Why do you think that recording studios would be a prime market?
I ask because right now no one on this forum has any clue what your device is capable of. Can it reproduce a flat 20-20k? Is it only a high-frequency, mid-frequency, or low-frequency device? How loud can it reproduce audio before distorting? What is the efficiency of your device? And does the motor and rotation of the device raise the noise floor so that you can not play audio at low levels without high levels of noise?
I think properly answering these questions, and possibly even including charts graphs and actual test data, would bring many of the doubters to stop having "an edge". Also, if we are to not assume that we know what you know, why don't you stop assuming that you know what we know? Maybe you could even attempt to educate us on what "you know", and explain some things and answer some questions about the actual performance of the device. A rough frequency response graph does not really need an anechoic chamber, many people on these forums do these rough tests right at home. Remember, no one here is doubting that your device makes sound, but rather, can it reproduce music, and do it well?
-Justin
Oh, btw, in post #25, I think the word you were looking for was "definitely". Always double check your spell check...
I ask because right now no one on this forum has any clue what your device is capable of. Can it reproduce a flat 20-20k? Is it only a high-frequency, mid-frequency, or low-frequency device? How loud can it reproduce audio before distorting? What is the efficiency of your device? And does the motor and rotation of the device raise the noise floor so that you can not play audio at low levels without high levels of noise?
I think properly answering these questions, and possibly even including charts graphs and actual test data, would bring many of the doubters to stop having "an edge". Also, if we are to not assume that we know what you know, why don't you stop assuming that you know what we know? Maybe you could even attempt to educate us on what "you know", and explain some things and answer some questions about the actual performance of the device. A rough frequency response graph does not really need an anechoic chamber, many people on these forums do these rough tests right at home. Remember, no one here is doubting that your device makes sound, but rather, can it reproduce music, and do it well?
-Justin
Oh, btw, in post #25, I think the word you were looking for was "definitely". Always double check your spell check...
"-Justin
Oh, btw, in post #25, I think the word you were looking for was "definitely". Always double check your spell check..."
I thought he was definitely being defiant.
Justin I will not answer any questions concerning the specifications of prototype 3. I appreciate people's interest but I have addressed that issue many times and my position will not change. I will most likely post measurements of prototype 4 on my Web site when they are available. I will ignore any future requests for this information
Recording studios require monitors of exacting accuracy.
John
Oh, btw, in post #25, I think the word you were looking for was "definitely". Always double check your spell check..."
I thought he was definitely being defiant.
Justin I will not answer any questions concerning the specifications of prototype 3. I appreciate people's interest but I have addressed that issue many times and my position will not change. I will most likely post measurements of prototype 4 on my Web site when they are available. I will ignore any future requests for this information
Recording studios require monitors of exacting accuracy.
John
planot said:
planot said:
Are we to infer from this that the Planot version 4.0 will be such a device?
planot said:
Wow, that makes sense...
And yes, I know, I have spent too much time in recording studios...
maxro said:
My question exactly...
-Justin
John,
I viewed your post and invention with considerable interest.
My comments were honest comments intended to evoke appropriate responses.
Personally, I have no interest in "borrowing" your ideas or inventions... and to boot I've run into enough people with "new ideas" that I thought were not so good, but they ended up being quite good and making them fithy rich. So I know that my opinion and a coupla bucks will get you on a bus and not much more... ok?
-----------------
Free advice section: there's no need to be quite so defensive, even if you want to be so. You can say the same things in a more diplomatic way, or else say nothing.
Also one might do well not to assume what other's motives or intentions are, at least until you have some reasonable basis or time to draw conclusions...
------------------
As far as patents and patent applications, there are a great many patents granted (especially in the field of audio) that in reality have little or no merit (dunno why they are granted) or that essentially are re-hashing of things formerly patented or in the public domain (fyi, people say Bose has done this recently). So, while it is important to have a patent if you have something significant or have a business that wants an impediment to competitors, that alone does not mean that one has anything of real value.
Recording studios probably do not want omnidirectional or multidirectional speakers. There are a variety of reasons for this.
It would be nice if your design is unique and has some useful application. Please let us know as you progress, and as you can show us or disclose new images or information. I am interested and curious, can't speak for the others here.
_-_-bear
PS. as far as using a supercomputing center for simulation? Why not just buy a good PC soundcard, good measurement mic and measure the prototype? That will give you a number of answers to the "rhetorical" issues that immediately came to my mind, as per my first post, imho.
PPS. a good dynamic FEM program ought to be able to answer some if not all of the structural issues that you are doubtless considering (or will have to eventually deal with...).
PPPS. If you don't personally have the chops to do the dynamic or even static FEM stuff (and I don't), perhaps you could find a Master's or PhD student type at an engineering university who might want/need a project or thesis topic... just a thought.
I viewed your post and invention with considerable interest.
My comments were honest comments intended to evoke appropriate responses.
Personally, I have no interest in "borrowing" your ideas or inventions... and to boot I've run into enough people with "new ideas" that I thought were not so good, but they ended up being quite good and making them fithy rich. So I know that my opinion and a coupla bucks will get you on a bus and not much more... ok?
-----------------
Free advice section: there's no need to be quite so defensive, even if you want to be so. You can say the same things in a more diplomatic way, or else say nothing.
Also one might do well not to assume what other's motives or intentions are, at least until you have some reasonable basis or time to draw conclusions...
------------------
As far as patents and patent applications, there are a great many patents granted (especially in the field of audio) that in reality have little or no merit (dunno why they are granted) or that essentially are re-hashing of things formerly patented or in the public domain (fyi, people say Bose has done this recently). So, while it is important to have a patent if you have something significant or have a business that wants an impediment to competitors, that alone does not mean that one has anything of real value.
Recording studios probably do not want omnidirectional or multidirectional speakers. There are a variety of reasons for this.
It would be nice if your design is unique and has some useful application. Please let us know as you progress, and as you can show us or disclose new images or information. I am interested and curious, can't speak for the others here.
_-_-bear
PS. as far as using a supercomputing center for simulation? Why not just buy a good PC soundcard, good measurement mic and measure the prototype? That will give you a number of answers to the "rhetorical" issues that immediately came to my mind, as per my first post, imho.
PPS. a good dynamic FEM program ought to be able to answer some if not all of the structural issues that you are doubtless considering (or will have to eventually deal with...).
PPPS. If you don't personally have the chops to do the dynamic or even static FEM stuff (and I don't), perhaps you could find a Master's or PhD student type at an engineering university who might want/need a project or thesis topic... just a thought.
* Excellent advice.
* There are many speaker patents that are of questionable value and I believe may be for "marketing purposes" more so that to advance the science of loudspeakers. You know the manufacturer can say in the advertising copy, "covered by US and foreign patents."
* Smaller Planots can be used as near field monitors.
* There is nothing that would prohibit a studio from not using a planot speaker as a monitor.
* >It would be nice if your design is unique and has some useful application...
Well, Bear, I don't quite understand that. A speaker is a “general purpose” device. I realize that there are going to be some places where the Planot driver would not "fit" but it will supplant most cone speakers eventually. That may not happen until my patent expires but I believe it to be an inevitability.
* I will be working with a major university’s physics department. They will be assisting me in the near future.
* I am still adamant that there must be an analysis with a super computer class machine to be able to understand how the Planot works. That is what my research tells me. Believe me that if there were an easier way I would choose that. FYI the class of software required would cost me over $40,000 just to buy it. I’ll have to recheck my sources but I believe that is about right for one package. I have identified a package, Fluent, and in my city at a university there is the 15th fastest Super Computer in the world! They have the software. It is OK for them to use the software for scientific research.
John
* There are many speaker patents that are of questionable value and I believe may be for "marketing purposes" more so that to advance the science of loudspeakers. You know the manufacturer can say in the advertising copy, "covered by US and foreign patents."
* Smaller Planots can be used as near field monitors.
* There is nothing that would prohibit a studio from not using a planot speaker as a monitor.
* >It would be nice if your design is unique and has some useful application...
Well, Bear, I don't quite understand that. A speaker is a “general purpose” device. I realize that there are going to be some places where the Planot driver would not "fit" but it will supplant most cone speakers eventually. That may not happen until my patent expires but I believe it to be an inevitability.
* I will be working with a major university’s physics department. They will be assisting me in the near future.
* I am still adamant that there must be an analysis with a super computer class machine to be able to understand how the Planot works. That is what my research tells me. Believe me that if there were an easier way I would choose that. FYI the class of software required would cost me over $40,000 just to buy it. I’ll have to recheck my sources but I believe that is about right for one package. I have identified a package, Fluent, and in my city at a university there is the 15th fastest Super Computer in the world! They have the software. It is OK for them to use the software for scientific research.
John
planot said:
I'm guessing this may be true!
I have never seen an omnidirectional speaker used in the nearfield for critical monitoring, nor in the mid or far field, for that matter, although that might be plausible if compatibility with 99% of the home stereos is not a consideration.
After all, one of the intentions in nearfield monitoring is partial elimination of the room acoustic.
I am saying that, but only incidentally, and I am using percentages rhetorically.planot said:
That is not the essence of what I intended to convey which was that you seem to miss-understand the role of the studio monitor and, incidentally, have a strange way with double negatives, not to speak of normal social interaction.
Russell Dawkins said:
I understand. Having done sound reinforcement and recording in a concert hall for 11 years I know the roll of the studio in mixing and recording. Accuracy in reproduction is of paramount importance first and then a mix for your audience. The first responsibility should be the same as the recording engineer's which is to accurately capture the event.
If the speaker accurately reproduces the timber and dynamics and sonic perspective of the event then it fulfills the first.
Q.E.D.
John
This guy has something that is 2" wide and doesn´t need an enclosure and cares about the highend and studio nieche markets in first place.
John,
As the other poster indicated, most studios use speakers that are intended to minimize the interactions with surfaces in the room especially at high frequencies.
The speaker isn't truly omnidirectional, that would mean 360 degree dispersion, you probably get some version of "180 degree" dispersion.
The old Ohm F speaker did a credible job of 180 degree dispersion.
The question remains regarding the nature of the propagation from the three surfaces, especially as the frequency increases. Does that mean that you have three independent sources? Do you get comb filtering effects at frequencies related to the distance between these "virtual" sources (which may or many not move physically with respect to frequency?)?
Typically vertical sources have very poor dispersion in the vertical direction, and good dispersion in the horizontal. So, ears placed above the top of a vertical radiator do not get good HF energy.
I still don't see why you need a super computer to measure something that you have a prototype of - empirical measurements ought to lead to a good understanding of the mechanisms at play and/or the physics of it...
I'd agree that "accuracy" is a major goal for any sound system. But we still need to see accuracy in light of the intended application! A PA/SR system is first in need of headroom & SPL, before you consider how low you can make the THD or IM, or if the polar patterns are perfect. The criteria for a studio monitor are different again, as are the criteria for home stereo or home theater.
In some applications very wide HF dispersion is a deficit, not a benefit, eh?
But in the end "accuracy" is going to be a combination of elements, the prime one is going to be simply "low distortion". So, the question is why is your speaker or how is your speaker going to produce "low distortion", and how much lower than competing technologies, at what cost, and what hardware & power will be required??
Today there are a number of HF drivers that will do ~128dB/1m SPL at less than 1%THD from ~1.5kHz up, and do it very flat. This works back to be a really low THD for typical home ~90dBSPL listening level. Plus at least one that I am familiar with does that trick at a true 100dB/1w/1m sensitivity AND has a virtually resistive impedance curve at ~8 ohms! That's what's available today. True, it isn't omnidirectional...
_-_-bear
As the other poster indicated, most studios use speakers that are intended to minimize the interactions with surfaces in the room especially at high frequencies.
The speaker isn't truly omnidirectional, that would mean 360 degree dispersion, you probably get some version of "180 degree" dispersion.
The old Ohm F speaker did a credible job of 180 degree dispersion.
The question remains regarding the nature of the propagation from the three surfaces, especially as the frequency increases. Does that mean that you have three independent sources? Do you get comb filtering effects at frequencies related to the distance between these "virtual" sources (which may or many not move physically with respect to frequency?)?
Typically vertical sources have very poor dispersion in the vertical direction, and good dispersion in the horizontal. So, ears placed above the top of a vertical radiator do not get good HF energy.
I still don't see why you need a super computer to measure something that you have a prototype of - empirical measurements ought to lead to a good understanding of the mechanisms at play and/or the physics of it...
I'd agree that "accuracy" is a major goal for any sound system. But we still need to see accuracy in light of the intended application! A PA/SR system is first in need of headroom & SPL, before you consider how low you can make the THD or IM, or if the polar patterns are perfect. The criteria for a studio monitor are different again, as are the criteria for home stereo or home theater.
In some applications very wide HF dispersion is a deficit, not a benefit, eh?
But in the end "accuracy" is going to be a combination of elements, the prime one is going to be simply "low distortion". So, the question is why is your speaker or how is your speaker going to produce "low distortion", and how much lower than competing technologies, at what cost, and what hardware & power will be required??
Today there are a number of HF drivers that will do ~128dB/1m SPL at less than 1%THD from ~1.5kHz up, and do it very flat. This works back to be a really low THD for typical home ~90dBSPL listening level. Plus at least one that I am familiar with does that trick at a true 100dB/1w/1m sensitivity AND has a virtually resistive impedance curve at ~8 ohms! That's what's available today. True, it isn't omnidirectional...
_-_-bear
As the other poster indicated, most studios use speakers that are intended to minimize the interactions with surfaces in the room especially at high frequencies.
• That is why I suggested a near field listening position. I think I would like to drop the discussion as to whether the Planot would make a "good" monitor and discuss the general principal as this line of discussion is fruitless at this point. I know that there are some very high end recording studios in Europe that use omnidirectional speakers for monitors.
The speaker isn't truly omnidirectional, that would mean 360 degree dispersion, you probably get some version of "180 degree" dispersion.
• I do not know why you do not think it would be omni in the horizontal plane? I am assuming you equate 360 degrees with a sphere only?
The old Ohm F speaker did a credible job of 180 degree dispersion.
The question remains regarding the nature of the propagation from the three surfaces, especially as the frequency increases. Does that mean that you have three independent sources? Do you get comb filtering effects at frequencies related to the distance between these "virtual" sources (which may or many not move physically with respect to frequency?)?
• Here you must model it or use some exotic equipment to "see" what is happening. I know that NASA has a measurement device that uses lasers to reveal the "movement" of air. Here I am looking for the phase response and frequency response.
Typically vertical sources have very poor dispersion in the vertical direction, and good dispersion in the horizontal. So, ears placed above the top of a vertical radiator do not get good HF energy.
• Exactly. That is one of the points I have made about the Planot driver. I state it rather explicitly in the text on my Web site.
I still don't see why you need a super computer to measure something that you have a prototype of - empirical measurements ought to lead to a good understanding of the mechanisms at play and/or the physics of it...
• See my comment above.
I'd agree that "accuracy" is a major goal for any sound system. But we still need to see accuracy in light of the intended application! A PA/SR system is first in need of headroom & SPL, before you consider how low you can make the THD or IM, or if the polar patterns are perfect. The criteria for a studio monitor are different again, as are the criteria for home stereo or home theater.
• Hum. Actually that statement does not make a lot of sense to me. A monitor is for modifying the balance of the recording. It allows the engineer to tweak the response so that it sounds well in a "home environment."
In some applications very wide HF dispersion is a deficit, not a benefit, eh?
• Ya.
But in the end "accuracy" is going to be a combination of elements, the prime one is going to be simply "low distortion". So, the question is why is your speaker or how is your speaker going to produce "low distortion", and how much lower than competing technologies, at what cost, and what hardware & power will be required??
• Ya.
Today there are a number of HF drivers that will do ~128dB/1m SPL at less than 1%THD from ~1.5kHz up, and do it very flat. This works back to be a really low THD for typical home ~90dBSPL listening level. Plus at least one that I am familiar with does that trick at a true 100dB/1w/1m sensitivity AND has a virtually resistive impedance curve at ~8 ohms! That's what's available today. True, it isn't omnidirectional...
_-_-bear
__________________ _-_-bear http://www.bearlabs.com
• The "best" aspect of the Planot driver is not the omnidirectional polar response but its low distortion.
• I think I have exhausted the questions on this forum until I have P4 built and reviewers have reported on its performance. I will announce that on my Web site. Thanks to everyone here for their questions and comments.
John
• That is why I suggested a near field listening position. I think I would like to drop the discussion as to whether the Planot would make a "good" monitor and discuss the general principal as this line of discussion is fruitless at this point. I know that there are some very high end recording studios in Europe that use omnidirectional speakers for monitors.
The speaker isn't truly omnidirectional, that would mean 360 degree dispersion, you probably get some version of "180 degree" dispersion.
• I do not know why you do not think it would be omni in the horizontal plane? I am assuming you equate 360 degrees with a sphere only?
The old Ohm F speaker did a credible job of 180 degree dispersion.
The question remains regarding the nature of the propagation from the three surfaces, especially as the frequency increases. Does that mean that you have three independent sources? Do you get comb filtering effects at frequencies related to the distance between these "virtual" sources (which may or many not move physically with respect to frequency?)?
• Here you must model it or use some exotic equipment to "see" what is happening. I know that NASA has a measurement device that uses lasers to reveal the "movement" of air. Here I am looking for the phase response and frequency response.
Typically vertical sources have very poor dispersion in the vertical direction, and good dispersion in the horizontal. So, ears placed above the top of a vertical radiator do not get good HF energy.
• Exactly. That is one of the points I have made about the Planot driver. I state it rather explicitly in the text on my Web site.
I still don't see why you need a super computer to measure something that you have a prototype of - empirical measurements ought to lead to a good understanding of the mechanisms at play and/or the physics of it...
• See my comment above.
I'd agree that "accuracy" is a major goal for any sound system. But we still need to see accuracy in light of the intended application! A PA/SR system is first in need of headroom & SPL, before you consider how low you can make the THD or IM, or if the polar patterns are perfect. The criteria for a studio monitor are different again, as are the criteria for home stereo or home theater.
• Hum. Actually that statement does not make a lot of sense to me. A monitor is for modifying the balance of the recording. It allows the engineer to tweak the response so that it sounds well in a "home environment."
In some applications very wide HF dispersion is a deficit, not a benefit, eh?
• Ya.
But in the end "accuracy" is going to be a combination of elements, the prime one is going to be simply "low distortion". So, the question is why is your speaker or how is your speaker going to produce "low distortion", and how much lower than competing technologies, at what cost, and what hardware & power will be required??
• Ya.
Today there are a number of HF drivers that will do ~128dB/1m SPL at less than 1%THD from ~1.5kHz up, and do it very flat. This works back to be a really low THD for typical home ~90dBSPL listening level. Plus at least one that I am familiar with does that trick at a true 100dB/1w/1m sensitivity AND has a virtually resistive impedance curve at ~8 ohms! That's what's available today. True, it isn't omnidirectional...
_-_-bear
__________________ _-_-bear http://www.bearlabs.com
• The "best" aspect of the Planot driver is not the omnidirectional polar response but its low distortion.
• I think I have exhausted the questions on this forum until I have P4 built and reviewers have reported on its performance. I will announce that on my Web site. Thanks to everyone here for their questions and comments.
John
bear said:
Originally I thought it could work to the non-linearities of the air and effectively produce a positive pressure wave despite of the zero-sum of volume displacement. But then it would distort awfully. So I now think it is a 6-pole. I read somewhere that there are many specialized finite element programms for acoustics, and 2D would be OK for this porpose, so no need for a $$$$$$$$$ steam hammer. I don´t know how the situation is in the US, but in European churches you hardly find anything else than ~1m line arrays of small fullrange drivers, for easthetical reasons, despite of their awfully boxy sound.
planot said:
Well, as this IS a DIY forum, it's surprising that you seem to react negatively to detailed questions about HOW it works, etc.... what'd you expect?
John L.
Planot,
How soon do you expect to have the P-4 version running and tested?
Is your patent published yet, or just filed?
Ed
How soon do you expect to have the P-4 version running and tested?
Is your patent published yet, or just filed?
Ed
Ed Holland said:
The patent has been filed.
Well, one consultant is adamant that I should not wait to finish P4 but I should be beating on the door of every speaker manufacturer now.
I say that I have to complete P4 and have it reviewed. Unfortunately for me but fortunately for my wife I still have a full time job and I am a bit of a perfectionist and would rather do it myself. That said I am afraid it will be three months more.
If I could complete the blueprints and start selling them then maybe a month, given the extra income I could have my manufacturer start building right away, but then I have to _do_ the blueprints. So, I plod along patiently.
John
John
Thanks for the reply Planot.
I think you are right in waiting to get the "P4" running and evaluated before taking it to the commercial manufacturers. In this case, I think maturity in development would be a help to your cause, in terms of others taking it seriously.
Thinking about the device itself, I am intrigued. Its mode of operation - planar surfaces excited from a single "motor" has much in common with distributed mode loudspeakers. In that regard it would seem to be almost a hybrid between the NXT technology and Walsh type drivers.
Please keep us informed with progress.
Ed
I think you are right in waiting to get the "P4" running and evaluated before taking it to the commercial manufacturers. In this case, I think maturity in development would be a help to your cause, in terms of others taking it seriously.
Thinking about the device itself, I am intrigued. Its mode of operation - planar surfaces excited from a single "motor" has much in common with distributed mode loudspeakers. In that regard it would seem to be almost a hybrid between the NXT technology and Walsh type drivers.
Please keep us informed with progress.
Ed
Thanks.
Actually it does not function anything like the NXT. It moves air like a cone or planar speaker.
It is like a "folded" Magnepan except a rigid diaphragm and driven at the bottom and also not suspended at its edges. The diaphragm is planar but pivoting (Plan(or)-(piv)ot). Since the diaphragm can move much further than a captive film, as in the Magnepan, it can be efficient and smaller. It can be a smaller area since it can move further but still be rigid. Since the cross section can be so narrow there is no beaming.
John
Actually it does not function anything like the NXT. It moves air like a cone or planar speaker.
It is like a "folded" Magnepan except a rigid diaphragm and driven at the bottom and also not suspended at its edges. The diaphragm is planar but pivoting (Plan(or)-(piv)ot). Since the diaphragm can move much further than a captive film, as in the Magnepan, it can be efficient and smaller. It can be a smaller area since it can move further but still be rigid. Since the cross section can be so narrow there is no beaming.
John
- Status
- Not open for further replies.