*L* The 'X-ploits' by the 'X spurt' (X=unknown, spurt=a drip under pressure)...
Turtle Beach, hmmm...been thinking of sound cards, do you like it vs. the alternatives on the market? I'd like to find one that could be set up differently than the usual 2 chan/4 chan....perhaps a paired 2 chan out. Something 'assignable'....any thoughts on that?
Website work by others can be a real crapshoot. We've been lucky, but fortunately ours hasn't been 'high maintenance', either. We just add to the 'family album' occasionally...
500...*sheesh*...well, just remember, 'work will set you free'....(Ugly deep pun, sorry 😉....)
Turtle Beach, hmmm...been thinking of sound cards, do you like it vs. the alternatives on the market? I'd like to find one that could be set up differently than the usual 2 chan/4 chan....perhaps a paired 2 chan out. Something 'assignable'....any thoughts on that?
Website work by others can be a real crapshoot. We've been lucky, but fortunately ours hasn't been 'high maintenance', either. We just add to the 'family album' occasionally...
500...*sheesh*...well, just remember, 'work will set you free'....(Ugly deep pun, sorry 😉....)
I got the TB sound card maybe 10 years ago? It was a very good card then, and I really don't hear much difference in electronics. My ears never were golden enough for that.
I see good things about the Asus Xonar cards, but they're not in my budget at present.
Actually, the "professional" designer did the home page well, but left a lot out. I've had to become far more of a web designer than I ever wanted to be, along with my wife. I can do the CSS stuff, but she has to tell me what colors she wants. Yeah, I'm color deficient; have to measure resistors.
I see good things about the Asus Xonar cards, but they're not in my budget at present.
Actually, the "professional" designer did the home page well, but left a lot out. I've had to become far more of a web designer than I ever wanted to be, along with my wife. I can do the CSS stuff, but she has to tell me what colors she wants. Yeah, I'm color deficient; have to measure resistors.
I agree about the Xonar's, but they're a bit pricey for the better ones. Although I'm considering a decent lower $ card and following thru with my threat of going to a small mixer for distribution. Behringer came out with a small digital mixer that's almost magic in a dinky box. Control is handed off to the puter, the box is almost all plugs... And it's not major bux. And my system is becoming a odd mix of stuff anyway....
...oh, and I forgot to mention...up to 100 bands of eq....per line...*huh*
And 1/3 octave used to be enuff....
And 1/3 octave used to be enuff....
(I can't wait for the VR link that will allow you to see 'sound as color' within the room...that, and mind meld with Spotify...make DirecTV seem like a stone hammer *L*)
I do crossover/eq in the computer. All free software, and you can use any 7.1 sound card for 3 stereo pairs.... MPD, Ecasound, SOX.... Linux
Doing eq w/the puter now...xover, not yet. Want to build a dedicated pair for the system. I've got a pair of cases (1 low profile, 1 'typical' but can handle 4 drives) that I want to set up for Win 10. Bury the large one for storage, set up the low one for accessibility on the rack. It'll all likely turn into a major wire farm on the back side. *L* But I'm hoping I can get the versatility that I'd like to have...
Meanwhile...
Meanwhile...
Could be wrong....I could be right.
Interesting conundrum posed by the blurb GP has for the Unicorn 2.
The cabinet beneath the DDD has no other driver. It's purpose is to handle the pistonic wavefront created by the DDD, as small as it is. Per their site for it:
German Physiks - High End Technology Loudspeaker Manufactur - DDD Driver - THE UNICORN MK II
They state that the DDD titanium driver runs from 180 hz up to 21,500. The 'horn system' cabinet allows for base that extends down to 55 hz for the titanium, 40 hz for the carbon fibre cones, utilizing the pistonic motion of the cone.
There is also an eternal eq provided, with a bass control.
Sensitivity is stated at 87.7 ~ 88 db @ 1 w., dependent on cone type.
Now, that's interesting in contrast to Dale's units. Sensitivity is very similar, varying only by 2~3 db depending on which of the TLS units selected. Granted, the larger cones of the 1 (29 hz) or the 2 (20 hz) allows for deeper bass. The 4, being 'stand alone', bottoms out @ 180 hz...similar to the DDD.
The hybrid 5 goes down to 37 hz, but it's running a separate 8" driver.
And Dale's pricing is so much more reasonable. *G* (I'm not trying to 'kneecap' you, Dale. *L* Just posing a question, albeit in a roundabout fashion...)
We had a discussion awhile back about pistonic vs. radial wave motion in the cone, and the interaction of the surround on these quite different wavefronts. The patent seems to indicate that the surround is meant to control reflected energy from the cone edge from 'rebounding' (if you will) back up the cone. This would seem to indicate a surround that absorbs energy; a material that would 'damp' pistonic motion. But in the case of both GP and HHR units (and Dale's comment earlier), a compliant surround is indicated that would allow pistonic motion. This allows one to utilize the 'back wave' created by the cone for bass response, obviously variable by cone size.
Now...the patent (and the earlier Ohms and the current HHR units) call for 'absorbing materials' on the interior of the cone(s) to control cone response. That, and a 'fluid filled' surround to damp cone edge energy....
That sounds like 'damping' to me, but I'm not a physicist...tonight, the devil's advocate perhaps...
And then there's Picture 4 of the site Dale posted, showing the DDD driver...
...with NOTHING on the interior of the cone. Just pretty, translucent carbon fibre in all it's glory. And what looks like a pretty conventional surround, made from perhaps 'exotica' material, but...*shrug*
Anybody feel like kicking this can around with me?
Dale, if you want to go mute on this I completely understand. If you absolutely vague on any/all comment, also understood. *L*
The answer is either so stupendously simple that it should be utterly obvious and we 'diyers' are overcooking this chicken, or it's so amazingly complex that we should 'science the hell out of it', to quote The Martian.... 😉
Meanwhile, I'm going to keep banging these rocks together. *L*
Interesting conundrum posed by the blurb GP has for the Unicorn 2.
The cabinet beneath the DDD has no other driver. It's purpose is to handle the pistonic wavefront created by the DDD, as small as it is. Per their site for it:
German Physiks - High End Technology Loudspeaker Manufactur - DDD Driver - THE UNICORN MK II
They state that the DDD titanium driver runs from 180 hz up to 21,500. The 'horn system' cabinet allows for base that extends down to 55 hz for the titanium, 40 hz for the carbon fibre cones, utilizing the pistonic motion of the cone.
There is also an eternal eq provided, with a bass control.
Sensitivity is stated at 87.7 ~ 88 db @ 1 w., dependent on cone type.
Now, that's interesting in contrast to Dale's units. Sensitivity is very similar, varying only by 2~3 db depending on which of the TLS units selected. Granted, the larger cones of the 1 (29 hz) or the 2 (20 hz) allows for deeper bass. The 4, being 'stand alone', bottoms out @ 180 hz...similar to the DDD.
The hybrid 5 goes down to 37 hz, but it's running a separate 8" driver.
And Dale's pricing is so much more reasonable. *G* (I'm not trying to 'kneecap' you, Dale. *L* Just posing a question, albeit in a roundabout fashion...)
We had a discussion awhile back about pistonic vs. radial wave motion in the cone, and the interaction of the surround on these quite different wavefronts. The patent seems to indicate that the surround is meant to control reflected energy from the cone edge from 'rebounding' (if you will) back up the cone. This would seem to indicate a surround that absorbs energy; a material that would 'damp' pistonic motion. But in the case of both GP and HHR units (and Dale's comment earlier), a compliant surround is indicated that would allow pistonic motion. This allows one to utilize the 'back wave' created by the cone for bass response, obviously variable by cone size.
Now...the patent (and the earlier Ohms and the current HHR units) call for 'absorbing materials' on the interior of the cone(s) to control cone response. That, and a 'fluid filled' surround to damp cone edge energy....
That sounds like 'damping' to me, but I'm not a physicist...tonight, the devil's advocate perhaps...
And then there's Picture 4 of the site Dale posted, showing the DDD driver...
...with NOTHING on the interior of the cone. Just pretty, translucent carbon fibre in all it's glory. And what looks like a pretty conventional surround, made from perhaps 'exotica' material, but...*shrug*
Anybody feel like kicking this can around with me?
Dale, if you want to go mute on this I completely understand. If you absolutely vague on any/all comment, also understood. *L*
The answer is either so stupendously simple that it should be utterly obvious and we 'diyers' are overcooking this chicken, or it's so amazingly complex that we should 'science the hell out of it', to quote The Martian.... 😉
Meanwhile, I'm going to keep banging these rocks together. *L*
One thing that would reduce the amount (I think there is at least a thin layer of elastomer) of damping material is the drivers low mass. 😉
G
G
"Back from the shadows again...."
...not to imply that the fine city of Knoxville is shadowy or otherwise sinister...😉
Well, yeah...there is that. Something occurs to me, given that a cone with low mass would/could be more reactive to a given voice coil of controlled vMax with other 'desirable' characteristics....
Given the GP DDD seems to be adapted for utilizing it's radial dispersion as a 'stand alone' unit OR like a more conventional driver, using it's pistonic output for the bass frequencies as in the Unicorn (cutesy but apt name, actually *G*)...
Makes me wonder if the function of the surround in the DDD is to 'pluck off' the radial energy of the cone that would cause a 'back flow' of interference. A very specific form of 'damping', very selective. In that case, you'd seem to be absolutely spot on the use of an elastomer.
Hmmm...makes sense, actually, and it verifies what I hear when playing my versions. If placed on a flat surface, the driver becomes 'sealed'...acoustic suspension. The pistonic bass motion is radiated from the cone, but can't go as low as it can without a tuned base 'cabinet' or support. In my case, the PVC tube beneath it. Hell, I should tune them. *L*
On desktop, the available bass comes off as 'tight', the way the AR-3A's or the JBL C100/Century's used to sound. On a tube, the bass deepens and 'mellows' out. And your off to taking advantage of that....
Well, there's the design parameters. *L*
It just occurred to me... I've found a K.B. Pyle driver....Dale hisself suggested using an 'off the shelf' surround (gee I wonder what kind...) 😉
Your 'binary cone' sounds interesting...harks back to something familiar....something we've seen before....new and old...*L*
Does the plastic come in blue? *G*
...not to imply that the fine city of Knoxville is shadowy or otherwise sinister...😉
Well, yeah...there is that. Something occurs to me, given that a cone with low mass would/could be more reactive to a given voice coil of controlled vMax with other 'desirable' characteristics....
Given the GP DDD seems to be adapted for utilizing it's radial dispersion as a 'stand alone' unit OR like a more conventional driver, using it's pistonic output for the bass frequencies as in the Unicorn (cutesy but apt name, actually *G*)...
Makes me wonder if the function of the surround in the DDD is to 'pluck off' the radial energy of the cone that would cause a 'back flow' of interference. A very specific form of 'damping', very selective. In that case, you'd seem to be absolutely spot on the use of an elastomer.
Hmmm...makes sense, actually, and it verifies what I hear when playing my versions. If placed on a flat surface, the driver becomes 'sealed'...acoustic suspension. The pistonic bass motion is radiated from the cone, but can't go as low as it can without a tuned base 'cabinet' or support. In my case, the PVC tube beneath it. Hell, I should tune them. *L*
On desktop, the available bass comes off as 'tight', the way the AR-3A's or the JBL C100/Century's used to sound. On a tube, the bass deepens and 'mellows' out. And your off to taking advantage of that....
Well, there's the design parameters. *L*
It just occurred to me... I've found a K.B. Pyle driver....Dale hisself suggested using an 'off the shelf' surround (gee I wonder what kind...) 😉
Your 'binary cone' sounds interesting...harks back to something familiar....something we've seen before....new and old...*L*
Does the plastic come in blue? *G*
"Something old, something new. Something borrowed, something Blue."
*Sigh* We must do this thing. Besides, one of our 'mentors' is 'watching' and we should try to show off a little bit. 😉
...and I just had an interesting thought....more, later....
*Sigh* We must do this thing. Besides, one of our 'mentors' is 'watching' and we should try to show off a little bit. 😉
...and I just had an interesting thought....more, later....
"a cone with low mass would/could be more reactive to a given voice coil"
Yes, and the academia term is "mobility".
"Makes me wonder if the function of the surround in the DDD is to 'pluck off' the radial energy of the cone that would cause a 'back flow' of interference. A very specific form of 'damping', very selective. In that case, you'd seem to be absolutely spot on the use of an elastomer."
Yes, that is an intended function of a surround. But, the reason I use an elastomer coating is to tame the ringing inevitable with a cone made of a metal like aluminum.
"but can't go as low as it can without a tuned base cabinet"
The cone will only radiate bending waves down to the coincidence frequency, where the wave velocity drops below mach 1 (bending wave velocity is proportional to square root of frequency), below that Thiele-Small takes over. The enclosure at that point can become the transducer.
"Does the plastic come in blue?"
Well, the poly sheet I've been using is actually intended for water-color painting...so I say the limit is your imagination. 😀
Yes, and the academia term is "mobility".
"Makes me wonder if the function of the surround in the DDD is to 'pluck off' the radial energy of the cone that would cause a 'back flow' of interference. A very specific form of 'damping', very selective. In that case, you'd seem to be absolutely spot on the use of an elastomer."
Yes, that is an intended function of a surround. But, the reason I use an elastomer coating is to tame the ringing inevitable with a cone made of a metal like aluminum.
"but can't go as low as it can without a tuned base cabinet"
The cone will only radiate bending waves down to the coincidence frequency, where the wave velocity drops below mach 1 (bending wave velocity is proportional to square root of frequency), below that Thiele-Small takes over. The enclosure at that point can become the transducer.
"Does the plastic come in blue?"
Well, the poly sheet I've been using is actually intended for water-color painting...so I say the limit is your imagination. 😀
Last edited:
Oooooooh....*L* Then blue is a shoe....in. *smirk*
Mobility, schmobility...it'll move , quickly. *G* And the ringing is what we want to 'go away'. All I'd like to see is a coating that's easily repeatable, of a uniform thickness. Or perhaps using the EnAble pattern if that's where it should go for maximizing performance.
Robin's egg blue....it could be so cute. "Fits any decor".... "High SAF". *LOL*
Paisley.....nahh....😉
Mobility, schmobility...it'll move , quickly. *G* And the ringing is what we want to 'go away'. All I'd like to see is a coating that's easily repeatable, of a uniform thickness. Or perhaps using the EnAble pattern if that's where it should go for maximizing performance.
Robin's egg blue....it could be so cute. "Fits any decor".... "High SAF". *LOL*
Paisley.....nahh....😉
There's Absolutely Nothing like an omni that Works.
I revised the mountings on my Walsh tweets that are currently atop the 'front' V.3's, flipping the cone over to align it properly (vc up, base down). The dispersion isn't aimed at my ankles anymore, and (surprise!) it made That work. Better progress made with getting the APO Eq to work properly, and applying a 1/3 octave band set to the array. "By ear' I can get the array tuned to knock the resonances down and perk the tweets up...
I just have to avoid getting overly enthusiastic with the db's. Even broken in they, like any speaker, start getting a bit ragged when pushed. But I'm pleased that I can push them that hard at all...
Got to get the V.4's underway...*G* Push that envelope...
I revised the mountings on my Walsh tweets that are currently atop the 'front' V.3's, flipping the cone over to align it properly (vc up, base down). The dispersion isn't aimed at my ankles anymore, and (surprise!) it made That work. Better progress made with getting the APO Eq to work properly, and applying a 1/3 octave band set to the array. "By ear' I can get the array tuned to knock the resonances down and perk the tweets up...
I just have to avoid getting overly enthusiastic with the db's. Even broken in they, like any speaker, start getting a bit ragged when pushed. But I'm pleased that I can push them that hard at all...
Got to get the V.4's underway...*G* Push that envelope...
...on a conceptual conundrum...
...playing about with this...aluminum 'frame', inner cone of paper/plastic/lighter gauge alum...
Excuse the 'random lines'; I'm not a SketchUp 'regular' but 3D is easier to play about with within it. And it does allow one to make mistakes cheaply. *G*
...playing about with this...aluminum 'frame', inner cone of paper/plastic/lighter gauge alum...
Excuse the 'random lines'; I'm not a SketchUp 'regular' but 3D is easier to play about with within it. And it does allow one to make mistakes cheaply. *G*
Attachments
The trainwreck of thought is that the 'frame' will allow pistonic motion, whereas the 'windows' will allow lighter materials for wave radiation...materials that couldn't withstand the pistonic forces involved. One could (perhaps) layer different materials, truncated cones stacked vertically...
...besides, I've got all this 5 mil alum and I'm kinda hooked on 'cones of color'... *L* Since 'serious audio types' tend to dispense with grilles and the like...
Yes, I'm kidding. But black is So 20th century.... 😉
...besides, I've got all this 5 mil alum and I'm kinda hooked on 'cones of color'... *L* Since 'serious audio types' tend to dispense with grilles and the like...
Yes, I'm kidding. But black is So 20th century.... 😉
Hi Jerryrigged,
I am still here, still watching, listening. Learning.
.005" Aluminum is too thick. This is a bending wave driver at its heart and a small VC does not have the energy to produce strong enough waves to give you much volume without pushing the cone to its limits.
If you want the cone to get to the lower registers, i.e. like our TLS-4, (200 hz to 40KHz without a cabinet), then some pistonic motion is required. This requires a frame and a surround. The surround keeps the cone centered and prevents break-up and or standing waves. The surround also absorbs a great deal of the back-wave and eliminates phase discontinuity or cancellation.
Again, for now, keep it simple.
To prevent ringing, again think in simple terms as to what is readily available from your local hardware or crafts shop. Make a mandrill the shape and size of your cone. Then try thin sheets of foam, 1/8", 1/4", Felt, expanded neoprene rubber.
Make an exact duplicate of the cone in this material. Simply insert it into the cone inside. You do not have to glue. Your experimenting...
Keep up the good work and all of you enjoy Your music.
Dale
I am still here, still watching, listening. Learning.
.005" Aluminum is too thick. This is a bending wave driver at its heart and a small VC does not have the energy to produce strong enough waves to give you much volume without pushing the cone to its limits.
If you want the cone to get to the lower registers, i.e. like our TLS-4, (200 hz to 40KHz without a cabinet), then some pistonic motion is required. This requires a frame and a surround. The surround keeps the cone centered and prevents break-up and or standing waves. The surround also absorbs a great deal of the back-wave and eliminates phase discontinuity or cancellation.
Again, for now, keep it simple.
To prevent ringing, again think in simple terms as to what is readily available from your local hardware or crafts shop. Make a mandrill the shape and size of your cone. Then try thin sheets of foam, 1/8", 1/4", Felt, expanded neoprene rubber.
Make an exact duplicate of the cone in this material. Simply insert it into the cone inside. You do not have to glue. Your experimenting...
Keep up the good work and all of you enjoy Your music.
Dale
Follow-up:
I would also recommend sticking with Aluminum or Titanium for your material. These are proven and work well. Stiffness and density are very important. The material may have no strength while laying on the table in sheet form, but made into a cone or cylinder and it gets pretty stiff.
Mags is also on the right track with Carbon Fiber, but this is pretty complicated for the average person and has somewhat of a learning curve. At least it did for us.
Graphene is also a very, very interesting material for this application.
Best
Dale
I would also recommend sticking with Aluminum or Titanium for your material. These are proven and work well. Stiffness and density are very important. The material may have no strength while laying on the table in sheet form, but made into a cone or cylinder and it gets pretty stiff.
Mags is also on the right track with Carbon Fiber, but this is pretty complicated for the average person and has somewhat of a learning curve. At least it did for us.
Graphene is also a very, very interesting material for this application.
Best
Dale
I'm assuming your referring to your .001" Al foil buckling under high force loads...