Actually it does: it looks like you need to re-read the section on how a modified version of Flanders' impedance measurement methodology was used in the development of the acoustical labyrinth, which featured a closed (1/2 wave) tube. While you're at it, you may also remember that Bailey's prototype enclosure was in fact built with a flap allowing the line terminus to be sealed, which instantly explodes any claims that all TLs 'must' be resonant pipes designed for the purpose of propping up the LF.
Last edited:
Sorry to hear of your experiences. As understanding improved and alignment tables became available I demonstrated to myself that a TL can be used to give the same response as a closed box. And everything in between, of course, so they can be quite neutral or whatever you design them to be.
Naturally too, there's too much else happening with a speaker to expect a well conceived bass alignment could fix an otherwise bad speaker.
It is interesting you claim a TML doesn't have a definition and at the same time you claim I'm disregarding their properties. Maybe you didn't realize it but on that one, you've played yourself.
Every cabinet type behaves to some degree like every other cabinet type (*). The real issue is whether the name we use is appropriate to the properties of it we are intending to talk about.
* I'm sure one could think of exceptions but see what I'm saying.. a closed box acts like a reflex due to the panels being passive radiators, the cable entry leak acting like a port. Any enclosure with damping material draws links with aperiodic. Any cabinet with modes has qualities of a transmission line. Any external influence could be said to give qualities of a horn, or an array.
* I'm sure one could think of exceptions but see what I'm saying.. a closed box acts like a reflex due to the panels being passive radiators, the cable entry leak acting like a port. Any enclosure with damping material draws links with aperiodic. Any cabinet with modes has qualities of a transmission line. Any external influence could be said to give qualities of a horn, or an array.
I agree with you completely. It's almost like you can take it as an excuse for any unreasonable claim for what it supposedly is to explain why any reasonable dispute of this doesn't count!
I mean, how does the wavelength matter if the goal is to absorb it anyway? To create a resonance.... to absorb it anyway? Its purpose is to not resonate in any way.
I mean, how does the wavelength matter if the goal is to absorb it anyway? To create a resonance.... to absorb it anyway? Its purpose is to not resonate in any way.
Last edited:
If it's OK with yourself I'd like to keep my posts technical and not buy into others' disagreements. Seeing as it's an open thread I feel I have that prerogative. Thank you.
I've always thought that the acoustic definition was a little unique compared with the original electrical meaning of transmission line. There's also not much scope to limit the definition of losses.
The interesting thing is that with any ordinary box, our goal is usually to absorb everything except the bass resonance. It usually isn't necessary or desirable to absorb the fundamental resonance in a closed box or a transmission line.
You are perfectly right, that's not the principle of a closed box nor the one of a transmission line! And that's exactly the point, since the Nautilus is neither, the principle is absorption. Thank you for supporting that very point!
I'll support it if it's true but I don't know that the goal was to remove the fundamental bass resonance. If it were the goal, I'd probably go on to ask why it was done.
The design goal was already posted before and that's what the whole stick of the Nautilus was about. Actually, that was the main sale argument about it, the lack of any resonances. I am not claiming it's the best way to design speakers but that's what they were they put the emphasis on. And countless magazines praised them on that aspect. I don't build my speakers on that principle since there are much more important aspects but that doesn't change the way they built that speaker. And no, it wasn't a TML in their design principle.
Last edited:
They can't have meant eliminating the bass resonance. Even if you absorbed the entire backwave, the woofer still has a resonance. That's just the reality of a limited bandwidth system.
I agree on that too. But that's not what their sales pitch was based on. And none of the measurements , either their own nor the countless magazines ones support the theory of a TML. A lot of folks supported the addition of subwoofer though since the low end performance wasn't really convincing. That was actually the point why/when they introduced a subwoofer to their program.
Last edited by a moderator:
I haven't read B&Ws infomercials for a while 😉 but ejecting marketing, IIRC they are / were simply using it to reduce internal resonances / colouration from the enclosure as far as possible. That's the primary objective behind sealed 1/2 wave TLs. Depending on how much internal damping was used, they may be damping out some of the fundamental also, as is often used with smaller midrange lines to simplify the crossover design / reduce the amount of impedance compensation needed for midrange etc. HPs.
Statement of fact, not 'claim'. You have repeatedly made very specific statements about what transmission lines 'must' be, and following your standard procedure, when asked to supply your documentary evidence for this universally applicable and accepted definition, carefully avoid doing so. We're still waiting for that, along with your detailed explanation about how you reconcile your claim for a highly proscriptive definition with the fact that even Bailey, who was largely responsible for coining the term, directly contradicts you.
So: the floor is yours. Your documentary evidence, supporting your claim that all transmission lines must be quarter-wave pipes specifically intended to provide LF gain, is? Obviously, you will need to provide multiple sources from authors & researchers with extensive background in the field, along with the supporting physics. I'll name four here who contradict you however: Benjamin Olney, Arthur Bailey, George Augspuger and Martin King. The last-mentioned even took people to task on this forum when he was still a member for trying to apply that or other terms so narrowly, and even, when he was still producing software, provided worksheets for the design of sealed lines amongst many others. Good luck!
That's your major problem, you keep the marketing claims for a fact. Analyze it and you will realize it's just mumbo jumbo. It may work but by no means on how they claim. Do you want me to analyze your speakers? I don't want to harm your sales and I don't dispute your speakers sound good but there is a sh*t ton of claims that don't work that way, are irrelevant or are simply BS. I'm tired of your ambiguous 'that can also be [very overextended and extremely unlikely fitting theory].
I don't want to start a war on this but oh boy are there tons to shoot at. This is by no means a TML, it's a completely different enclosure principle, absorption and not resonance. Can we agree on that?
I think it’s safe to say that the allure and legendary status of the Nautilus is nothing more than the unique and stylish appearance along with the exclusivity set by the prohibitive price……and that’s really smart marketing when your target customer is the 7 figure earners and beyond.
Science and society began exploring unique hypothesis about the power of the Fibonacci spiral in the 70’s and it captured the headlines of mainstream scientific publications as well as science fiction for the next two decades. Makes perfect sense that B&W ran with the concept. Oscar Wilde was all the rage then when the art world was consuming modern work by the fistful and the artists who rose to the top were most often the strangest individuals in the room. Set aside how much money this crap is worth, I bet there’s countless owners who look at their walls and say ‘what was I thinking’ 🤣
Science and society began exploring unique hypothesis about the power of the Fibonacci spiral in the 70’s and it captured the headlines of mainstream scientific publications as well as science fiction for the next two decades. Makes perfect sense that B&W ran with the concept. Oscar Wilde was all the rage then when the art world was consuming modern work by the fistful and the artists who rose to the top were most often the strangest individuals in the room. Set aside how much money this crap is worth, I bet there’s countless owners who look at their walls and say ‘what was I thinking’ 🤣
I completely agree to that! But.... how does that rectify the claim it's a TML?
I haven't actually read them -not for many years anyway. I'm stating what they are based on the standard laws of physics and engineering we use in QW / HW acoustic design, i.e. a sealed HW pipe [aka TL] used for the purpose of providing a well-damped load to their respective drive units & reducing coloration from internal resonances etc. That's all they are, that's what pipes of that type are generally used for. Nothing mysterious, difficult or even unusual to see here. Their form-factor / styling is slightly left-field, but that's neither here nor there as far as the basic operation is concerned.
Go ahead, if you wish. So far, I haven't seen you provide 'analysis' of any speakers at all in this thread.
1/ My handful of clients can decide for themselves how much value they place on your opinion (or mine for that matter), assuming they ever see it
2/ Don't worry, you won't, but I appreciate your concern. And
3/ On the face of it, that's a bit of a strange thing to say. Some people might even interpret it as an attempted threat. But that obviously isn't the case, since we don't have people like that on this forum.
I don't recall mentioning 'my' speakers in the first place, other than stating as a simple fact that you do not know the design principles or objectives used in the speakers Dave mentioned. Just so we're all clear, I made that statement (at the bottom of post 40) purely in response to you apparently claiming otherwise to Dave. But since you've repeated them here, will you please explain exactly which speakers your are referring to and, with documented, supported physics:
a/ Which ...'ton of claims that don't work that way' are being made & where, applying those documented physics & engineering to support your statements
b/ Which of those 'claims' you say have been made are 'irrelevant' and why (again, applying those documented physics & engineering to support your statements)
c/ Which of those 'claims' you say have been made are 'BS' and why (and once again, applying those documented physics & engineering to support your statements).
I'm afraid your being tired is your problem, and I can't help you with that. I suspect you can fix it by learning more about the subject, but that's up to you.
No, and you're repeating yourself again, stating your opinion as though it were fact. I'm still waiting for you to provide your universally accepted, documentary evidence, with the physics and engineering, that the single and sole definition of a transmission line is a resonant quarter-wave pipe. At a rough count, I've asked four times now, and each time, you've avoided doing so. So it's time for you to step up to the mark: if you have that data, please provide it. You are the one making very specific claims: the onus is upon you to support them. Here's one quote that may make it a little tricky for you though, since it's from the original article by the man who is widely considered responsible for the type:
Bailey, A. 'A Non-Resonant Loudspeaker Enclosure Design: using acoustic transmission line with low-pass filter characteristics' (Wireless World, October 1965) pp.484-485
Since even the [nominal] inventor wasn't so proscriptive in how he defined it or what he experimented on, claiming otherwise has some issues.
Attachments
Last edited:
Thanks Allen. That traumatic event is what led me down the dark path of speaker building. Alas, I have become a sinner and I associate with the wicked.
😉
I'm exaggerating but only a little, but no need for anyone to feel sorry for me for not being motivated to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on gear I didn't like the sound of and instead learned how to make things I like for far less.
Last edited:
Scott, I've already said the principle is absorption. What 'evidence' do you need on that to understand? Absorption, as in 'nothing comming back'. . I can't phrase it any more descriptive. It's exactly the opposite of a transmissionline which, no matter where you look at an explaination of it, bases of resonance. The whole speaker is constructed to avoid any resonance. Why do you want me to explain what a TML is if it very obviously isn't the principle of this speaker? (Aside from your preemptive announcement you'd not accepting such an explaination anyway). If you can't understand the absorption concept, I can't help you. On the other side, why would such a principle need a transmission line? Or, like you and Dave are claiming it and never giving an argument for that either. Will you believe it if Laurence Dickie himself tells how it works? Would that help you to understand?
0:36 into this video, the quintessence of the speaker.
Or take the Wiki page about B&W as explaination. And no, I didn't edit that page.
@eriksquires: I don't like the Nautilus either. Maybe it helps to not see it as a loudspeaker but as a sculpture which can reproduce sound.
0:36 into this video, the quintessence of the speaker.
Or take the Wiki page about B&W as explaination. And no, I didn't edit that page.
@eriksquires: I don't like the Nautilus either. Maybe it helps to not see it as a loudspeaker but as a sculpture which can reproduce sound.