v17 can be used for any design purposes for any 3-way and if one wishes to have a PC solution only (as many in the user's group seem to prefer), then v17 can work for that. I had used it for quite some time that way until UE V1 was released. If stand-alone is desired, then when the UE V2 comes out, all of the design work will be done.
The UE also has full measurement and design integrated into it as well. Joachim could use v17 for measurement, design and auditioning or just auditioning of various crossovers. When working with my current dipole, I was able, quite literally, to test dozens of various crossovers in a day. Changes take no more than one minute.
As for an upgrade offer for SE, it's been the same since the beginning, $25, I believe no matter how far back. It's a far better upgrade price than most software, since many companies require the cost of each version or something higher than the cost of a single version upgrade. You do it, you don't wait for some "offer".
What you are saying is that these drivers, whatever they are (I've never encountered any), are worthless as a candidate for a speaker system. If they cannot have a crossover applied adequately (DSP EQ is simply another version), then they should be scrapped.
If you are speaking of the fact that the response changes with axis for a variety of reasons, there's nothing new there, either. There are no drivers that don't have differing axial behavior. Any crossover will act on them in a known fashion and it's simply up to the designer to deal with that aspect. There's nothing new with "CMP". It's simply a name.
Dave
Last edited:
I have a little different take on your CMP concept. As I stated earlier, every source that is not an ideal point source sufferers from what you refer to as CMP. It is the nature of sound radiation. Any finite sized source can be considered to be an infinite array of point sources. That is the nature of the basic solution for a flat piston. And it doesn't matter the shape of the source, or even if breakup occurs, except analytical solutions are not available for such instances. Diffraction, dipole behavior, etc are all just manifestations these multiple radiation sources. In fact, CMP has little to do with MP and is would better be characterized as DIC, Delay Induced Chaos.
In any event, what separates what you call CMP form what you would call non CPM is the same thing that separated baffle diffraction from the baffle step, or Low frequency dipole behavior form dipole behavior above the dipole peak. It is nothing more that the difference in path length from the sources approaching and becoming shorted than the wave length of the frequency being radiated.
As for eq correcting things, it is simply a matter of what frequencies are involved and what the separation between the sources is. I have explained this to you before with regard to dipole behavior above and below the baffle step and you choose to ignore it.
In any event, any crossover is nothing more than EQ. We set up a target response and the crossover filter is then designed to bring the response into agreement with this target. It is nothing more that EQ, response shaping, or what ever else you would like to call it. How actuate you choose to make the match between target and measurement on any given axis is a design choice.
Yeah people like to press buttons (me too, from times to times) 😉 – problem is, most stop thinking afterwards having had a „great feeling“ of being able to naim and shoot the biggest gun
🙂
John, Dave, George you either are not able or not willing to look in the fundamental basics I'm referring to with my concept.
As said many times before - if you are referring to practical issues only - in the sense of "its good enough for me" - better stop talking about CMP concept (I mean - audio survived for quite a long time without 😀 ) - if we are talking about basics of physics though plus nailing specific effects - you all are simply wrong and it wold not help any to bring up even more arguments or measurements as I've already summarized / presented / published.
John, you are coming quite close with some you said - but you didn't hit the pot finally.
Scared by own courage ?
If you like, I'd anytime appreciate to have a deeper look into the "order of chaos" with you - but better do that elsewhere 😀
Michael
Last edited:
Enough. This thread should not be hijacked into another CMP discussion. I will refrain from further comment on CMP or UE. Hopefully Joachim may reenter the discussion.
I know I'm going to regret entering this fray, but I feel compelled to ask the following question:
Given a mass hanging from an ideal (Hooke's law) spring, do we not have a resonant, energy storing, and completely linear system? If the system is driven sinusoidally and on resonance the amplitude of oscillation will build up over time---energy is stored. I'm not seeing why nonlinearity has to be invoked in such a case.
I absolutely do not mean to add fuel to the fire. I'm just thinking it might be helpful to find a few fundamental points of agreement if the discussion has any hope of being useful to readers of the thread.
At resonance, an oscillating system with regard to the relationship between output and input of applied force is no longer linear. You couldn't have a more blatant example of a non linear system than an oscillator operating at resonance. The mechanical resonance represents a "pole" in the electrical system analogue. Electrical systems that operate primarily within the region of a resonant "pole" without excess damping suffer from instability and lack of control. In the case of the loudspeaker, the point of resonance is similarly a mechanical "pole" where the moving mass is no longer adequately controlled by the transducer's suspension compliance, electrical damping, mechanical damping, air load interaction, or reduced current within the voice coil. In order to regain control that is lost due to the energy stored in the moving mass's inertial force, the suspension's (spring's) restorative force, and the air load's inertial force (more acutely, the air load of the air mass within the loading chamber rather than in free space in front of the driver) - excess energy contained needs to be damped. In a true transmission line, proper design achieves what is known as critical damping throughout most of the driver's operating range.
The salient point here is that oscillating systems undergoing resonance are among the most non linear of all oscillating systems. Anyone who claims otherwise most likely flunked Linear Control Theory. 😀
Ps. Don't worry, I generally increase my level of patience for folks from Maine. It's not their fault that Maine's education system sucks...
: )
Last edited:
fntn,
A linear system is sinewave-in-sinewave-out where only amplitude and phase may change. Nothing in an ideal oscillator implies the production of new frequency components and it certianly meets the criteria for linear system. Linear distortion and non-linearity are separate phenomena. Few's conception is correct.
A linear system is sinewave-in-sinewave-out where only amplitude and phase may change. Nothing in an ideal oscillator implies the production of new frequency components and it certianly meets the criteria for linear system. Linear distortion and non-linearity are separate phenomena. Few's conception is correct.
Have you ever examined the power response of an oscillator undergoing resonance? Do you actually think that the response from voltage applied to a driver through its resonance band is actually linear? Try this experiment. Apply a 10 v sine wave in to a driver at its resonance frequency. Then apply a .5 volt sine wave to the driver at the same frequency. Repeat the exercise with several additional voltage inputs increasing incrementally by .5 volts until the supplementary input to the original 10 volts is 5 volts. With each measurement, record the signal output and report back how linear the increase in signal output is (db) with voltage input
Just because it appears to have a sine wave in and a sine wave out does not make a system LINEAR.
Last edited:
I want to make a couple of points. It has been said, for example, that stored energy and resonant behavior is not linear. It has been said that at resonance an amplifier can not control the driver because the current is reduced due to the impedance peak. It has been said that distortion can be reduced by adding mechanical damping. It has been said that TL's, and it follows that vented boxes, can there for reduce distortion.
Ok, I have to agree with the potential of a vented box or TL to reduce distortion in the total radiated SPL. But let me expand. Given a sealed box system radiating at a given SPL and say 40 Hz the driver will necessarily have some excursion, X. Put that driver in a venter box tuned to 40 Hz and radiating the same SPL the distortion have the potential to be lower. The reason is because at the ported box resonance the driver excursion is significantly reduced. Thus, distortion arising from BL nonlinearity, compliance nonlinearity, nonlinearity of the magnet flux in the gap all as a function of excursion will be lower. The nonlinearity of the driver has not changed. It is just operating at a lower excursion and is being used to drive, surprise, surprise, a resonator. The TL or vented box is precisely a resonant, stored energy device. So if resonances and stored energy are such nasty nonlinear phenomena, why in the world would hanging one off the back side of a driver have the portntial to reduce distortion? Thus on one hand it has been said that resonances and stored energy are highly nonlinear and the way to correct that is the couple the nasty driver, full of nonlinear stored energy and resonances, to another resonant/stored energy device. Is the contradiction clear?
Now about control. A driver in a sealed box or free air has in impedance peak at resonance and therefore the current through the VC at resonance is much reduced. This is supposed to reduce control. But then again, look at the TL or vented box. At the TL or vented box resonances the driver experiences increase motional impedance and it's excursion is reduced considerably. But excursion can also be expressed as volume velocity. So at these resonances the volume velocity tends to a minimum. But volume velocity is the acoustic equivalent to current. And it is that volume velocity that drives the resonant behavior of the TL or vented box. So there should be the same characteristic loss of control at the TL/vented box resonances that are claimed at sealed box resoance?
Sumary:
With a TL or vented box the nonlinearity of the driver remains unaltered. There may be less distortion in the output of the driver because it is operating at reduced excursion and therefore potentially in a more linear range. The driver is then exciting a resonant/stored energy device which is being used as an amplifier around the resonant frequency. To maintain the lower distortion associated with the reduced driver excursion this "amplifier" must be relatively linear.
Ok, I have to agree with the potential of a vented box or TL to reduce distortion in the total radiated SPL. But let me expand. Given a sealed box system radiating at a given SPL and say 40 Hz the driver will necessarily have some excursion, X. Put that driver in a venter box tuned to 40 Hz and radiating the same SPL the distortion have the potential to be lower. The reason is because at the ported box resonance the driver excursion is significantly reduced. Thus, distortion arising from BL nonlinearity, compliance nonlinearity, nonlinearity of the magnet flux in the gap all as a function of excursion will be lower. The nonlinearity of the driver has not changed. It is just operating at a lower excursion and is being used to drive, surprise, surprise, a resonator. The TL or vented box is precisely a resonant, stored energy device. So if resonances and stored energy are such nasty nonlinear phenomena, why in the world would hanging one off the back side of a driver have the portntial to reduce distortion? Thus on one hand it has been said that resonances and stored energy are highly nonlinear and the way to correct that is the couple the nasty driver, full of nonlinear stored energy and resonances, to another resonant/stored energy device. Is the contradiction clear?
Now about control. A driver in a sealed box or free air has in impedance peak at resonance and therefore the current through the VC at resonance is much reduced. This is supposed to reduce control. But then again, look at the TL or vented box. At the TL or vented box resonances the driver experiences increase motional impedance and it's excursion is reduced considerably. But excursion can also be expressed as volume velocity. So at these resonances the volume velocity tends to a minimum. But volume velocity is the acoustic equivalent to current. And it is that volume velocity that drives the resonant behavior of the TL or vented box. So there should be the same characteristic loss of control at the TL/vented box resonances that are claimed at sealed box resoance?
Sumary:
With a TL or vented box the nonlinearity of the driver remains unaltered. There may be less distortion in the output of the driver because it is operating at reduced excursion and therefore potentially in a more linear range. The driver is then exciting a resonant/stored energy device which is being used as an amplifier around the resonant frequency. To maintain the lower distortion associated with the reduced driver excursion this "amplifier" must be relatively linear.
Adding my 2$ (inflation)
Resonances are, in general, always linear. Only rarely would a resonance be nonlinear and the nonlinearity is a completely seperate issue from the resonance itself. A "nonlinear resonance" does not make sense. They are not coupled things. A resonance can have an amplitude such that the system is more likely to exhibit the effects of any nonlinearities, but this again is a seperate issue.
That said, for the most part, none of it is audible anyways.
Let the flame wars begin!!
Resonances are, in general, always linear. Only rarely would a resonance be nonlinear and the nonlinearity is a completely seperate issue from the resonance itself. A "nonlinear resonance" does not make sense. They are not coupled things. A resonance can have an amplitude such that the system is more likely to exhibit the effects of any nonlinearities, but this again is a seperate issue.
That said, for the most part, none of it is audible anyways.
Let the flame wars begin!!
I don´t understand all that paranoia about control...😉
In any design, the control you get is the control you design for. Calculate Xcursion at a given Freq and Spl and you will know if things are under control enough or not, whatever the box and the number o peaks on the impedance curve...
Or am i missing something ?🙄
Nice to see that some seemingly begin to think along the right lines.
The destinction exactly is along this line :
non-CMP resonance versus CMP „resonance“
this makes all the difference.
As pointed out may times now – SL's term „stored energy“ is B..s..T.
Let me state again : there is a fundamental differnce in transmission-line „resonance“ versus non-CMP resonance.
The whole (non-linear) distortion story you guys went through is not brought to the point IMO – and – it can not be pin pointed *without* CMP concept.
There is distortion that possibly could be called „non-linear“ with CMP systems (I'd prefer to keep it labeled as „CMP distortion“ / „CMP framing“ to stay clear with respect to its unique behaviour) - but hardly will show up in usual distortion measurements - as specifically raised in the „CMP framing“ thread.
Let me warn you, Earl - this UE thing is kind of unobtainium (there are other SW packages that work just as well though - *and* are available)
Standalone version isn't out anyway and early preliminary version has been dicontinued.
Trying to update to SE ver17 is taking me weeks now – several emails to Bohdan plus money sent - no luck.
(well, luckily I'm a patient guy in such things...)
Seems someone is a little bit afraid I may demonstrate some limitations to „ULTIMATE“
😱 😉 😀
Michael
Last edited:
Sure - I'll keep that in mind - but - "ultimate" is just a little bit bold - especially when it comes to CMP effects and implicit claimed correction thereof
🙂
Michael
🙂
Michael
The transmission line method is just one way of reducing energy storage in the driver near resonance and fine tuning damping. As pointed out earlier, this could be done with an LCR trap too. There are some potential differences for energy reflected behind the driver in a small sealed versus damped vented configuration. But if you aren't looking for useful output at resonance, either method would suffice.
I'm sorry but I'm not aware of a "transmission line method" - and - I doubt there is a more pin point description of whats going on in such cases than is with CMP concept.
I repeat : "stored energy" = B**S = not any useful in tracing down mechanisms to their very roots - quite in contrary
Michael
Last edited:
The stored energy you appear to be calling B**S is very much evident in the uncontrolled response spike of drivers operating near resonance with a simple high pass circuit and no LCR trap. That might be B**S to you or Johnk but I think it's very real and pretty well documented.
Isn't there a CMP thread lurking about on this forum that needs your undivided care and attention? 😀
Frankly I am a little tired of hear that nonsense. You continuously take the statement out of context as to what EQ (from any source) can and can not do with regard to CMP.
as long as you do not accept CMP concept as such - no wonder quite *anything* I relate to CMP is "out of context" for you
🙂
Michael
Last edited:
I suspect "delayed energy dissipation" would be too much a mouthfull during conversation unless we called it DED as apposed to CMP.😛
- Status
- Not open for further replies.