Let's just let the boys play!
Finally, after learning to take measurements they will start to understand how tranducers work acoustically. No hamsters harmed!
Finally, after learning to take measurements they will start to understand how tranducers work acoustically. No hamsters harmed!
Well, I'm not sure why taking measurements should be required.Let's just let the boys play!
Finally, after learning to take measurements they will start to understand how tranducers work acoustically. No hamsters harmed!
Measurements would just confirm the basic physics.....which should be intuitive.
You place a woofer(s) in pretty much free air, you're not getting any bass. 🙂
No free lunch with this kind of thing.
Dave.
Dealing with HiFi since late 70ties, i have finally reached the goal of bass-texture, or call it "no boom bass", or articulated bass. That is dipole bass. Yes you throw away efficiency, but tell me Dave, when was efficiency the dominant factor for authentic reproduction of music?
I´m sorry if you havent had the opportunity to listen to a dipole system.
You are welcome home to me anyday. 🙂
I´m sorry if you havent had the opportunity to listen to a dipole system.
You are welcome home to me anyday. 🙂
"Evolution"???? 🙂
Dave.
Dealing with HiFi since late 70ties, i have finally reached the goal of bass-texture, or call it "no boom bass", or articulated bass. That is dipole bass. Yes you throw away efficiency, but tell me Dave, when was efficiency the dominant factor for authentic reproduction of music?
I´m sorry if you havent had the opportunity to listen to a dipole system.
You are welcome home to me anyday. 🙂
Hehehe.
You might want to read my posts again. 🙂 I'm not dissing dipole bass....just inferring that a near free-air implementation (as the guys are discussing here) takes the trade-off much too far regards efficiency.
You might also do a little basic research on some of my other postings/history. My primary system in the listening room has been a dipole bass setup (of one form or another) for nearly forty years. I'm well familiar with the advantages/disadvantages of dipole bass.
Thank you for the invite though. But I'll pass.
Cheers,
Dave.
A better reference for SL's analysis and thinking on this is here:
Frontiers
A U-frame construction is (intuitively) somewhere between a closed-box woofer and a symmetrical dipole setup.
Your listening environment and specifics of the U-frame construction are big variables here.
John Kreskovsky is a big advocate for U-frame woofers and has some excellent analysis on his website.
Dave.
Frontiers
A U-frame construction is (intuitively) somewhere between a closed-box woofer and a symmetrical dipole setup.
Your listening environment and specifics of the U-frame construction are big variables here.
John Kreskovsky is a big advocate for U-frame woofers and has some excellent analysis on his website.
Dave.
Any bass speaker is coupled to the floor and walls, typically below 200Hz - even a cardioid. Directivity patterns loose their meaning to large extent. A dipole bass near wall is more like a cardioid with it's null to the listener...
Speaker Placement 101: How to Fight Boundary Interference
This transitioning of real world total distribution of sound energy is very diffiut to get measured. RTA or long-gating room measurements tells about spectral balance, which is actually most important.
Speaker Placement 101: How to Fight Boundary Interference
This transitioning of real world total distribution of sound energy is very diffiut to get measured. RTA or long-gating room measurements tells about spectral balance, which is actually most important.
Any bass speaker is coupled to the floor and walls, typically below 200Hz - even a cardioid. Directivity patterns loose their meaning to large extent.
I suspect my preference is largely down to the lack of a resonant enclosure, my U frames are shallow and crossed below the cavity resonance.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
- Home
- Loudspeakers
- Planars & Exotics
- Multiple stacked dipole bass