Banned
Joined 2002
people are going to get fustrated with flash every time i go to a site with flash i leave. example my fav car today a mini. www.mini.ca alllll created with flash well now i hate that site. it sux..
Dave/JasonL
The problem I have, not being that keen on Flash myself, is that I want the demos to be interactive, and Flash seems to be the only way to do this.
What I want to do is have a graphic, showing radiated waves from two drivers, that can be manipulated, so you have a hands on experience of both moving drivers nearer and further apart on a baffle, and also backwards and forwards, to simulate time alignment. It would be also nice to show how different crossover orders affect the dispersion.
To do this with animated gifs would take several, and probably be much slower to load...
The problem I have, not being that keen on Flash myself, is that I want the demos to be interactive, and Flash seems to be the only way to do this.
What I want to do is have a graphic, showing radiated waves from two drivers, that can be manipulated, so you have a hands on experience of both moving drivers nearer and further apart on a baffle, and also backwards and forwards, to simulate time alignment. It would be also nice to show how different crossover orders affect the dispersion.
To do this with animated gifs would take several, and probably be much slower to load...
you can also use java, I often see java on my teacher's online physics lessons
but I've never used flash nor java for myself, I can't help you
but I agree that a website made with flash is irritating (long to load, no right click...), but if it's only for the animations, why not. We won't oblige to you make animations in ascii art
but I've never used flash nor java for myself, I can't help you
but I agree that a website made with flash is irritating (long to load, no right click...), but if it's only for the animations, why not. We won't oblige to you make animations in ascii art
pinkmouse said:
I know the problem... and note that i didn't say not to use it... just to make sure it collapses gracefully when it does break. A site that relies on everything for flash, navigation etc is one i will avoid.
In your case you will have a lot of opportunity to warn people and to have an alternate set of static examples. Animated gifs won't play well for interactivity, but static examples (Flash does export animated gifs doesn't it?) would be good. Java is an option, but it probably breaks even more often than Flash.
dave
Bricolo said:
if the first 19th are audio & diy related, there's no problem
Unfortunately the first is finding a new job/career, as the corporate entertainment/conference market, where a major part of my income comes from, has died completely in the last year, so far my earnings this half year are down to a quarter of the previous six months, and I just can't survive on what I'm making
I've been radiusing the edges of my boxes (usually 19mm) and covering the front and radius with felt since 1981. According to Olsen, my radius is far too small, yet the first time I did it (glorious mono), I found that lobing was reduced. As I walked in an arc around the loudspeaker, the treble fell away gently and smoothly, whereas it had previously bumped up and down. All done with ears, as I couldn't afford FFT in 1981. (At the time, KEF were very proud of their FFT, but it occupied three full height bays!)
Nobody has mentioned the Stephens AES paper! Boiled down, this says that braces are best positioned to minimise the diameter of circles that can be drawn within their boundaries. This means that a tall thin box needs a vertical rather than horizontal brace. I think this is why transmission lines sound nice - nothing to do with the bass loading!
Nobody has mentioned the Stephens AES paper! Boiled down, this says that braces are best positioned to minimise the diameter of circles that can be drawn within their boundaries. This means that a tall thin box needs a vertical rather than horizontal brace. I think this is why transmission lines sound nice - nothing to do with the bass loading!
Radius
They do make a difference. So much so that I have built cabinets with 6 inch radii (help!!!!spelling) on some speakers to a great effect. They really image well if you use good drivers and are carefull on the crossovers to limit lobing. On the thought of good imaging, use an MTM setup and don't go any larger than 6 1/2" on the Mids. Anything larger will beam like a flashlight before you can safely cross over a tweeter. Other thoughts on a good loudspeaker is to make a thick baffle and a very well braced box. The difference in the midrange is like night and day. Internal shape is also very important but I will save that for another post.
Mark
They do make a difference. So much so that I have built cabinets with 6 inch radii (help!!!!spelling) on some speakers to a great effect. They really image well if you use good drivers and are carefull on the crossovers to limit lobing. On the thought of good imaging, use an MTM setup and don't go any larger than 6 1/2" on the Mids. Anything larger will beam like a flashlight before you can safely cross over a tweeter. Other thoughts on a good loudspeaker is to make a thick baffle and a very well braced box. The difference in the midrange is like night and day. Internal shape is also very important but I will save that for another post.
Mark
Re: Hey double D!
I don't think i've read the Stephens article, but i have been preaching this kind of bracing for over 25 years (going back to long conversations with John Greenbank). And indeed it is one of the side effects of a TL design that it usually enforces the most effective method of bracing.
I didn't really pooh-pooh it -- it is an essential reference -- i have just seen people treat it as a bible and that it is not (BTW i own a copy of version 1 which came as a 3-holed typed document bound in one of those paper-presentation "binders") so read it, learn from it, but it is just a starting point.
dave
dave
EC8010 said:
I don't think i've read the Stephens article, but i have been preaching this kind of bracing for over 25 years (going back to long conversations with John Greenbank). And indeed it is one of the side effects of a TL design that it usually enforces the most effective method of bracing.
davesaudio said:
I didn't really pooh-pooh it -- it is an essential reference -- i have just seen people treat it as a bible and that it is not (BTW i own a copy of version 1 which came as a 3-holed typed document bound in one of those paper-presentation "binders") so read it, learn from it, but it is just a starting point.
dave
dave
Dual monolithic avicide
I couldn't lay hands on my copy of the Stevens paper last night, but I could find a reference for it in "High Performance Loudspeakers" 5th Ed. Martin Colloms. Wiley. 0-471-97089-1:
Stevens, W. R. "Sound radiated from loudspeaker cabinets" Proc. Audio Engineering Society 50th Convention, London, March (1975)
Another good paper is:
Tappan, H. M. "Loudspeaker enclosure walls" in "Loudspeaker Anthology" JAES 1 - 25 (1079)
The Colloms book is the academic counterpart of the LDC and gives all the references you will ever need to research the fundamentals.
I couldn't lay hands on my copy of the Stevens paper last night, but I could find a reference for it in "High Performance Loudspeakers" 5th Ed. Martin Colloms. Wiley. 0-471-97089-1:
Stevens, W. R. "Sound radiated from loudspeaker cabinets" Proc. Audio Engineering Society 50th Convention, London, March (1975)
Another good paper is:
Tappan, H. M. "Loudspeaker enclosure walls" in "Loudspeaker Anthology" JAES 1 - 25 (1079)
The Colloms book is the academic counterpart of the LDC and gives all the references you will ever need to research the fundamentals.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.