
Home  Forums  Rules  Articles  The diyAudio Store  Gallery  Blogs  Register  Donations  FAQ  Calendar  Search  Today's Posts  Mark Forums Read  Search 
MultiWay 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 
7th December 2012, 04:54 AM  #71 
frugalphile(tm)
diyAudio Moderator

__________________
community sites tlinespeakers.org, frugalhorn.com, frugalphile.com ........ commercial site planet10HiFi p10hifi forum here at diyA 
7th December 2012, 04:57 AM  #72 
frugalphile(tm)
diyAudio Moderator

__________________
community sites tlinespeakers.org, frugalhorn.com, frugalphile.com ........ commercial site planet10HiFi p10hifi forum here at diyA 
7th December 2012, 10:01 AM  #73  
diyAudio Member
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: The Mountain, Framingham

Quote:
Diffraction can generally ignore depth (2nd order diffraction is very low). Front panel dimensions can be important, although you can have ill chosen dimensions and place the drivers off center and be okay. Certainly the diffraction effect is measureable and audible. I haven't seen anything but conjecture regarding the bunching of internal dimension modes. David S 

7th December 2012, 02:53 PM  #74 
diyAudio Member
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: The Dells, WI

So, a ratio of 1:1.36 or something easily equalized ... and let the third dimension be dictated by driver needs or their application.

7th December 2012, 03:07 PM  #75  
R.I.P.
Join Date: Oct 2005

Dave,
My study simply solves the 3D Rayleigh equation http://www.bobgolds.com/Tangental/Ev...deEquation.GIF using p, q and r values from 0 to a large number (10 from memory) using all the combinations between p,q and r. Then the frequencies are just sorted out. Then it is easy to have a statistical view of the spreading... This method as yet been discussed since at least 10 years and your are the only one complaining about it. What you are referring it doesn't concern spreading it concern overimposed frequencies (for different p,q, r values depending on the shape you may obtain a same resonance frequency). I don't say that all the points on the red line are perfect but it the red line allows to save time in order to choose the sahpe (or to modify a given shape adding internal walls...) The same garphical approach seems to have been both used (but with probably less data that mine) by Louden and by Japanese. See graph attached. IMHO you exagerate the importance of surimposed resonances ... ( if you have such you have to break some modes by the proper acoustic treatment of your room...) Best regards from Paris, France. JeanMichel Le Cléac'h Quote:


7th December 2012, 04:00 PM  #76  
diyAudio Member
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: The Mountain, Framingham

That I understood. I used the same equation but evaluated axial modes only.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
For example, Everest spends a lot of time on the subject. http://www.tecnosuono.org/private/fi...205th%20ed.pdf "A cubical room distributes modal frequencies in the worst possible way, piling all threefundamentals with maximum gaps between modes. Having any two dimensions in multiple relationship results in this type of problem. For example a height of 8 ft. and a width of 16 ft. ..." (p. 346) That would be exactly your 1 : 2 relationship. Regards, David 

8th December 2012, 02:03 AM  #77 
diyAudio Member
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Willamette Valley

I recall giggling at the first blueprint I saw calling out foundation dimensions down to 64ths. Never seen 125ths though. Metric dimensions cure all that and more of course.
In other news, the side room at my shop is one of those worst cases: 9.5' x 9.5' x 19' ... good at 32hz, wretched otherwise. Anything I hook up in there including talking on the phone is awful. Last edited by phivates; 8th December 2012 at 02:07 AM. Reason: bad room 
10th December 2012, 08:37 AM  #78  
R.I.P.
Join Date: Oct 2005

Quote:
The resonance frequencies of all the 220 modes I considered are sorted, that's all what is done... About the eveness of resonances,I don't say that this is unimportant but I use myself another approach which comes from the reading of a paper written by Hiraga. "Below 200Hz rooms for which there is more than 20Hz between 2 peaks of resonances sound bad. " (BTW using such criterion leads to a good eveness.) (Why 200Hz? It is because resonances tend to mutliply progressively over 200Hz and there is no more such large interval of frequencies as 20Hz) This method seems to give correct results as we can see if we put on my graph the points of the 10 best shapes of auditorium from Louden : 1 : 1.9 : 1.4 1 : 1.9 : 1.3 1 : 1.5 : 2.1 1 : 1.5 : 2.2 1 : 1.2 : 1.5 1 : 1.4 : 2.1 1 : 1.1 : 1.4 1 : 1.8 : 1.4 1 : 1.6 : 2.1 1 : 1.2 : 1.4 and the 3 good ones from L.W. Sepmeyer : 1 : 1.14 : 1.39 1 : 1.28 : 1.54 1 : 1.60 : 2.33 (See attached file). Best regards from Paris, France JeanMichel Le Cléac'h Last edited by Jmmlc; 10th December 2012 at 08:39 AM. 

10th December 2012, 09:42 AM  #79 
R.I.P.
Join Date: Oct 2005

Hello,
Here is a comparison at the same scale between my graph (at bottom) and the one shown by Everest in Fig 13.20 (on top). (in the book http://www.tecnosuono.org/private/fi...205th%20ed.pdf ) (the outer zone in the graph Fig 13.20 is related to Bolt criteria). Best regards from Paris, France JeanMichel Le CLéac'h Last edited by Jmmlc; 10th December 2012 at 09:45 AM. 
10th December 2012, 04:22 PM  #80 
diyAudio Member
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: The Mountain, Framingham

Hi Jean Michel,
I found this interesting discussion which compares a lot of room ratio scenarios. Acoustics Forum • View topic  ROOM RATIOS As I have looked at this some more I see that the 2D plot compares length to height and then width to height, on the two axies. Where you and I first went off the rails was when you included a 2 : 1 ratio as one of your preferred ratios. As I have mentioned nearly everyone avoids exact integer ratios as many harmonics will "pile on" each other. You keep repeating that you are looking for some criterion of spreading rather than preventing overlap. I find those to be essentially the same thing. Apparently Loudon looks for a low standard deviation of interval but this, too, will generally give low overlap. If we achieve equal spread of all frequencies (not possible) then we would have each dimension's modes falling into the intervals of the other two dimensions. Standard deviation of spread would approach 0. Every discussion I have seen on the subject gives as a general guidline to have even spacing between modes if possible. The above web site plots various schemes and lists the number of modes per 1/3 rd Octave. A good approach, such as the C. P. Boner approach based on the cube root of 2, starts with a mode per 1/3rd Octave until upper frequencies, where the modal density naturally rises. This is exactly as I have been commenting on. Although an automatic criterion, such as standard deviation, is attractive, I really think you need to individually evaluate the proposed schemes, or at least find a way to reward good spacing in the first Octaves. My understanding with Loudon is that he is minimizing the standard deviation of a large number of modes and losing the needed emphasis on the spacing of the lower modes. At higher frequencies the modal density is always good and the likely room damping is higher. At the same time furniture and natural diffusion will make a precise look at calculated modes unjustified. We really need to focus on the lower modes and achieving a good spread of them. As I recall, the axial modes are also felt to be more harmful than oblique modes. On your graph I see you plot a continuous locus of points. This is part of the problem. The range of points can not be continuous. If you look at the attached plots from EBU, they show some of the different recommended ratios from the various papers but hey also clearly show that the regions around the 2 :1 ratios must be nogo areas. Even your Loudon figures show a valley between the two adjacent maxima at the 2 to 1 line. Integer multiples are bad news! Some major caveats on the whole subject: All of these studies are theoretical and little has been done to prove that "correct" room ratios make a big subjective difference. Rigid end walls are always assumed. In practice the walls are typically mass reactances with a loss component, and the Rayleigh equation becomes an oversimplification. Upper modes would be especially variable with the presence of any doorways, absorption or furniture. Take any mode prediction above the 4th or 5th mode with a large grain of salt. Finally, no one has given any evidence that similar thinking needs to be applied loudspeaker cabinets. Where a 1/4 wave thickness of stuffing may be somewhat impractical in your living room, it is no big deal in a speaker cabinet. Lining all sides and perhaps dealing with the longest dimension with a damping partition 1/2 way down the cabinet, is all that is ever called for. Regards, David S. 
Thread Tools  Search this Thread 


Similar Threads  
Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
The Golden Ratio of 1.618  PrecisionAudio  MultiWay  43  11th October 2012 03:15 PM 
The Golden Ratio Stage  Stee  Solid State  7  22nd February 2009 08:46 PM 
Golden Ratio Height  edjosh23  Full Range  13  3rd February 2009 09:52 PM 
Golden Box Ratio  Important or not?  Ornlu  Subwoofers  5  27th May 2005 06:52 AM 
Golden ratio  Example?  icebear  MultiWay  5  17th April 2004 08:40 PM 
New To Site?  Need Help? 