As the person MJK was replying to, I did not see a profanity in his post and initially assumed you were referring to something that had been deleted by a moderator. After MJKs response to you I reread the post and assume you are referring to a ******* contest as a profanity? Since this is an accurate and descriptive term can you suggest a better one that you would not consider profane?
Is there a point to any of this
Nothing here seems worth getting on such bad terms with each other
Nothing here seems worth getting on such bad terms with each other
Different societies, different upbringings. Not an offensive phrase from this side of the table and I was brought up in what many would consider a rather prudish environment.
EDIT: I echo tinitus' sentiments. Let us move on shall we?
EDIT: I echo tinitus' sentiments. Let us move on shall we?
Folk don't post or read here because they are scientists or engineers or experts, although they might be.
They come because they are enthusiasts and enjoy discussing their violon d'Ingres and because they are sometimes looking for solutions to problems.
I'm neither a scientist or engineer. Sometimes a post here that took five minutes to read leads me to hours of research just so I might actually understand that five minutes worth of insight. I've found that the more arcane discussion and argument amongst the experts has lead to to the best insights for me.
Also, for most part, I've noticed the experts here are usually very helpful to novices and not particularly patronizing.
What some folk sometimes regard as untactfulness is more a matter of what experts are good at - which is cutting directly to the chase: they don't usually have to cast around for the scent of the right idea because they already know where it is. So, sometimes their posts come in two sections.
1. here is an explanation but it's limited.
2. if you want a better insight you're going have to apply the math, physics, etc leading to greater understanding. This leaves their readers with options: Accept the rudimentary explanation for what it is - rudimentary;😛 Acquire more background;😀 Grumble about the the inadequacy of the insight provided;😎 Get really, really furious;😱 Etc
.
Experts, etc, are also human with the usual frailties.
I think there's room here for participants at all levels of competence. But that doesn't mean lowest common denominator, either. The folk who run this site seem to think so too, and they provide very good moderation, which is necessary, because we are gods and slobs, and everything in between, inhabiting the same space. Fortunately, it's a metaphysical space and therefore infinite.
They come because they are enthusiasts and enjoy discussing their violon d'Ingres and because they are sometimes looking for solutions to problems.
I'm neither a scientist or engineer. Sometimes a post here that took five minutes to read leads me to hours of research just so I might actually understand that five minutes worth of insight. I've found that the more arcane discussion and argument amongst the experts has lead to to the best insights for me.
Also, for most part, I've noticed the experts here are usually very helpful to novices and not particularly patronizing.
What some folk sometimes regard as untactfulness is more a matter of what experts are good at - which is cutting directly to the chase: they don't usually have to cast around for the scent of the right idea because they already know where it is. So, sometimes their posts come in two sections.
1. here is an explanation but it's limited.
2. if you want a better insight you're going have to apply the math, physics, etc leading to greater understanding. This leaves their readers with options: Accept the rudimentary explanation for what it is - rudimentary;😛 Acquire more background;😀 Grumble about the the inadequacy of the insight provided;😎 Get really, really furious;😱 Etc
.Experts, etc, are also human with the usual frailties.
I think there's room here for participants at all levels of competence. But that doesn't mean lowest common denominator, either. The folk who run this site seem to think so too, and they provide very good moderation, which is necessary, because we are gods and slobs, and everything in between, inhabiting the same space. Fortunately, it's a metaphysical space and therefore infinite.
I thought we we going for a new name for this thread. Otherwise, the discussion seems on topic but the thread seems misplaced. 😀
Jeez, I had to work an extra day this week and look what I missed.
Of the two sim's above, the bottom one is essentially the same as posted earlier. It includes a port length of 5".
The top sim needs to replace the previous which was posted incorrectly. I chose an image I had saved from my earlier work without checking the background...I beg forgiveness...
The top sim above has a port length of 2.5 inches. That is the only change. Some work could be done to smooth the bumps @ 200 hz and the knee @ ~40 hz. For simplicity I chose not to.
Both display the same infinite baffle response, ie. the blue dashed line.
As they are, I believe they support my assertion that the MLQW design process allows tailoring to a desired response to complement room gain.
Last edited:
What some folk sometimes regard as untactfulness is more a matter of what experts are good at - which is cutting directly to the chase: they don't usually have to cast around for the scent of the right idea because they already know where it is. So, sometimes their posts come in two sections.
1. here is an explanation but it's limited.
2. if you want a better insight you're going have to apply the math, physics, etc leading to greater understanding. This leaves their readers with options: Accept the rudimentary explanation for what it is - rudimentary;😛 Acquire more background;😀 Grumble about the the inadequacy of the insight provided;😎 Get really, really furious;😱 Etc
This is one of the most insiteful posts that I have seen in a long time.
I've heard it said that I can't be an expert because I post here - imagine that!
And on another post I was given a long list of things that I needed to do to "prove my point" - when I stopped laughing I just ignored it.
I post here to teach people some of what I know. If they think that I'm here to argue, well that's not at all the case. Is that arrogant? Yea, probably. Do I have time for anything else? Nope!
Next person to whine, complain, dribble, one up, copy this as a quote or do anything to this thread other than talk about TL's will be doing time. You are wearing the mod staff's patience very thin gentlemen.
Okay, so I read that the cross-section of the pipe should be greater than the surface area of the speakers. What happens if it's not?
I'm not thinking of a box with a smaller pipe attached, that would be a bass reflex. But what if you had, say, a 7"x7" pipe and you put four 6" speakers in it?
I'm not thinking of a box with a smaller pipe attached, that would be a bass reflex. But what if you had, say, a 7"x7" pipe and you put four 6" speakers in it?
It's pretty hard to say because the shape of cross section variation would effect performance. I assume this is very hard to model in somthing like MathCad because the model would be specific for one case only.
Generally speaking, the response coming from the port is less than it could be.
Provide a better description, or a drawing for response sim's.
I wondered after posting it that I was stating the obvious. However, I know for myself that it only became obvious after doing several sim's.
Some things I just need to see and manipulate to gain an intuitive sense about them.
Hi Keriwena,
IMO, Your suggestion should work if you choose drivers that can withstand high compression ratios like metal-cone types and restricting the BW to be below about 150 Hz.
If mounted close in a row at the end of a fairly long pipe and least stuffed to a third of the total length counted from the closed end and making the assumption (IME ok.) that this arrangement can be simulated as a offset single driver quarter wave pipe = OD QWP using HR: lends to the results that can be seen in the picture below:
b
Attachments
There's an interesting article in audioXpress about the effects of stuffing on transmission lines.
Actual tests were done to see if stuffing reduces the speed of sound. Short answer: Yes
It's available here: http://www.audioamateurinc.com/digital/ax/issue/410/
Actual tests were done to see if stuffing reduces the speed of sound. Short answer: Yes
It's available here: http://www.audioamateurinc.com/digital/ax/issue/410/
I don't think that would change the speed of sound but increase the distance it has to cover.
Shorter answer is No. One of the many TL myths was that if you increase the stuffing density, you can make the line shorter because it slowed the speed of sound. Very early in his work to develop his TL worksheets, Martin King disproved this. I haven't read the article you linked but I will perhaps do so later. Were the claimed effects significant, moderate, or insignificant, and to what extent could they affect a TL design?
Paul
Paul
- Status
- Not open for further replies.