - 1.4:1.0:.707 If you divide 1 by .707 you get 1.414. So, the actual ratio is 1.414 : 1.00 : 0.707 The also correspond to trig functions, and are also the SqRt(0.5) and the SqRt(2). So, a visually appealing cabinet would have the ratios of 14" H x 10" wide x 7" deep, or 24" x 20" x 14". My cabinets are 26" x 18" x 13", which is slightly off from the ratios at 1.44 : 1.0: 0.722, but I don't think we need to haggle over a few fractions of an inch. The perfect dimensions would be 25.45" x 18" x 12.73"; I figure I'm close enough. Notice that using this ratio, the depth come extremely close to being a multiple of the height. Steve/bluewizard
 15th March 2009, 10:07 PM #3 diyAudio Member   Join Date: Jan 2009 Yeah I had noticed .414 before in other things. I had always thought of it as 22.5 tan though. Same with √½ I always think of it as 45 sine. My monitors (wharfedale diamond 8.2) I believe use the golden ratio or are close being 364MM x 212MM x 322MM . And if you take a program like Atrise Golden Section you can kind of see how they used it in the placement of the phase plug and tweeter. I had always used both just as a way to be less cliche than the rule of thirds. It's not used as much as the rule of thirds in photos and designs. But I also notice these numbers come up in dsp and audio processing.
 15th March 2009, 11:17 PM #4 diyAudio Member   Join Date: Jan 2009 I thought this one was kinda cool for the golden ratio Diamond 9 the guide is set to golden vertical 1.618034
diyAudio Member RIP

Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Brighton UK
Quote:
 Originally posted by BlueWizard The rule is simple - 1.4:1.0:.707 Steve/bluewizard
Hi,
AFAIK its more like ~ 0.6 : 1.0: ~1.6, if they are x, y,
and z then z/y needs to equal y/x = 0.618 : 1 : 1.618.

sreten.

 16th March 2009, 02:15 PM #6 diyAudio Member   Join Date: Jan 2009 He was doing √½ not the Golden Ratio. √½= .7071
diyAudio Member RIP

Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Brighton UK
Quote:
 Originally posted by Key He was doing ½ not the Golden Ratio. ½= .7071
Quote:
 But is is for visual appeal, not acoustic perfection, though it comes very close to acoustic perfection too. The rule is simple - 1.4:1.0:.707
Hi, its the Golden Ratio for visual appeal and acoustics, /sreten.

 16th March 2009, 03:05 PM #8 diyAudio Chief Moderator     Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Athens-Greece I have used 0.7 when 1.618 wasn't applicable due to constrains. It works. Still less ripple on impulse graph than near symmetry. Unfortunately haven't saved any photos. Not as good as with 1.618. Near enough though.
 16th March 2009, 03:07 PM #9 diyAudio Chief Moderator     Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Athens-Greece P.S. Better use Edge software. There are many possibilities on a baffle, certainly more than those two.
 16th March 2009, 03:22 PM #10 diyAudio Member     Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: South Worcestershire Why the golden ratio? In some cases, there is mathematical justification for choosing the golden ratio. If we want the sequences of modes in the two directions to have few near coincidences, we want to avoid a simple rational ratio, but instead want the most irrational one we can get. One specific way of defining "the most irrational", is to say that it is the number with continued fraction expansion that converges most slowly. Any exact rational has a finite continued fraction expansion over the integers, but for an irrational the expansion carries on. If we want the expansion to converge slowly, we should never divide by a large number. So if we consider g = 1/(1+1/(1+1/(1 ....... which looks like the most slowly converging expansion possible, then you can show that g = 1/2 + sqrt(5)/2 Neat, huh?

 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 OffTrackbacks are Off Pingbacks are Off Refbacks are Off Forum Rules

 Similar Threads Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post Stee Solid State 7 22nd February 2009 08:46 PM edjosh23 Full Range 13 3rd February 2009 09:52 PM sharpi31 Full Range 4 8th December 2005 09:50 PM Ornlu Subwoofers 5 27th May 2005 06:52 AM icebear Multi-Way 5 17th April 2004 08:40 PM

 New To Site? Need Help?

All times are GMT. The time now is 11:28 PM.

 Home - Contact Us - Advertise - Rules - diyAudio Store - Sponsors - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Top - Opt-out policy

vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright ©1999-2017 diyAudio

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2
Wiki