Horn vs. Waveguide

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jump to Latest
#181
soongsc said:

Well, aside from the so called "noise", decay is significantly different between the two which is cannot be otherwise explained unless they are using different foam material or foam shape. I am assuming same wave guide shape and size. But if they are different sizes, then the story would be different.
Click to expand...

It is different thats the point. Its the measurement setup NOT the device. They are the same device, but measured with different setups.
 
#182
ZilchLab said:
I'm just trying to keep some order here vis-à-vis the topic.

The Gedlee waveguide CSD doesn't look good.

Gedlee provided another dataset for the the waveguide, from another source, postulating that there was a measurement noise issue.

That didn't look good, either.

Processed "low noise," it's more what Gedlee expects.

O.K., let's look at the original data for both the waveguide and "horn," similarly processed, and we can pretend a whole bunch of stuff about the comparative results.

If the "horn" CSD remains constant, then it's a stretch to blame the air conditioner, probably.... 😛
Click to expand...


That's your point of view and its probably not universal. To me the CSDs look very good, especially the second one where the "noise" is gone. SO lets NOT use the bad one, lets use the good one!!

And its not a stretch to blaim the measurement setup, especially if thats what it is and I showed it.

Lets try and keep this fair, OK? Or is that too much to ask?
 
#183
tinitus said:
Its quite funny to think of all those years we have been fighting with removing anything in front of the drivers
These days even commercial design dont use anything in front of drivers ... is it called grilles or frontcloth ?
And now you want us to place a big chunck of foam in front of a tweeter ...
Click to expand...


Are we so closed minded that we can't change the way we do things? Even it it works better? Just stick to the same old, same old, and be happy?
 
#184
Another view upon request. Noise spectra is taken before main pulse. Don't know if this is good for you Gentleman?
 

Attachments

  • untitled-1 copy.gif
    untitled-1 copy.gif
    44.5 KB · Views: 732
#185
gedlee said:



Are we so closed minded that we can't change the way we do things? Even it it works better? Just stick to the same old, same old, and be happy?
Click to expand...


Nope, if it sounds better it is better, but I just found it to be kind of "funny" ... now I just wonder how many other things we may have to reconsider ... but you know how hard it is to get rit of old habbits :bawling: 🙂
 
#187
tinitus said:
Nope, if it sounds better it is better, but I just found it to be kind of "funny" ... now I just wonder how many other things we may have to reconsider ... but you know how hard it is to get rit of old habbits :bawling: 🙂
Click to expand...


As I got more and more into audio I found it wise to throw away almost everything that was held as gospel. So much was based on weak grounds that I came to trust virtually none of it. So if my position is unique and unconventional then so be it. I'm not interested in doing things the same old way if its wrong.
 
#190
gedlee said:
And its not a stretch to blaim the measurement setup, especially if thats what it is and I showed it.

Lets try and keep this fair, OK? Or is that too much to ask?
Click to expand...

That's what I'm trying to do. Presumably, the same measurement setup was used to acquire the initial data for both the waveguide and the "horn".

Imperfect, perhaps, but let's see the results, similarly "processed."

I am certainly opposed to offering up results from different locations using different methods and equipment as valid for comparison here, and that, after all, is the topic of the thread.
 
#192
ZilchLab said:


That's what I'm trying to do. Presumably, the same measurement setup was used to acquire the initial data for both the waveguide and the "horn".

Imperfect, perhaps, but let's see the results, similarly "processed."

I am certainly opposed to offering up results from different locations using different methods and equipment as valid for comparison here, and that, after all, is the topic of the thread.
Click to expand...

Then if you use the original data you have to conclude that the tails in the waveguide CSD are noise and not something coming out of the device because that was shown not to be the case. If there is no decay in the tails then it cannot be from something whose energy has ceased. If there is a decay then its possible, but its not possible if there is no decay.

And I don't see the point of throwing out data that completely agrees in the early part of the decay - the important part.

Worse case you have to throw out any CSD from the recent data because it was not taken to do a CSD on. CSD is not that meaningful to me anyways, expecially not if the data can get all twisted around in interpretation like this has.

The polar plots are unaffected by this "noise" issue and I'm perfectly willing to stand by those alone for my conclusions.
 
#194
gedlee said:
Then if you use the original data you have to conclude that the tails in the waveguide CSD are noise and not something coming out of the device because that was shown not to be the case. If there is no decay in the tails then it cannot be from something whose energy has ceased. If there is a decay then its possible, but its not possible if there is no decay.
Click to expand...

Fine, then subtract the noise via post processing from both original data sets, is what I'm saying. The same tails, or some of them, appear in the EconoWave CSD.

We have different agendas here. You want to know more about your waveguide's performance and cherry-pic the data from different sources for your purpose. I want to compare EconoWave and ESP performance under the same conditions, not ESP measured with a 10 dB lower noise floor....
 
#197
gedlee said:


Well that can't happen now so I guess that you are out of luck.

I don't need to know more about my waveguides performance. I did this for you - remember. And now I'm starting to regret it🙄
Click to expand...
I would too. It's okay to just use some data to explain the concept, but you don't want to reveal so much unless you are prepared for absolute scrutinizing.
 
#199
poptart said:


Isn't that exactly what was just posted by jzagaja?
Click to expand...

Not to my understanding, no. The original data are here:

http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=1516725#post1516725

The "uncorrected" CSDs are in the following post.


soongsc said:
Is it possible to show the noise for the other wave guide data?
Click to expand...

Exactly what I have been asking for.... :yes:


gedlee said:


Well that can't happen now so I guess that you are out of luck.
Click to expand...

Sure it can. I'm not asking for a "Do-over," merely post-processing of the original, comparable data, with the noise metric....

gedlee said:


I don't need to know more about my waveguides performance. I did this for you - remember. And now I'm starting to regret it🙄
Click to expand...

Not on MY account, I would hope....
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom