The higher the Q, the lower energy is required to induce it. And you don't seem to understand filters as even a very low impulse can induce a high amplitude in the response. Don't you understand it doesn't need a continuous energy but a high Q got a huge decay even if it's a short burst?
Well, which page? I thought a misunderstanding was not possible when I said I wanted to know the context. If you don't know the context or conditions, how's that claim not void?
You've given it great thought but only in the way you thought is the only (or just best) way.
To place damped braces and make them work perfectly requires the exact same methods of locating resonances and effectiveness of bracing and its frequencies. But it also requires additionally to evaluate the absorption (which you do not include in your 'light method' - at least you never wrote about that). So it's not crude but more sophisticated since it has to include more aspects and consequences. Which should count as 'more elegance' too. So if you insist of comparing the finesse, you are considering far less details and consequent building principles. Making heavy enclosures work perfectly is sometimes a lot harder than a light build (which may or may not exclude some music to be reproduced greatly but is only discovered month later) but that does not make it inferior. In fact,
what low level 'low Q resonances' or other noise level means opposed to even single note distortion (high Q res) still means the speaker is able to reproduce more acceptable and enjoyable music genres. Or in other words, it can fulfill a much larger range of listeners requirements.
Please, don't see that as a personal attack. You've build great speakers and you've got so many satisfied customers. That shows you're doing a lot things right. But please try to understand that there are things that you're not doing (or vehemently denying) that work well too! Your speakers excel at some aspects but please don't deny other principles working because you want to sell more or feel your status and competence is rivaled by someone (though I don't sell anything, not even on eBay).
Well, that still disqualifies these speakers for certain music. Don't you think a speaker should be able to reproduce ANY music?
Well, no. But if we keep contradicting each other we're not going to get anywhere. Maybe Google it?
Well, if you mean the primary break-up resonance (which is what gets pushed up by ceramic and diamond coatings), then they do have something below. They have lots of acoustic output below, the whole of the intended pass-band, in fact. And that's what I've been saying all along - even if you push the resonant frequency of a panel up beyond the intended pass-band, there is still acoustic output below that. So I don't get what you're saying.
Dave, I don't feel that your tone here is acceptable. I'm trying to contribute something to a discussion. Saying that to someone is just rude. It's not what diyaudio should be like.
I don't doubt that. You've done great work. But don't you think your speakers could improve if you wouldn't deny proven aspects? I don't claim your speakers are bad at all but some things could still improve if you'd not stuck in denial of alternatives. I know what you are capable of but I don't know why you refuse to even look at other principles.
So only your music choice is what your customers may listen to to not discover problems? Gee, don't you ever think about other customers or listeners?
I beg to differ, most of your contributions are deflections of criticism rather than actual information.
I use what i need, Herer is a monopole cabinet for a 16” TAD. The cabinet has a lot more work to do than a subwoofer with pu-push drivers. Sidewalls are akin to constrained layer, baffle, top are dolubkle thickness, extensive matrix bracing, the driver tightly coupled to the box and all that material to share in sucking up the reactive energy.
The job the cabinet has to do in a push-push sub is much easier given greatly reduced input energy and a much smaller bandwidth.
A couple notes:
First The above speaker goes lower than many subwoofers.
Second, in plywood every transition from 1 ply to the next, with a change in grain direction is a pretty well damped.
dave
No, I can't present your music choices. That's why I asked. However, there were a lot of ppl who were immensely proud of their speakers and which absolutely excelled with their choice of music but I was able after listening to it for just 5 minutes to name titles on which they performed mediocre to really badly.
That's very inconsequential, at the highest air velocity and active surface (end of the onken ports) you've missed out to enforce the box - the back is not double layered, which needs it a lot more than ie. the top.
So it goes below 20 Hz?
Well, that's an inherited trait of plywood, every layer is 90° to the next. So it technically doesn't matter or change anything. I thought you surely know that since you seem to use almost exclusively plywood. Did you mention it because you've used the grain in a special angle like 45° or so? That produces a hell of a lot scrapwood though.