How about you bring some hard data rather than hand wavy before complaining about other people not satisfying your whims for validation?
Audibility testing before and after would be bracing would be entirely a waste. Measuring resonances, sure, but trusting long term perceptual memory falls flat even before you get into the "I know I modified this" and non-blinding factors. Sheesh.
Audibility testing before and after would be bracing would be entirely a waste. Measuring resonances, sure, but trusting long term perceptual memory falls flat even before you get into the "I know I modified this" and non-blinding factors. Sheesh.
Having some trouble with your logic. I think it is the responsibility of people obsessing about cab bracing that ought to be interested in demonstrating the value of big bracing. Not ordinarily up to a skeptic to "prove" skepticism.
But since you ask, here is a TL/labyrinth I made from most of a 4x8 foot sheet quarter-inch plywood (you heard that right). Some damping, some bracing, some double-thickness, lots of old pillows*, 60 yr old driver. Seems pretty good down to 12 Hz.
It will come as a surprise to no one that the cab walls vibrate a bit. No, I wouldn't make a sealed box from quarter-inch, but might be OK for a ported box.
17 foot pipe sub 12-230 Hz ±5dB
B.
* I think that's what PE sold me
Last edited:
It's very easy logic: you walked into a thread that did not, in any way make claims that it's superior. Said OP wanted CNC help. Similarly, you're quoting that you've asked others for audible impressions before and after bracing because you want to prove inaudibility of the effect.
The onus falls on the claimant to back up his/her data. So, if for example, you want to come in and tell an individual, without them asking for feedback, that their idea is crap, it's on you to actually back up your assertions, at least to a first order. Or maybe pay attention to where people are actually asking for opinions or not before you come in with brazen language.
Also, what does this prove? That you are content with a 1/4" wall massive pipe that's stuffed into oblivion? And fed fairly quiet tones? Congrats, we're glad you're happy I suppose.
The onus falls on the claimant to back up his/her data. So, if for example, you want to come in and tell an individual, without them asking for feedback, that their idea is crap, it's on you to actually back up your assertions, at least to a first order. Or maybe pay attention to where people are actually asking for opinions or not before you come in with brazen language.
Also, what does this prove? That you are content with a 1/4" wall massive pipe that's stuffed into oblivion? And fed fairly quiet tones? Congrats, we're glad you're happy I suppose.
Ben, I'd almost bet my paycheck that if you listen for fidelity using a struck anvil in some sort of antiquated collage of sounds that emulate music, having high fidelity thoughts since 1957, that you suffer from a significant amount of presbycusis. Perhaps you should schedule an appointment with a professional? Or, at least pick up a new set of batteries for your personal amplification devices.
Do you even read AES papers at all, attend meetings locally, and build / test enclosures or do you constantly regurgitate what your heros say online? Open baffle / dipole and using an old K-horn and a 1/4" thick box TL with a very old, very non-linear driver is not the cutting edge when it comes to subsonic reproduction I am afraid.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.