Increase ESL perforated panels hole size...??? - Page 2 - diyAudio
Go Back   Home > Forums > Loudspeakers > Planars & Exotics

Planars & Exotics ESL's, planars, and alternative technologies

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
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 8th May 2012, 04:33 PM   #11
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Jackson,michigan
I was thinking about that last night,And I am wondering if setting the stators with the holes off center or misaligned might help that a bit?

As opposed to the holes lined up at least there would be more force on one side of the holes and the effect would be distributed evenly between the two sides.

jer
  Reply With Quote
Old 8th May 2012, 08:29 PM   #12
diyAudio Member
 
bolserst's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Fort Worth, Texas
Quote:
Originally Posted by geraldfryjr View Post
I was thinking about that last night,And I am wondering if setting the stators with the holes off center or misaligned might help that a bit?
It certainly seems logical that staggering the stators would smooth out drive force on the diaphragm.
Test results posted here for aligned vs staggered stators shows that you don't be lose SPL one way or the other.
So, averaging of the force over the diaphragm area with staggered stators is a logical conclusion.
Some More Questions On ELS Design

The downside of staggering of course is loss in optical transparency.
Decisions, decisions....
  Reply With Quote
Old 8th May 2012, 11:50 PM   #13
AVWERK is offline AVWERK  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: So Calif.
Looking at the quad 57 mid/ tweeter arangement you have way less open area and both are offset significantly....go figure

Regards
David
  Reply With Quote
Old 9th May 2012, 01:32 AM   #14
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
All good points, I must admit there is a proportional degree in the increase of the WAF (Wife Acceptance Factor) to the increase in visual and optical transparency. I must admit I too prefer that look.

....Ultimately this was the reason for the inquiry, I believed that the increase in open area would decrease the amount of metal necessary to move the diaphragm however, I am using a 6um film which likely takes 1/2 the force compared to the 12um to stretch. I would guess that it may take less energy to move, but would require greater bias power to increase sensitivity...?
  Reply With Quote
Old 9th May 2012, 04:12 AM   #15
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Jackson,michigan
Yes,Bolserst I do remember that discussion,Only the dimensions were not included.

If memory serve me right It was determined that the hole size under a certain dimension made little difference in performance, but open area certainly does effect how it sounds.

But when the hole size increases significantly to effect performance then a second look at the theory of staggered vs Non-staggered may be in order.

Just a few thoughts.

jer
  Reply With Quote
Old 9th May 2012, 02:49 PM   #16
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Calgary on the Bow
While a more open stator looks transparent which is pleasing I believe it is the wrong way to go for performance. I would imagine that around 30% open perhaps even a little lower (27%) would be about optimum. Greater air load is what I think is needed. Best regards Moray James.
__________________
moray james
  Reply With Quote
Old 9th May 2012, 11:30 PM   #17
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Very interesting James, This almost seems counter intuitive as it would appear that with a reduction of air between the diaphragm and stator would decrease sound output. I am currently using 51% open area and I couldn't imagine it could sound any better by increasing or decreasing open area.
  Reply With Quote
Old 10th May 2012, 06:12 AM   #18
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Calgary on the Bow
smaller open area more load due to increased resistance. From 27 -33% open are is probably about right. Lowest open area I built was about 35%. Easy enough to test. Diaphragm to stator spacing would not change. Best regards Moray James.
__________________
moray james
  Reply With Quote

Reply


Hide this!Advertise here!
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 Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Should I increase my amp size? steven2583 Subwoofers 10 24th March 2012 12:59 PM
Cutting my own perforated panels joojoo1234 Planars & Exotics 6 28th November 2011 07:34 PM
Dipole sub hole size Deodato Subwoofers 3 1st January 2011 10:02 PM
bass matrix hole size....does it matter i4gotmyid Multi-Way 1 5th October 2007 03:27 PM
PCB Hole Size ptah Parts 10 30th November 2006 01:51 AM


New To Site? Need Help?

All times are GMT. The time now is 02:50 AM.


vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright 1999-2014 diyAudio

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2