They say 100hrs of FEA - finite element analysis - I think I they mean cpu hrs to do finite element analysis (FEA). Thats different than CAD which is just the mechanical drafting. The FEA will do things like model the resonance modes, stress, max displacement, heat transfer etc. depending on how complex the model is and how powerful the computer is, it doesn’t mean much without more context. 100 hrs on a parallel cluster with 4000 CPU’s is different than 100hrs on a quad core i8 cpu.
Whoever wrote the piece doesn't know much of anything. CAD means everything in the design process, with drafting just the final step.
jeff
Is this proof that inter driving spacing in a WMTMW doesnt matter if listening on the central tweeter axis.
I would say that they sum only correct at one point in space with this driver placement. A flat baffle with much closer driver spacing would be superior IMO. But they would look much less impressive of course and it would probably make crossover design a little more complicated.
Regards
Charles
Regards
Charles
Well, in the aerospace business, CAD specifically means the digital drawing or solid model. It might be different in other industries. FE modelling for stiffness and strength is a separate activity by a different group of people, and they start with the solid model to build the FEM. Detailed FEM models of specific high stress areas are created to support fatigue analysis. Dynamic/vibration modelling is yet a different activity, and they usually start with the strength FEM but they may change the mesh and use special software. Aero/CFD modelling starts with the CAD solid model to get the outer moldline shape, but again, they have their own software.
When we (in Aerospace) want to describe all of the computer based tools we use, we use the collective term CAE - computer aided engineering.
The term CAD means computer aided design, and design engineering is that specific subset of engineering that manages the geometric size/shape of the part and manages the drawing release process. Designers don't do strength work, fatigue work, aero work, metallurgy work, etc...
Regarding the original post: That speaker is overly stylized in my opinion, with a lot of cosmetic bling which appear to have some technical function, but are actually just cosmetic. It looks like there was some missed opportunity to reduce high frequency diffraction. $650k... wow. In my part of the world, $650k buys a pretty nice house.
Yes, as I was writing my post it occurred to me that the aerospace industry is quite unique, with so much specialization. We hired an engineer who had worked for a high end sporting goods company, and he has designed tennis rackets, golf clubs, bicycle chain sprockets, bicycle seats, and dozens of other things. Oftentimes it was a team of two or three engineers for the whole project. So I understand somewhat where you are coming from ... j.
No, it's just proof that the people who designed the speaker don't understand how sound radiation works.
Even if you sat absolutely perfectly on axis, the vertical off axis response will be terrible. And the vertical radiation is arguably the most important, because radiation into the floor and ceiling screws up the in-room sound more than from the sidewalls; in fact some reflections off the sidewalls can be useful.