Actually I use a 5 inch mouth radius, but a much larger mouth. I also use a 1" throat. Thats what made it look so small and wide.
The ESP10 at www.ai-audio.com has a 10" waveguide with a 1" throat and 3" mouth radius so you can see how it works. A 2" throat on a waveguide this small would not work nearly as well as the 1" throat (they never do). This is as small as I would ever want to make a waveguide.
The ESP10 at www.ai-audio.com has a 10" waveguide with a 1" throat and 3" mouth radius so you can see how it works. A 2" throat on a waveguide this small would not work nearly as well as the 1" throat (they never do). This is as small as I would ever want to make a waveguide.
Dr. Geddes,
Have you ever considered working with DDS to make your waveguides? Having a major horn/wg manufacturer being able to produce a small number of your WG's might help market penetration. The ENG 1-90 already looks like it might be similar to your 10" WG. How about pushing them to make the 12" and 15" versions?
You know, try to leverage their economy of scale.
Have you ever considered working with DDS to make your waveguides? Having a major horn/wg manufacturer being able to produce a small number of your WG's might help market penetration. The ENG 1-90 already looks like it might be similar to your 10" WG. How about pushing them to make the 12" and 15" versions?
You know, try to leverage their economy of scale.
Again, this reads very logical, point source plus delayed ring radiator effects I try to imagine. Would a way to smooth this out be to make path lengths to the diffraction edge distributed, that is make the roundover not smooth toroid shape basically but rather a ribbed toroid (or as the probably most perfect solution, a ribbed LeCleach'h profile), with some "pulsating radius" along the circumference, and a smooth transition into the WG profile?gedlee said:
More generally asking, would dividing secondary emissions of any type into distributed, non-coincident sections improve things (I saw that for example in the zig-zag edge of the faceplate of the RAAL ribbon tweeters)?
- Klaus
JoshK said:
From what I see our business doesn't work that way. If there were really any serious interest in waveguides I could supply the industry myself, but there isn't really enough business to make a profit. I have to be careful not to get into a relationship where I teach the partner all they need to know to make the worlds best waveguides and then I walk away with a handshake. To be protected I would need some considerable equity in what's being done and that is generally a show stopper.
I'd entertain any offer, but it needs to be serious wherein I can make a decent profit for my time and expertise.
I'm having a batch of 15", 12" and 10" waveguides made in Thailand as we speak. Delivery is TBD. Having them made in the US is a dead end because of cost.
KSTR said:
Very intuitive and something that I am pursuing. Another option is to make the mouth elliptical, which works well too. But I don't talk about things like this that I am working on until I sort out the pros and cons and the potential patent implications.
gedlee said:
Sounds great! I'll be curious of the price, $250 per wg was a bit steep for a lot people unfortunately...the popular DDS Eng 1-90 goes for $80-100 though, so people would probably pay a reasonable premium over that for a true Geddes waveguide. I know I would.
Will these all be 60 degree wg's? Any plans on a 90? Also will you be using the 6 degree throat (6.5?) entry that B&C uses? Do you know what the other popular manufacturers use for teh exit angle of the CD?
augerpro said:
The waveguides are all 90°.
I can't compete with DDS for cost, I'm not even going to try. But with mine you get a foam plug, which they can't sell without risking a lawsuite. Mine are very solid fiberglass not thin vacuum molded plastic.
FWIW and all that, the DDS ENG 1-90 isn't a thin plastic WG its pretty darn thick and non-resonant. I have a pair, that is why I know. I'd guesstimate it is between 1/4" & 1/2" thick.
JoshK said:
1/2" I would doubt, but 1/4" is possible. The tool alone for something like that would be $30-50,000. But no injection molded part is going to be as rigid as glass.
Guys, there just isn't a business in this at those prices.
Compared to the information and discussion Earl has provided us on audio reproduction, the waveguides are like the plastic freebie in a box of breakfast cereal.
Viewed like that, the purchase price is reasonable.
Thanks Earl.
Best,
Mike Spence
Viewed like that, the purchase price is reasonable.
Thanks Earl.
Best,
Mike Spence
I'm sure they are competent parts, but they are made to be mass produced and I can't compete with that.
If the sound is much better, your are in a different league. Nothing to worry about.🙂gedlee said:
soongsc said:
All data points to the fact that sound quality is not a marketable attribute. The "claim" of good sound quality is, but all one needs to do that is to get the "testimony" of some sound guru. People just don't recognize good sound quality when they hear it and don't really care much when they do. Sure there are people at this site for whom sound quality may be a highly desirable feature, but there are very few in that category and its not enough to make a business out of.
OK my wording was inadequate 🙁
What I meant was that for $500 (or thereabouts) you get the benefit of Earl's input into this discussion. Oh, and a free pair of waveguides...
Cheers,
Mike
What I meant was that for $500 (or thereabouts) you get the benefit of Earl's input into this discussion. Oh, and a free pair of waveguides...
Cheers,
Mike
I get lots of feedback from various people, some old colleagues, recording studio, schools. Normally I never go there and say how good my system is, but just let them enjoy, and understand why I focus on specific technology. Most people provide very detail feedback which help me discover what I might have missed.gedlee said:
One day I was just demonstrating the differences of absolute polarity, and a teacher clearly identified what he thought was the more accurate reproduction of sound, without me even giving a hint or asking him to do it. His selection was the same as mine for the same CD in a $100+ DVD player.
Jim Thiel also was quite clear in his explanations when he started out around the US. I heard him speak in Dallas. I think it's important to listen to what customers will tell you, and hope they will notice things that they only tell you.
I recently did a test where I sent several people, all believed to be audiophiles, a passage of a song that I had modified. One was heavily clipped and distorted and the other clean. Virtually everyone prefered the distorted one. Should I listen to these "customers"? Do people really know what accuracy is? They seldom prefer it.
And absolute polarity ... I won't go there.
And absolute polarity ... I won't go there.
Actually people that know will comment specifically what part of a passage is not as correct. Normally they should be able to be very specific identifying voice, instrument, etc. and be able to identify the few seconds where any problem might occur. Some will provide general comments. I'm not saying all will be helpful, but we just find the ones that are. One gentlemen listed to two different models that I designed, pointed out one had sonic characteristics that was more desireable (used higher grade components), but a model that was using lower grade components revealed more detail. After studying some measurements and listening, I was able to determine 45cm of internal cable that made the difference. Very interesting experience.
