Planar for infra

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jump to Latest
#61
SY said:
No, it hasn't. Merely repeating the assertion doesn't make it any more true.
Click to expand...

The study conclusions said exactly :
* In a small room dipole loudspeaker reproduces the temporal structure of the bass signal better than the monopole loudspeaker.
* At most of the analysis frequencies the monopole bass loses the ability to reproduce the modulated signal.
 
#70
Tiburce2 said:
Yes, Mister Professor...

I am going to resume my studies in physics,
and i come back... in one or two years.
Click to expand...

Hi,

There is nothing clever about being evasive at all.

You quote stuff you think agrees with you, that you
probably have no idea what it actually means, given
you duck questions related to far simpler concepts.

rgds, sreten.

The issue here is maximum SPL of an open baffle
given the inevitable baffle loss of an OB, and the
fact it leads to the inevitable conclusion OB is
useless for very low bass, it can't do the SPL.
 
Last edited:
#71
"maximum SPL of an open baffle given the inevitable baffle loss of an OB"

It seems that this loss is maximum on the same plan of the OB, or the membrane for a large planar sub, and null or minimum in front it.
I asked a question here about the uniformity of this loss along directions of the emission : no response.
What about the influence on SPL of the ground where the planar is, which is a natural infinite baffle : not the least information.

I mentionned here that owing to the multiple wall reflexion in a room, the loss in some specific directions could be largely compensated relatively to the surface of the walls and/or volume of the room.
Nobody found the opportunity to give some scientific lights on this line of research.

Perhaps i have not the scientific background of some of the members of this forum, but i see that few of them are interested to show it, in giving simple answer on simple "duck" questions.
 
Last edited:
#72
Tiburce2 said:
I mentionned here that owing to the multiple wall reflexion in a room, the loss in some specific directions could be largely compensated relatively to the surface of the walls and/or volume of the room.
Nobody found the opportunity to give some scientific lights on this line of research.
Click to expand...

Actually, they (we) did. You just chose to ignore it.

Let's try it very slowly. What is the wavelength of 20Hz? And the period?
 
#73
I remark that the loss phenomenon is not specific to open baffle speakers. Even in close emitting system, you can increase the SPL by baffling (see the well know Voice of the Theatre and its wings) and/or by putting it in a wave guide or horn, which is available also for "normal" cones boxes.

Why not equally insisting on that loss for non OB speakers ?
Are you a "OB racist" ?
 
#74
"What is the wavelength of 20Hz? "

Considerably longer than at 2000Hz, I know that's the problem. I do not denie the existence of it.

The question is that the cancellation in a point exists only where the direct and rear waves have made the same length way.
That does not equally appear in every point of the spheric space around the speaker, when you are in real open space experiment.
Has science drawn a graphic representation of the mute areas, and their extension relatively to the wavelength ? Can you show it?
Do you mean that all the space around is completely mute when the speaker emitts a certain wavelength ?

In a room, wall reflexion modifies these conditions.
When the OB is posed vertically on the ground, the ground is a baffle for half space.
All this constitue a substantial modification of the phenomenon. Does science have modelised it ?
My intuition suppose that this is relative to the wavelength.. In which proportion ?
Does science give a clear answer ? Or are you in the same position as me : making suppositions?
 
#75
Fifteen years ago, if someone told me that I did not understand the basic physical principals of loudspeaker sound propagation, or the many reasons behind audio sound quality, for that matter, I would have been greatly offended. Looking back on that "me" I realize how little I actually knew at the time(And how little I still Know). There are different levels of "knowledge", and there is a progression of ones knowledge over time,depending on how interested one is in the subject to be learned. One thing I know for certain; To those with a certain level of knowledge , those with more can seem like objectivist jerks, when in actuality, they're just frustrated with the others inability to "see" what seems so obvious.
 
#80
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom