Clarity on Seas Thor Kit

[MJK]

Scott,

That said, I’ve been fiddling around with different values, and I still can’t hit on anything TL wise that I’d consider building. A TQWT taper appears to be best, but I simply can’t tame that sagging bass below 100Hz with either a conventional taper or straight pipe, leading me to believe that these drivers simply don’t appear to be suited to a TL. Any thoughts Martin?

I looked at the Madisound site, opened the Thor article and reviewed the woofer T/S parameters. I don't see anything that would indicate the driver is not an excellent candidate for a TL. But every once and a while, a particular driver just is difficult to work with and a TL design is not obvious. I have no idea what parameter is causing the problem.

[MJK]

Dave,

Martin on the other hand has made his work much more accessible and has continued his research & interaction with others, whereas George has gone onto other things (leaving rick Schultz to explore the space opened up by the GA SW). Martin is to be applauded for continuing to push the frontiers & to dramatically improve our understanding of box design.

Thanks for the positive feedback, it is greatly appreciated.

But we need to recognize that in the world Augspurger, D'Appolito, Dickason, and Dell reside in I am not relevent. Nothing I have done has been subjected to peer review and then published in a formal magazine article or technical society paper. So I am just out there in the mass of the unwashed wannabees called the Internet.

In fact, this months audioXpress contains an article that looks a lot like work I did a few years ago which the author, mentioned in your post above, is now claiming as his own and seems to be patenting. The analogy explaining/demonstating how the enclosure works is very similar to the explanation I provide in my Lowther ML TL documentation in early 2003 and have posted several times on this and other forums.

[Byrd]

Originally posted by Scottmoose


Well, that pretty much confirms it.

That still looks like a response plot without augmentation by the rear wave exiting the TL. Take a look at the delay. In fact it looks very similar to the response plot for the W18 driver measured anechoicly alone. These measurements I have been told are taken by placing the driver in a 6 litre sealed enclosure. Surely a T/L no matter how badly designed or mismatched should best this.

Take a look at this graph from the AE article. From what I understand - this shows the measured response simulated to anechoic response of the Thor, it combines both port and driver output. It does not include room gain.

If I have misread these please could you explain.

[JDeV]

Are there anybody that have actually listened to the Thor as build to the origenal design? How DOES/should it sound in reality?

[planet10]

Originally posted by Byrd
That still looks like a response plot without augmentation by the rear wave exiting the TL.

The ripple in the plot comes from the changing of the phase vrs the front of the driver, so there is no way the plot can be anything but the sum of the responses....

maybe Scottmouse can post the driver & terminus response curves?

dave

[Byrd]

Sorry - forgot to include the graph

Dave - I am now quite confused. Could you possibly provide an explanation as to how the attached graph has come about? Is it an in room graph?. If so it is pretty flat.

JDev - Are you refering to the first design - with the 19 Inch (480mm) Depth? How does yours sound now?

[planet10]

Originally posted by Byrd
Dave - I am now quite confused. Could you possibly provide an explanation as to how the attached graph has come about? Is it an in room graph?. If so it is pretty flat.

The chart i was talking about was the Scottmoose sim... that is one from the aXp article, the one
Scottmoose was complaining about wrt lack of info on how it was generated.

And it is very fishy... how can port output that is some 10 dB down from the main driver output boost total response 3-5 db?

dave

[Byrd]

D'Apollito must really have cocked this one up. Is he stupid or just plain useless

[planet10]

Originally posted by Byrd
D'Apollito must really have cocked this one up. Is he stupid or just plain useless

I think he was just enticed (by Ed Dell) into doing a speaker in an area he didn't have a whole lot of experience in, was working with really sketchy info and was lured by the siren song of classic design.

dave

[JDeV]

Originally posted by Byrd
JDev - Are you refering to the first design - with the 19 Inch (480mm) Depth? How does yours sound now?

A ha, I was not aware that there are variatons on the design. I used this dimensions. (attached pdf file) Will judge the sound again after some "burn in " time.

So, do you guys actually want to tell me now, that I have just spend a s..t house full of money on an "acclaimed/designed/highly reviewed" speaker , that are actually pretty useless?

How must an uninformed, like me, then choose a "design" if somebody like Byrd don't come along and start asking some valued questions??