if you compare the omnis that use the dispersion lens centered on the driver axis as with the Duevel, you'll notice many use a very tall lens, so there is little sound compression here.
if you compare these to the jbl aquarius 4, you will see the opposite. the lens was mounted only slightly above the the plane of the driver and was largely 'inside' the driver cone area just above the dust cap. more compression here.
with this short lens, the jbl aquarius 4 more closely employed slot diffraction/radiation. the others really did not. this design did a good job of disbursing the sound in an omni pattern about the room.
the aquarius 2 was also similar, only employing vertically mounted drivers.
Nu, I trust that Duevel, et al did their homework to arrive at their concepts. It does boil down to preferences and tastes, to each, etc. *S*
I'm just a fan of direct radiators...and it just seems an odd methodology. But in an era of high end speakers in which the object ends up looking like alien technology, something that got leveled at the MBL omnis until one hears them...*shrug* Enjoy, and viva la differance'.
I'm just a fan of direct radiators...and it just seems an odd methodology. But in an era of high end speakers in which the object ends up looking like alien technology, something that got leveled at the MBL omnis until one hears them...*shrug* Enjoy, and viva la differance'.
didn't say they failed to do some R & D. it is just that you wind up with almost the same sound with or without the lenses just by drivers firing strait to the ceiling. no real compression as with slot loading. less of a horn with the Duevel.
i like both direct and omni. to me, omni has a more 'ethereal' sound reproduction, if done well.
..and on that, we agree.
It's just, IM sometimes not so HO, that lenses and such seemed destined to compensate or correct for issues that may have been easier to not have in the first place. But that's just an observation based on an opinion...and we all know the classic comment on 'opinions'.
It's the 'done well' part that generates the plethora of offerings out there. It's like restaurants...by the time you've sampled them all, there's a whole new batch to start over with. And by that time, unless you've been taking notes, memory overload has occurred. And A/B testing is nearly impossible, even at the rare 'audio shows' which end up sounding like an shouting match. I used to wear hearing protection to them, just to try to save self for what I wanted to hear.
But I'm starting to rant 'n rave...I'll stop now. *G*
Hi mirekti...I've considered 3D printing, pricey as it is at this time. It'd allow for a different cone shape rather than the straight-sided truncated cone all Walsh 'style' drivers display. It's been suggested to me that a cone with inward curved sides (imagine the bell of a trumpet turned vertically) might be interesting...which I agree would be something worth pursuing.
I currently don't know of any 'easy' or 'inexpensive' means of making such a cone (or 2...I like to work in pairs...) in aluminum or titanium. Paper or plastic might be a bit more practical, but would still require at minimum a form to mold or form to.
I'm not sure that carbon in and of itself would be applicable. German Physiks makes a carbon fibre cone version, which again likely requires a form to fabricate upon.
Actually I've been a 'fan' of 3D printing since it was developed....saw an early version at a NASA 'open house' in Houston nearly 2 decades ago. Since then it's moved on to printing in metals, concrete...nearly anything that can be extruded. I've been to a demo by a local concern in my area that sells the 'desk top' equipment versions and does printing 'for hire'.
Perhaps I should e/m him and see what he thinks might be 'practical'...'possible' is a broad horizon only limited by the amount of cash one wants to devote to going there....
Anyhow....thanks for the suggestion....I'll post what I find out when I know what I know...*G*
I currently don't know of any 'easy' or 'inexpensive' means of making such a cone (or 2...I like to work in pairs...) in aluminum or titanium. Paper or plastic might be a bit more practical, but would still require at minimum a form to mold or form to.
I'm not sure that carbon in and of itself would be applicable. German Physiks makes a carbon fibre cone version, which again likely requires a form to fabricate upon.
Actually I've been a 'fan' of 3D printing since it was developed....saw an early version at a NASA 'open house' in Houston nearly 2 decades ago. Since then it's moved on to printing in metals, concrete...nearly anything that can be extruded. I've been to a demo by a local concern in my area that sells the 'desk top' equipment versions and does printing 'for hire'.
Perhaps I should e/m him and see what he thinks might be 'practical'...'possible' is a broad horizon only limited by the amount of cash one wants to devote to going there....
Anyhow....thanks for the suggestion....I'll post what I find out when I know what I know...*G*
Yes, please. I am subscribed to this thread.
On the price and materials I agree, it is fairly new thing "for masses", but getting more and more available. I googled a bit and even found one company which started working with aluminium (I understood this is your preferred material), yet still in a trial mode. https://i.materialise.com/3d-printing-materials/aluminum
Given the complexity of speaker cone shouldn't bee something tricky, I certainly hope there will be some affordable option soon.
Looked at the materialise site, thanks for the link....*S*
They certainly could create a cone of any profile in the sizes and wall thickness of preference, including any variations I'd consider trying. Pricing? Well, I suppose it can't hurt to ask...
The open question is the performance of a sintered material vs. the sheet stock. The process as described is essentially very fine gauge welding with a continuous 'bead'. This would allow for a 'seamless' cone...although it's actually all seam from bottom to top. I've heard of an enthusiast creating aluminum wheels for his car in a similar fashion, albeit with a larger device...
But as you note, an 'affordable option' as exists for me is still a hand-formed cone for the time being. I'd like to find a very small slip roll machine, but my search turns up machines that are still too large for my materials. I'm looking into building my own for now....
But thanks for the link...
They certainly could create a cone of any profile in the sizes and wall thickness of preference, including any variations I'd consider trying. Pricing? Well, I suppose it can't hurt to ask...
The open question is the performance of a sintered material vs. the sheet stock. The process as described is essentially very fine gauge welding with a continuous 'bead'. This would allow for a 'seamless' cone...although it's actually all seam from bottom to top. I've heard of an enthusiast creating aluminum wheels for his car in a similar fashion, albeit with a larger device...
But as you note, an 'affordable option' as exists for me is still a hand-formed cone for the time being. I'd like to find a very small slip roll machine, but my search turns up machines that are still too large for my materials. I'm looking into building my own for now....
But thanks for the link...
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.