The magic comes from how you'd configure your radiator panel. Quite close is not really that close. Ear is a subjective organ, doesn't analyse, only sends the signals to the brain. What you hear is not what your wife would.
I am very well versed on composites. Not always the core is desired, but is necessary to keep the two skins separate and to bring out the strength (all kinds), stiffness and some more. In this case its more of a hindrance than an asset, for it gives the radiator panel too much thickness, too much weight and also keep the transducer too far away from the main skin. Hmm, maybe a good idea to sink the exciter in, as I don't need the back sound. Or, maybe not, as I need the bass, reverberated back from back panel of the loudspeaker, but damped solidly. Maybe, even employ best of both worlds, a bit of pistonic action plus distributed bending waves.
They say, if you want something made, first build it in your mind.
Sorry, I'm not going to volunteer to supervise his Master's dissertation! Besides which, I retired from academia 12 years ago.
Do you get the same sound, or do you perceive the same sound as in the place you made the DMLs, and when you take them to your living room, or into another room? Or, do you find a sudden difference? Or, do you find a significant difference?
Also, do you have the back open in your DMLs?
The brain analyzes what we hear. Its called memory. The more memory stored the more experience one will gain at identifying subjective differences in sound.The magic comes from how you'd configure your radiator panel. Quite close is not really that close. Ear is a subjective organ, doesn't analyse, only sends the signals to the brain. What you hear is not what your wife would.
I am very well versed on composites. Not always the core is desired, but is necessary to keep the two skins separate and to bring out the strength (all kinds), stiffness and some more. In this case its more of a hindrance than an asset, for it gives the radiator panel too much thickness, too much weight and also keep the transducer too far away from the main skin. Hmm, maybe a good idea to sink the exciter in, as I don't need the back sound. Or, maybe not, as I need the bass, reverberated back from back panel of the loudspeaker, but damped solidly. Maybe, even employ best of both worlds, a bit of pistonic action plus distributed bending waves.
They say, if you want something made, first build it in your mind.
Its like comparing a person who go to all those hifi audio shows listening to some of the worlds top best (most expensive high end) speakers and audio products compared to someone who listens to LG speakers/products.
quote>as I dont need the back sound. Why? Is there patents on DML;s that say the back sound is not needed?
They also say that if you want to get actual factual results you have to build it first.
So, you come home from those HiFi shows and have that memory holding that HiFi sound you heard at those HiFi Audio shows, and keep hearing them instead of your speakers at home?
Hello
you don't have to worry about triggering the microphone because you don't use monitors or because the dmls have less feedback? can you post some photos, for example how many exciters you used with which panel if in composite or other.
Does anyone know if in the case of the tectonic project they added anti-vibration material to the 4 fixed points between the panel and the plate?
the part instead along the perimeter to dampen the sides, from the animation the panel seems to be connected directly to some type of rubber it would be useful to understand exactly which material
Read the last few pages after staying away for a few weeks. It struck me that the irrational attraction some few of us have to an unending stream of patents, and rejecting any attempt at a first-principles, science-based understanding reminds me of nothing so much as the phenomenon of the cargo cult.
What if you are an accountant, office worker, sales person etc, etc, to get at that "science-based understanding"?
There are thousands of occupations, professions that has nothing do with science-based understanding. So, isn't it better to read those patents written by those who had that science-based understanding? Those, who wrote those patents don't expect you to understand science of it, anyway.
If some of them didn't register their patent application few decades ago, we won't even know the coined words "Distributed Mode Loudspeaker" or even be here.
Or, maybe we should create our own clone of a patent, as some here had done, or some threatening to do so?
How do you explain, how a carpenter, without that "a first-principles, science-based understanding" create Hi-Fi speakers and make a good living out of it?
Last edited:
In a perfect world, patents would represent a claim for the discovery or unique implementation of a technology solidly grounded in science, repeatable and implementable by the layman. But none of those are necessarily true. Patents can include ambit claims of what they think might be true, claims similar to those claimed by a competitor, to muddy the waters when a dispute arises, and so on. The wording is deliberately wide-ranging and vague so that the claim extends as far as possible. Those who word the patent are in many cases not the ones who know the technology.
I’m not saying patents are without value. But the signal to noise is far too low in most cases, and if you are not versed in the science (or don’t make an honest attempt to learn it), patents will not help you. They will confuse you.
Cargo cults arose in societies where manufacturing technology was undreamt of, and so the focus was not ‘why?’ or ‘how?’, but ‘what?’ - not on principles but on external manifestations. The obsession with patents is to me quite similar.
I’m not saying patents are without value. But the signal to noise is far too low in most cases, and if you are not versed in the science (or don’t make an honest attempt to learn it), patents will not help you. They will confuse you.
Cargo cults arose in societies where manufacturing technology was undreamt of, and so the focus was not ‘why?’ or ‘how?’, but ‘what?’ - not on principles but on external manifestations. The obsession with patents is to me quite similar.
Hi Steve... Not sure what your trying to test here as you have different materials and treatments in play.?? I do think that pp is somewhat softer in sound than ply (dangerous generalisation I know)
When Britain rises again from the Ice Age I'm hoping you can fit in the ply with and without dome tests
PS...I enjoyed Paranoimia 👍👍
Eucy
Those, who are not "versed" in science have dear friends, who would steer them through. Or, they would employ those who are "versed" in science, like henry Ford did. Or, like the former carpenter, who creates HiFi speakers.