For a couple of EEs there's very little technical details/drawings. The only "proof" they give is one waterfall plot. There reason? You have to listen to them. So with very little proof they want you to find some of there speakers, which arnt even for sale yet, and listen to them. Is it just me or does this sound stupid.
The sound generating princple is that of a winglike "paddle" driven by a fast motor, thereby moving air. It works well up to 2000 Hz.
I listened to a headphone prototype at the last Munich show. It sounded impressive in the lower range. Had a different kind of driver on top and the integration was not so good.
For the lower regions though, this driver principle is promising.
I listened to a headphone prototype at the last Munich show. It sounded impressive in the lower range. Had a different kind of driver on top and the integration was not so good.
For the lower regions though, this driver principle is promising.
All the drawings you can handle: https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/00/03/24/bf56411d97ac8d/US9800980.pdf
So this is not unlike my Cyclone after all except that they figured out how to make it go up to 2kHz. There will always be an upper limit because of moving mass and it will never behave like ribbons (of course you may complement this with a ribbon). Rethinking the cone piston and the motor is nice work but at the end of the day this is subject to the same physics as any dynamic loudspeaker.
As I understand it, the Cyclone and ServoBass drivers were abandoned because moving coil woofers began to exceed their performance in the late 90s.
In my case, I think the Cyclone was discontinued because it had a reliability issue - debris from the magnet would get stuck in the voice coil gap and freeze the motor. Cleaning could fix it but other than hard-core car audio competitors no one would deal with such a high maintenance item. As for performance (assuming in the ideal scenario where it did not periodically self-destruct) let's say there are many kinds of performance and it boils down to the same engineering principles of arriving at the right set of compromises for the application at hand. With the entire magnet included in the moving mass, it struggled even at 60Hz. It really was a subsonic woofer if you didn't balk at that very idea - I had no idea if its 10Hz or even 5Hz has high sound quality. My ear couldn't hear that and couldn't judge if that sounded good, but the subsonic organ note of Planet Krypton did feel good.
I see other issues here...
Leakage around the flap under use will likely cause HD, not unlike that of the unsealed ribbon membrane. The acoustic center would become a function of how far the flap is moving due to the arc movement and the different distances and velocities from core to edge.
Seems to have very inconsistent data while under use, whereas conical conventional dynamic drivers.
Could it move a lot of air- sure! There used to be a subwoofer on the market with a conventional magnet and a curved VC former with a flap for the cone, and it was for sub use only.
Later,
Wolf
Leakage around the flap under use will likely cause HD, not unlike that of the unsealed ribbon membrane. The acoustic center would become a function of how far the flap is moving due to the arc movement and the different distances and velocities from core to edge.
Seems to have very inconsistent data while under use, whereas conical conventional dynamic drivers.
Could it move a lot of air- sure! There used to be a subwoofer on the market with a conventional magnet and a curved VC former with a flap for the cone, and it was for sub use only.
Later,
Wolf
This story gives me some insight into my own job:
We can see that Wing Acoustics created a device and declared it "revolutionary." Investors stepped up with millions of dollars. Engineers who've reviewed the device (us) see flaws in the device, and doubt it's advantages. But the product will move forward, because it's funded.
I see the same thing in software constantly: companies abandoning perfectly good software for a shiny new solution, which is often inferior to what it's replacing. Rinse and repeat. It's an insanely inefficient way to do business.
We can see that Wing Acoustics created a device and declared it "revolutionary." Investors stepped up with millions of dollars. Engineers who've reviewed the device (us) see flaws in the device, and doubt it's advantages. But the product will move forward, because it's funded.
I see the same thing in software constantly: companies abandoning perfectly good software for a shiny new solution, which is often inferior to what it's replacing. Rinse and repeat. It's an insanely inefficient way to do business.
Well, #4 is so devoid of technical rigor that it is impossible to determine if it is "yes" or "no". (I mean the web site, not literally the #4 post.)
Whereas a traditional dynamic loudspeaker is always
- linear motor
- moving coil, stationary magnet
The Phoenix Gold Cyclone is
- rotary motor
- moving magnet, stationary coil
Wing is clearly a rotary motor from the demo. I can't tell however if it is moving coil or moving magnet, but my hopefully educated guess is it is moving coil, because moving coil always have a lower moving mass and you need that to go up to the midrange.
That is why the Phoenix Gold Cyclone has structures to convert the rotary air movement back to linear air movement and to (not perfectly) seal the edge of the flap.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.