Summer 1999 both inital papers were released. King kept on, Augspurger went somewhere else.
dave
It’s just a fancy and effective way of absorbing most of the back wave and keeping impedance as smooth as possible acoustically.
…..an alternative to the open baffle where there is no ‘box sound’…….the benefit being that no reflected sound waves trapped or reflected within the box influence the primary wave front produced by the transducer element…..cone, dome, whatever. These reflections smear the primary wave front.
Yes they are gently tapered pipes. I guess they are reminiscent of a pea shooter for the tweeter, a blunderbuss for the top mid, and a trombone bell for the lower midrange.
B&W were trying to kill all resonances dead. These transmission lines are their solution to the problem.
If this is true then it should be eminently useful! This would be a great way to put bass on an IB design without covering the listening room with plywood.
We use it to good measure for midTLs, both quarter- and half-wave lines.
This one is half-wave.
dave
It doesn't matter how you call it, A TML is a construction to increase the low end performance. The Nautilus is NONE of that, it's the exact opposite, no matter how you want to scramble the terms around. In fact, it's the exact opposite, to eliminate any resonances (which are the basic principles of a functional TML). If you insist it's a TML, you can claim every single speaker is one. You are swirvling around terminology just to rectify the speakers you're constructing. That's lying with a cause.
Compare these papers to your constructions and you'll realize they aren't the same. And no matter how often you are claiming they are, they simply are NOT.
You obviously don't understand the article. And recalling on how much else you were wrong in the past I didn't expect you to understand that either. Just because you found some paper which partially fits your concept of understanding doesn't mean it's confirming your oblivious theory. No, an absorption enclosure is definitely not a TML, no matter how you want to twist it. If you want to fight that, then explain what the use is of a TML in an absorption enclosure. Does it have any significant change in an absorption enclosure? Hint: No, it doesn't. No matter if it's a resonant length, if it's about absorption, it counter acts any principle of a TML. And no, your esotheric definition how it's a TML doesn't change the Nautilus enclosure principle is about maximum absorption. So any TML characteristics of gain of a specific wavelength is against the very principle of the Nautilus. And no, nothing of your TL arguments can counter that. It's still wrong.
So you claim a TML is build to NOT have any benefits? Gee, that's utterly rediculous. Who whould ever build a more complex enclosure and not have any benefit from it?
Most of the TLs i draw are designed by Scott. They follow directly from those papers and lean heavily on MJK’s software.
The aperiodioc midTL i use are my own. The design is not overly critual as long as they are sufficient volume.
dave
The aperiodioc midTL i use are my own. The design is not overly critual as long as they are sufficient volume.
dave
Ahem, I wish I had liked the sound of any of them..... << runs and hides >> 😉 Sorry, I remember hearing the post-prototype demonstrator models driven by stacks of Krell amps and active crossovers. Never do I remember having been SO excited to hear a system and then ultimately not. Please feel free to disagree, I'm just lamenting the day I lost my audiophile innocence.
I've had a quick search for it. And a TL is definitely not the 'best vehicle' for an aperiodic speaker since of all aperiodic speakers it got the way worst bass decay possible. because of the group delay but also on the resonance.
Last edited by a moderator:
I don't doubt that. Do any of them include an absorption 'TML'?
Oh, really? These are CLOSED TMLs?
Aside: Are you using a translator app? Your reply’s often imply the opposite of what i, or others how explaimed.
I never said that, in a TL one is always battling the ripple. Want max bass you will have to live with more. If you want minimal ripple then you get less bass.
Everything is a compromise. Pick your poison.
One important thing that MJK’s models showed us were other ways than damping to kill the ripple. This has led to very effective designs that use these tricks to get more bass and more versatility. Probably most prominantly seen in ML-TLs with offset drivers. A traditional TL (mostly) uses damping to kill the ripple (techically a low-pass filter) which kills ultimate bass response. Using alternative LP filters — like big pre-chamber, restricted terminus (often look like BR vents, and driver offset are 3 and all can be picked out of some traditional TLs. Those were from experimental cut-and-try. Now we have tools that greatly expand our understanding of how those work
dave
And your reference?
The original 1937 article by Onley that defines a labyrinth (essentially an aperiodic pipe: http://www.t-linespeakers.org/download/Onley-acoustic-labyrinth.pdf
Yes.
Some of them are, some of them aren’t. I prefer open Scott tends to closed. XRKs “dagger” is a cleaver example of a compact closed one.
dave
Last edited:
None of them applies or support to your claims. Which, I may add, suggest your claims are just wrong.
I don't care about any linked article, you were talking about your own speakers. And the linked article doesn't talk about closed TML anyway. So, how is any of that relevant to the Nautilus, which you claim to be a TML? Why do you keep deviating from any fact and source, no matter what it is? I'm sick of you coming up with new definitions (you need assistance for anyway) and claiming wrong things. Post documentations - like you demand from others - or just keep shut. Your claims of it be a TML (among other ridiculous statements) is just a joke! Just because something can be simulated with a different model by a software doesn't make it that very thing. A TML or BR can be simulated by AJHorn or hornresp but that doesn't make it a TML, a BR or a horn! If you are unable to grasp the concept of an absorption enclosure, just shut up about it being a TML! You go on and on about everything and keep being wrong about it, either learn what it is and how it works or just shut up!
According to whom, and when did they become the universal arbiter?
Correct insofar as it's a sealed TL which is not designed for gain. This is not rocket science, novel or anything of the kind since they've existed for 9 decades & counting, which is a simple historical fact. If you are claiming otherwise, you are going up against something formidable called 'reality'.
Wrong. They are the objective of a TL designed for that purpose. Provide your evidence that that is the universal requirement. If you can't (and you'll struggle, since no such evidence exists), then you might want to stop making pronouncements on a subject you don't seem to understand very well.
There is no fixed definition for an acoustical transmission line, beyond an enclosure where eigenmodes are accounted for. If we in fact applied the electrical analogy tightly (the electrical analogy being where it got its name from) then it would in fact be an enclosure designed for the sole purpose of the flattest possible impedance load with zero other considerations at all. Hence the title of Bailey's article, which is often referenced by people who think they are proving a point, and who usually back-pedal even faster when it's no longer convenient for them. 😉 In most cases though, designers are using some form of pipe resonance to prop up the LF -even though this technically falls at the first hurdle of a strictly applied definition. Which just shows how worthless trying to impose definitions is. 😉
That is wilful ignorance on your part I'm afraid. And I'd gently point out that
a/ Dave isn't constructing any speakers at present, and
b/ The designs in question don't require 'rectifying' since they perform as intended. If you are claiming otherwise, you are claiming you sat on my & Dave's shoulders, and know more about our designs than we do. And I can say catagorically 'you weren't' and 'you don't'.
Last edited: