...I wouldn't wish that thread on anyone.
If you had promoted your "technique" as avidly when you patented it, it might not have been such a bummer when your patent ran out.
Promote this instead:
Minnesota Education Now and Babies Later (MN ENABL)
So I'm on a audio forum, looking at a speaker-related thread that's got a veritable who's who of audio designers stuck to it like fly-paper and ...
they're discussing Fortran compilers and operating systems ?!?
Time for a reality check - think I'll nip over to one of the overclocking forums now. If they're swapping gardening tips, I'll have to consider sobering up and taking a closer look at those mushrooms I was eating.
they're discussing Fortran compilers and operating systems ?!?
Time for a reality check - think I'll nip over to one of the overclocking forums now. If they're swapping gardening tips, I'll have to consider sobering up and taking a closer look at those mushrooms I was eating.
A long list of posts, most not worth answering.
Borat, what you said I said, I didn't, and what you say I believe, I don't, so there is not much point in responding.
Markus - pitch detection is as you say right smack in the middle of the 200 - 500 Hz region. But as far back as I can remember I have not had a problem with a loudspeaker giving me the wrong impression of pitch. So I guess that I don't see that as a problem. Imaging and coloration are where loudspeakers mess up big-time and thats NOT 200-500 Hz.
Compilers and OSs are a critical part of any loudspeaker design since without them we would still be listening to junk. And FORTRAN is still the best language for complex number calculations period.
Borat, what you said I said, I didn't, and what you say I believe, I don't, so there is not much point in responding.
Most people know how I feel about these kinds of absolutist discussions. I'm too old to worry about perfection and impractical designs. There is far too much real work to be done.
Markus - pitch detection is as you say right smack in the middle of the 200 - 500 Hz region. But as far back as I can remember I have not had a problem with a loudspeaker giving me the wrong impression of pitch. So I guess that I don't see that as a problem. Imaging and coloration are where loudspeakers mess up big-time and thats NOT 200-500 Hz.
Compilers and OSs are a critical part of any loudspeaker design since without them we would still be listening to junk. And FORTRAN is still the best language for complex number calculations period.
Last edited:
I don't know that I consider the things you find important as unimportant, I think I just start from a different premise. If I were designing conventional speakers I would probably strive for similar goals as you, though maybe through a different means. But my premise starts with the fact that I prefer the presentation of dipole systems. I listed several ELS systems I have owed, and I also owned Maggies as well as a host of conventional speakers. And having close friends in the high end retail business I have had the opportunity over the years to hear just about ever thing that has hit the market (and many that never made it.) My preference has alway been toward dipole systems. But large panel dipole (ELS) system have the common problem that they beam. Dipoles like the NaO II and Mini, the Orion and the design I just posted above don't suffer that problem. While the dipole pattern may only be maintained up to the mid/tweeter x-o point, the response of these system is relatively uniform over +/-30 degree or better horizontally. Certainly above the crossover point the tweeter response doesn't decay off axis as a dipole, even with a rear tweeter. And the rear tweeter, while it does (can) lead to some cancellation at 90 degrees, has the primary function not to form a dipole pattern but to balance the rear radiation so that the reflected sound of the wall behind the speaker is balanced. The sacrifice is that reflections from the side wall closest to the speakers above the crossover point may have a little higher high frequency content. It would be nice to eliminate that with directivity control, but for now I find that the dipole format and the balance between front and rear is more significant than the imbalance form the sides just above the x-o point. I think that with a dipole there is such a high degree of reflected sound form the back wall that the imbalance form the side wall reflections just doesn't contribute much. Additionally, since the x-o is typically between 1.5 and 2.5k in my designs it is fairly easy to break up the side wall reflections with diffusers, or damp them with a little room treatment. So in that respect you are correct. I don't see the lack of CD through the x-o point as being as big a factor with a dipole or OB system, though I do strive for uniform response over at least +/- 30 degrees which covers a fairly wide listening window at any reasonable listening distance.
With regard to low frequency response, as you stated in an earlier post regarding the Orion with dipole bass (properly designed dipole bass in general?)
So while I do agree that below 50 Hz or so multiple monopoles should work well, there does seem to be something to dipole bass. And, after all, dipole bass, form a room point of view is just four monopoles in a specific arrangement.
John, have you experimented with the notion Rudolf and some others have been playing with -- small mids and tweeters on very narrow baffles to try to keep the drivers mostly playing below Fpeak? You can't get all the way up to 20K that way but you can get much higher than the typical 2K crossover -- say a 4" mid and a B&G Neo3 with the baffle barely wider than the drivers?
It's not that pitch detection would be affected but attenuated or boosted fundamentals are not accurate sound reproduction. Cut everything below 300 Hz and you still will be able to detect the correct pitch of a singing voice. Does it sound accurate? No.
As to coloration: Problems around 500 Hz will be audible as coloration. Anyway, knowing what a loudspeaker contributes is one thing but knowing how the room behaves is another. Virtually nobody here is talking about that.
Well can you be so sure though? I know in general when comparing phantom fundamentals with non phantom the timbre will be different. But are you so sure that one is more accurate than the other? And what if you lower it to under around 40Hz? I don't know if the phantom fundamental is actually avoidable in near field applications.
Sounds like you decided the answer first and then the design. At any rate nothing that you said is new. Having been in audio my whole life, I too have heard most all of the loudspeakers systems and dipoles, and while there are many good ones, few have ever stood out to me, and none with the dynamics that I consider essential. WHen dynamics becomes a criteria, dipoles don't make the cut.
You didn't seem to notice the part where I said "almost on par with multiple subs" - I still prefered multiple subs.
You know very well that I have strong beliefs about room acoustics. It is a critical factor, but this is a forum on loudspeakers.
I'll remind you next time you start talking about compilers
Criticism accepted!
I bad!Hey - start a thread on room acoustics, I'll join. Its a critical topic and one that does need to be discussed in a loudspeaker context.
Where we agree and disagree on theory has little to do with what kind of speaker I like to listen to or what you prefer. Preferences are not technical issues. We should not confuse them nor impose them on others.
Dynamics is not a dipole issue though it may be an ELS issue. At low and midrange frequencies the dynamics of my latest design are on a par with your Abbey system. The limitation is around the mid/tweeter x-o frequency where the displacement limitation of the tweeter may restrict the max SPL.
Efficiency/sensitivity is yet another issue. I can not quote a single sensitivity number for my system because I use a hybrid design approach which maximizes the sensitivity as a function of frequency. Characterized as a conventional system it would run at a minimum of about 90dB/2.83V/M and is as high (around 150 Hz) as 100dB/2.83V/M.
And of course I noticed the part where you said almost. I wouldn't expect you to say anything else. Almost is reasonable. I doubt that I, nor others who favor dipoles, would be able to say the midrange and top end of your system sounds almost as good as a dipole, because it is a matter of preference. When we talk about low frequency we agree that, certainly below 100 Hz or so it is more about the room than the source characteristic. That is not the case above the Schroeder frequency. There the source characteristic makes the difference.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.