[COLOR="Red”]offtopic split from [URL="https://www.diyaudio.com/forums/multi-way/358239-triangular-enclosures-common.html"]Why are triangular enclosures not more common here?[/URL][/COLOR]
I think she was younger than that, Cal! 😀
I think she was younger than that, Cal! 😀
Last edited:
Yes, yes, they do. Here is Michael Jackson for your viewing pleasure 😱 , after lots of cosmetic surgery and Botox. (And who knows what else.)prarieboy said:
Emmylou Harris seems to have followed Jackson down the route of plastic surgery addiction; every few years she looks weirder, and now she's had her nose shaved down so thin that it's made her singing voice incredibly nasal, just as you'd expect if you pinched your nostrils shut while you sang. Add the weird chin and the overall impression is frightening rather than beautiful.
All of which has absolutely nothing to do with triangular loudspeaker enclosures, unless you count the approximate shape of a human nose before plastic surgeons have mutilated the heck out of it...
-Gnobuddy
Attachments
Look at Emmylou's album covers in sequence.
She always had a tiny nose and dimpled chin, she's just lost the babyfat-round cheeks and gravity is slowly pulling on the cartilage.
Her voice has always been naturally bluegrass(high. lonesome sound) it's chord is made up of fewer notes now, that's all.
Still a rose, just needs kinder lighting and less contrasty imaging.
And like everyone else, likely better sans makeup.
She always had a tiny nose and dimpled chin, she's just lost the babyfat-round cheeks and gravity is slowly pulling on the cartilage.
Her voice has always been naturally bluegrass(high. lonesome sound) it's chord is made up of fewer notes now, that's all.
Still a rose, just needs kinder lighting and less contrasty imaging.
And like everyone else, likely better sans makeup.
Perhaps but even back then there were some makeups that did wonders.
When I look at the clothing, the hair, the telephone and the source material, I was guessing. Am I close?
Unfortunately, plastic surgery is addictive for some (many) people. Michael Jackson was an extreme example, but Emmylou Harris is another. Yes, you can see the progression of more and more extreme plastic surgery on her face from one album cover to the next. She's been getting herself hacked up and stitched back together for a long time now.boswald said:
In the three attached pictures, look at the width of her nose near her mouth, and at the size of her nostrils, when she was young, and compare with the third more recent pic. That is not nature or ageing - that is surgery, and she has had her nostrils cut open, slices removed, and the rest stitched back together to shrink them down so small that it has made her voice extremely nasal now. Pinch your nostrils shut and sing, and you will sound the same way.
Repeated plastic surgery causes severe problems. Eventually there is so much scar tissue, and so much facial structure has been carved away, that the unfortunate plastic-surgery addict starts to look freaky and unnatural even in the hands of the most skilled plastic surgeon. That's what happened to Michael Jackson, and that's what's happened to Emmylou Harris.
Looking back at the face Harris had as a young woman, it's really tragic to see the extent to which she's had it hacked-up and carved and sanded and spackled to arrive at her current deaths-head look. She hardly looks human any more, but like a grotesque doll, something from the film "The Nightmare Before Christmas", or the latest zombie apocalypse film, perhaps. 🙁
Back on topic...
It's worth mentioning that triangular (or other irregular-shaped) enclosures are not immune from internal resonances - internal acoustic resonances do exist, in every possible enclosure shape.
Even the simplest mental picture - plane waves bouncing back and forth after reflecting off walls - still shows that there are some frequencies where the waves "line up", i.e., there will be a resonance at that frequency. The attached image shows this sort of very simple picture, with the "right-sized" sound waves (pink) bouncing around neatly inside our triangular-cross-section loudspeaker enclosure.
That simplified mental picture only goes so far - it doesn't really tell us all that much - so, to find out exactly what is going on, one has to solve the three-dimensional acoustic wave equation ( Acoustic wave equation - Wikipedia ) inside whatever-shaped box we're considering (i.e. the shape of the box sets the boundary conditions for solving the differential equation).
If the shape is simple (rectangular box, circular tube) the math can be done by hand, and this usually has been done by some genius centuries ago, by the light of an oil-lamp, with a quill for a pen; but if the shape is more complicated (triangles, pyramids, pentagons, etc) then it is usually easier to solve it numerically, on a computer, a luxury only available to us in recent decades.
But it seems our ears tell us that, for some reason, triangular enclosures sound less "boxy" than cubical or rectangular ones - what my elementary-school math teacher used to refer to as a "right rectangular prisms" - do.
My little Alesis Monitor One Mk2 speakers are "right rectangular prisms", filled with a carefully measured amount of acoustic wool stuffing, and they don't sound boxy. My relatively inexpensive Acoustic AG-30 acoustic-guitar amplifier, with its irregularly shaped enclosure, also doesn't sound boxy - but I don't think there is really any filling in there, its all down to the better acoustic performance of the irregular enclosure shape.
-Gnobuddy
Attachments
I am impressed .... that you can remember that from an elementary math teacher. All I can remember from elementary school was my grade 6 teacher (whom I disliked with a passion) stating: 'make the good better, and the better best'.
BTW, your disclosure on plastic surgery was interesting, too. ��
BTW, your disclosure on plastic surgery was interesting, too. ��
Attachments
Oh, my memory isn't good. I'm constantly forgetting the names of famous actors, whom I've seen in dozens of movies, and I couldn't tell you which shirt I wore to work yesterday. But every now and then, there is some oddball fact going back to my childhood that I still remember. 🙂
It's weird how memory plays these silly tricks on us! 🙂
-Gnobuddy
Evidently there was a serious shortage of fabric in the '70s. Poor thing, having to make an entire costume out of barely enough cloth for a handkerchief! 🙂Early 70s - happy days!
-Gnobuddy
And the platform-shoes? I always assumed there were secret compartments in those extra-thick soles, perhaps with a spare ham-sandwich tucked away in case of a food emergency. 😀puppet said:
-Gnobuddy
The secret compartment often contained the white powder that fueled much of the disco era. Excessive use of said powder could lead to "cosmetic" surgery to rebuild nose tissue.
Just for the record - I never started this thread!
Blame the moderators - I'm talkin' 'bout you, Cal!
Anyway, the theme seems to be as much about 70s fashion as cosmetic surgery. 😎
I attach the original image which started the debate and add an image of some really sexy hot pants!
Blame the moderators - I'm talkin' 'bout you, Cal!
Anyway, the theme seems to be as much about 70s fashion as cosmetic surgery. 😎
I attach the original image which started the debate and add an image of some really sexy hot pants!
Attachments
You'll have to ask Cal as my spilling is immakulate! 😉
P.S. There is such a thing as Cosmic Surgery: Cosmic Surgery Will Replace Your Face with a Polygon Prism | by Emily von Hoffmann | Vantage | Medium
P.S. There is such a thing as Cosmic Surgery: Cosmic Surgery Will Replace Your Face with a Polygon Prism | by Emily von Hoffmann | Vantage | Medium
Attachments
What on earth is going on with that wig, anyhow? It seems to have come half off the lass' head when she assumed the reclining pose.
Here's another reclining lass for you. All we need is some triangular speakers to scatter around on the floor.
-Gnobuddy
