Ultimate Subwoofer Driver

[ScottG]

Originally posted by pinkmouse
[Bin my diagram above. Who can spot it?

I'll post again when we get the correct answer. [/B]

I've been on such a wave.. just caught the crest and was dumped into the sandbar/coral below (..not fun).

I like the "prophetic woofer".. catchy (and in-line with most marketing claims being made today).

[AudialDelta]

So far no scientific or mathmatical explanation for the assumption of distortion. Nor any real world examples of the imagined distortion. This is turning into a 500 page legal document, size 3 font, on the proper design and implementation of a peanut butter & jelly sandwich.

- James

[ScottG]

Originally posted by AudialDelta
So far no scientific or mathmatical explanation for the assumption of distortion. Nor any real world examples of the imagined distortion. This is turning into a 500 page legal document, size 3 font, on the proper design and implementation of a peanut butter & jelly sandwich.

- James

This is a general discussion forum. What did you expect.. an AES paper you could call your own and then turn into a commercial product?

[AudialDelta]

For all of your assumptions I thought you already had the paper published!

- LOL

[ScottG]

Originally posted by AudialDelta
For all of your assumptions I thought you already had the paper published!

- LOL

Hardly. If I had such, wouldn't I have just linked to the paper?

[AudialDelta]

No, it seems more your style to blanket a product type as inherently bad and not provide a viable explanation of your claim.

[pinkmouse]

Less of the personal comments, AudialDelta.

[pinkmouse]

/Mod hat off.

Right, I've got the papers filed for the patent on the "Prophetic Woofer". Thanks for the name redunzelizer, I'll put a cheque in the post once the royalties start coming in.

Ok, I think what Scott is worried about is a distortion mechanism, and one that should be relatively easy to check. We need to produce a noise burst, filter it with the same crossover type as used in the complete speaker, then compare the raw signal and the result from the driver to get a distortion magnitude. I'm not convinced personally that with a good driver it will be that great, but I think there may well be an AES paper in it for a person with the right test equipment.

[ScottG]

Originally posted by AudialDelta
No, it seems more your style to blanket a product type as inherently bad and not provide a viable explanation of your claim.

No at all. I do think that significant excrusion is a problem, particularly when pairing with other drivers that are mechanically dissimilar at higher spl's where excursion would be increased. (..and this is all in the context of "faster" which is only a part of this thread.)

Additionaly, if you don't think my explanation on this particular topic is viable - step up and disprove it rather than saying "everything thus far is cr@p".

[ScottG]

Originally posted by pinkmouse
/Mod hat off.

Right, I've got the papers filed for the patent on the "Prophetic Woofer". Thanks for the name redunzelizer, I'll put a cheque in the post once the royalties start coming in.

Ok, I think what Scott is worried about is a distortion mechanism, and one that should be relatively easy to check. We need to produce a noise burst, filter it with the same crossover type as used in the complete speaker, then compare the raw signal and the result from the driver to get a distortion magnitude. I'm not convinced personally that with a good driver it will be that great, but I think there may well be an AES paper in it for a person with the right test equipment.

I think that it would also be relativly easy to measure. I think the more difficult thing would be determining relevance. In otherwords under what "constraints" would it be audible (and the converse). (..and I think this is the biggest problem we have in audio currently - i.e. what makes an audible difference and what doesn't.) While something may not be that "great" measurably - it very well could be audibly. (..and of course the opposite as well.)