TNT, in laymans terms any set of measurements of any DUT is converted to "omni equivalent" by taking the (weighted) average to all directions.
Take a direct radiator on a box, there is louder sound forward than backward at some high frequency, say at 3kHz. If we average sound to all directions it becomes same "total power" as if it was ideal omni source with equivalent SPL to any direction, which would also be the average as its the same to all directions.
Take a direct radiator on a box, there is louder sound forward than backward at some high frequency, say at 3kHz. If we average sound to all directions it becomes same "total power" as if it was ideal omni source with equivalent SPL to any direction, which would also be the average as its the same to all directions.
The point is that we use this for the DI calculation. (That's how is DI defined.)
You manage to avoid the fault that mabat does - describe the definition of the propert without describing the DUT itself - like Toole does.
But I don't think you understood my critique either - I do understand what the property SP describes - I'm not debating that - I'm opposing the proposed definition wording.
But thank you anyways 🙏
//
Yeah that is how I've understood it, without deep knowledge on all the details and terms: DI is simply difference of sound towards some direction of interest compared to average of all directions, which shows how directive the DUT is to the direction we are interested at.
Last edited:
You wrote "I'm opposing the proposed definition wording", so I'm asking you to quote what you are opposing. Do you know what you are opposing?
It hasn't changed at all, I'm saying still the same thing all along. The word "ideal" is completely irrelevant/superfluous, you can add it or remove it and nothing changes.
It hasn't changed at all, I'm saying still the same thing all along. The word "ideal" is completely irrelevant/superfluous, you can add it or remove it and nothing changes.
And that is per definition a circular definition - whether you like it or not. A proper definition don't use the defined object in its definition. Basics - I told you 3 times before 
What you write is basically: SP = sound power. Toole dont do this mistake.
I think you mix up your way of calculating it with a proper logical definition. Tools does a proper logical definition of the concept SP. Why don't you use that + describe how you in your simulation, calculate/estimate it.
//
What you write is basically: SP = sound power. Toole dont do this mistake.
I think you mix up your way of calculating it with a proper logical definition. Tools does a proper logical definition of the concept SP. Why don't you use that + describe how you in your simulation, calculate/estimate it.
//
If you insist that a completely arbitrary label of a quantity conflicts with its definition, making it circular, then I really don't know what more to say, sorry.
But that's wrong. "SP" is a pressure frequency response (SPL), as says the explanation. It's not sound power. Do you get it now, at least?
Last edited: