Almost there...that info is all over the internet, more or less, but...
So, what might be the main duty of the basket?
When was that?
Anyway, why a DML radiator panel cannot be made like a BMR driver?
I was not testing anything but just showing the panel performance only , without suds.
The panels have a similar DML sound but the ply is a little brighter sounding I think .
I am not saying it is better or worse, depending on tastes.
The recordings is a little misleading as the right channel( lower microphone ) is usually slightly quieter than the left chanel( upper ear microphone , on Samsung phones that I have used) so the left channel will seem more prominent.
I can usually play different sized panels together large and small and different materials with no bad effects as long as you get the volume levels correct.
glad you enjoyed the recording, listening inbetween the panels is very similar to listening to headphones , but the panels sound better.
I'm not sure if you will be able to hear any difference between your dome and no dome , a phone recording can only do so much.
It's not so much about more treble, but more about clarity and intelligibility, which I think is beyond my phone in afraid.
The thinner larger dome I was using , I thought had more detail, but still I do not think a recording would do it justice.
I had to sit for a good couple of hours (in the cold) listening to the same track over and over again , before I was sure I had tuned it the differences.
Bring on the summer (it will probably be too hot then ) 😎
Steve.
The reason that info is all over the internet is because that is the correct info.
It was pretty recently I told you this twice. This is what I mean about you not paying attention. I am beginning to wonder if there is something wrong with you mentally?
Sure, Uncle Google is a very good teacher, doctor and a mechanic. Only don't try to make that Uncle your dentist.
Have you found out why a DML radiator panel cannot be made like a BMR? The BMR inventor is here. There's contact information.
Last edited:
SIGH!!!!!!! I learned this in the 80's , Google never existed then SMDH This has been common knowledge forever since the speaker driver was first invented.
It seems you are desperate to try and get one over me since you failed in your first question/attempt.
The only difference is the exciter/transducer used everything else is similar.
SMDH This has been common knowledge forever since the speaker driver was first invented. It seems you are desperate to try and get one over me since you failed in your first question/attempt.
The only difference is the exciter/transducer used everything else is similar.
This post reminded me of something I was going to post some time ago but I was put off.
in this patent, you can see the weights 38 in figs 6 -8 and response in fig 9.
https://patents.google.com/patent/U...=priority:19610101&oq=inventor:+A+Cohen++1961
I have made a quick drawing of the way I probably would have implemented this( in the left drawing) using the weight points as mounting points, as usual two for the price of one😁 I love it when that happens 😆
The exciter, panel , and weighting points become one with no edge mounting and damping.
Frames for protection and edge damping points can be added as needed or wanted.
The exciter and panel are supported on the same brace for single point mounting to a stand.
In a modern panel I would probably do something similar to the top drawing .
The panel mounting points ( weighted areas) would be chosen for best performance filling in the dips in response somewhere around the 200hz point of there abouts.
I would probably round the corners as the exciter and mounting points would probably cause excessive visitation in this area.
It turned one of my panels corners into a fan 😧 i had to use a wooden brace to stop the corner vibrating.
Below in the third drawing ,is a small panel I made which was less than 12inches .
I use 4 wooden dowels glued to the panel and supporting frame,and on which the exciter was also mounted.
These 4 dowels extended the response of the panel to somewhere in the 100hz region, this worked for this panel.
I personally do not use these methods for my panels (so far , never say never 😁 ).
But they can be a useful tool for serious problem panels or pro work 😁.
I will not be doing tests as I am happy with my panels as they are.
I will be doing some tests at some time with a similar - ish idea but I'll have to see how it works on a larger panel ( I know it worked on a small panel ) I will have to see?
The picture will be on a following post as I cannot post using my phone 😩 so there will be no words.
Steve.
Audiofrenzy and pway.
There is a possibility that it is one of those two possibilities , so can we please tread carefully.
I have found the ignore button works fine for me 👍
Steve.
Steve - can a weighting point also be a mounting point ?? - there's no inertia involved in a mounting point...Or am I missing something?
PS - I ordered a few Tectonic TEBM65C20F-8 to experiment with
...Only AU$37 each . The mass may be an issue to resolve (ferrite magnet). I was pondering using 2 to 4 of them to make a DML woofer. Maybe just pad out the diaphragm with EPS/XPS foam and directly attach to a panel without hacking the units to bits. Eucy
What a freaky thought
...but no - AI bots can't underline in freehand (or can they...?)That occurred to me too. Maybe a bot with human assistance when people have just voiced their annoyance or suspicions. In any case it would not be a difficult feature to implement.What a freaky thought
Another characteristic of more recent bots is the access to terabytes of textual data, and synthesis of statements from that. Yet another characteristic since Weizenbaum's Eliza is to, when all else fails, ask another open question. Soon you will not be able to guess whether you're talking to a human. Even Eliza fooled a lot of unsuspecting people.
Last edited:
Show me that exact link. The so called "ASSUMED" usable frequency range will depend on the type of diaphragm and skins used.
Also Dayton states this note on all its exciters.
Note: An exciter's frequency response and sensitivity are completely dependent on the exciter's designated surface. Thinner, smaller materials will tend to be louder and create a mid/tweeter response. Thicker, larger materials (with multiple exciters) will be slightly quieter but result in a more full-range sound.
Note: An exciter's frequency response and sensitivity are completely dependent on the exciter's designated surface. Thinner, smaller materials will tend to be louder and create a mid/tweeter response. Thicker, larger materials (with multiple exciters) will be slightly quieter but result in a more full-range sound.
Now I know exactly which exciter you are reffering to which is the DAEX32SQ-8 which is one of the worst sounding exciters. This is due to the thick dense square shaped plastic plate the voice coil is attached to which limits its higher end frequency response. Dayton even knew this which is why they listed its assumed usable frequency response. Either this is a flawed exciter design or it was not meant to be used as a full range but rather mid woofer/wide band.
Not that one. It was taken as a reference. It is the other one mentioned in the post, DAEX25C...10W.
Dayton stopped producing it quite a few years ago. They were sold at a very high discount to get rid of the problematic batch.
Last edited: