Phase linearity plays an important roll in preserving spacial information. Polarity is also important, but for some reason, after I linearize phase response of a system, polarity difference is not so obvious.
Dynamics is the next thing I am trying to improve. Although making the speaker residual sound decay faster does improve perceived dynamics, the dynamics of the attack transients still is not improved nearly as much as I would like.
It is only important that both loudspeakers have an identical phase vs. frequency relationship in order to preserve spatial information. I am not aware of any serious research that proves a 4th order phase shift to be audible. Phase linearity does not at all seem to be important. JBL doesn't apply it in its flagship M2, just to mention an example.
Looking at klippel scans, I really do not see cones deforming a lot at low frequencies.
It is important to discern theory and reality.
https://beyma.com/uploads/descargas/1352741048.pdf
Some other performance criteria need to be met before phase linearity makes a difference. The residual sound of a system needs to decay pretty fast.
Klippel scan is a real time surface scan of a vibrating surface from 20~20Khz. Can any measurement get more real?
Klippel scan is a real time surface scan of a vibrating surface from 20~20Khz. Can any measurement get more real?
If you really think that a sheet of paper can handle the air without deformations... i can live with it.
PS : reality is perception.
I accept perception, but the cause is a different issue. You have more deformation at the higher frequencies than the lower simply because the driving acceleration is greater.
Last edited:
I accept perception, but the cause is a different issue. You have more deformation at the higher frequencies than the lower simply because the driving acceleration is greater.
If you have no background in mechanics, you should study acoustics from the beginning IMHO.
Ernst Chladni - Wikipedia
Flat drivers are a different story. Not many flat bass drivers out there.
Chladni's ones are great, 2mm thick metal plates deformed by a violin bow caress.
Chladni's law - Wikipedia
Yeah the only ones I can think of are those tangband 'ISO cone' woofers.Flat drivers are a different story. Not many flat bass drivers out there.
I wish there were more choice.. Other than car subs
It is a difficult task to find the right driver, low frequency seems an important part of perception of dynamics. I am not sure if there is any data that links measurement to perception in this aspect.
Flat drivers are a different story. Not many flat bass drivers out there.
For wavelengths larger than a quarter of the circumference of a drivers radiant surface, cone shape has virtually no impact on radiation pattern. (Kates)
That includes all bass drivers. Acoustically, it makes no difference if they are concave, convex or flat. Of course there are mechanical differences.
I have not compared the radiation pattern, but the higher frequency modes and patterns will be different. Since perception is related with a complex combination of frequencies, the different shape will cause different response and perception even if the radiation pattern is exactly the same at lower frequencies.
One can often hear the opinion that straight-walled is better at the low end (also regarding impact and dynamics perception down low) while curvilinear is better at the upper end.
Regards
Charles
Regards
Charles
One can often hear the opinion that straight-walled is better at the low end (also regarding impact and dynamics perception down low) while curvilinear is better at the upper end.
Regards
Charles
Simple and elementary remark :
The bigger the soundwaves are... the more they trigger an important volume of air particles and the more it requires power... and the more this larger volume of acutated particles loose its energy rapidly.
If you are looking for an accurate low notes rendering, the volume of displaced air particles is everything.
A curvilinear cone captures less air volume than straight walled... but it also depend of how much the cone is curved... and it can be anecdotic.
Last edited:
Simple and elementary remark :
The bigger the soundwaves are... the more they trigger an important volume of air particles and the more it requires power... and the more this larger volume of acutated particles loose its energy rapidly.
If you are looking for an accurate low notes rendering, the volume of displaced air particles is everything.
A curvilinear cone captures less air volume than straight walled... but it also depend of how much the cone is curved... and it can be anecdotic.
I cannot converse at this level, bowing out.
I cannot converse at this level, bowing out.
Yes, you can, about the rigidity of a curvilinear shape VS straight cone.
It is not so simple... at all.
Interesting because that's the mic I now see on Google searches. But a couple of years back it was something else, not Beyer, and very expensive. Similar look, but slimmer. Will continue to search for it. Anyway, I think it was just an array of small electret capsules.
EDIT. Might have been the Microtech Gefell KEM 975 I saw.
In either case they are relatively cheap electrets. When web meetings sucked for any number of reasons, the prefect "meeting" mic was a big research subject.
I remember years ago having to justify a budget item to the CFO in Ireland, the image lag and compression totally distorted body language and the swooshing sound made me feel like I was being sent to hell.
Last edited:
Simple and elementary remark :
The bigger the soundwaves are... the more they trigger an important volume of air particles and the more it requires power... and the more this larger volume of acutated particles loose its energy rapidly.
If you are looking for an accurate low notes rendering, the volume of displaced air particles is everything.
A curvilinear cone captures less air volume than straight walled... but it also depend of how much the cone is curved... and it can be anecdotic.
My simple remarks:
A flat diaphragm is a very bad idea for a sound radiator because it flexes too much and making it a cone stiffens it greatly. The difference between a straight side and a curved side makes very little difference and none at all at long wavelengths.
From my experience there is little to be gained from worrying about cone breakup because the situation is so complex. Leave the cone design to the manufacturers and just evaluate their products from the data sheets.
There are usually two problems in a high grade LF driver to pay attention to; 1) resonance of the magnet on the basket; 2) the rim resonance. Neither can be completely avoided, but with neo magnets, the magnet resonance generally moves out of band. The rim resonance is usually the limiting factor for the HF capability of any woofer. How this is handled has more to do with the surround and its design than the cone itself. Once the rim has gone into resonance, most drivers become unusable due to the many many resonances that start to creep in.
- Home
- Loudspeakers
- Multi-Way
- Who makes the lowest distortion speaker drivers