Worth a look.
http://www.audioasylum.com/cgi/vt.mpl?f=speakers&m=265186
Clearly there is a frequency/viscosity dependent build up of liquid movement and enegry storage illustrated acting against gravity within the air (liquid) space above the cone in this clip -
The recorded sound is clearly non-sinusoidal.
Has anyone ever strobed rising smoke or falling evaporating frozen CO2 as it traverses a LS aperture at audio frequencies with sine/square energisation ?
Cheers ............. Graham.
http://www.audioasylum.com/cgi/vt.mpl?f=speakers&m=265186
Clearly there is a frequency/viscosity dependent build up of liquid movement and enegry storage illustrated acting against gravity within the air (liquid) space above the cone in this clip -
The recorded sound is clearly non-sinusoidal.
Has anyone ever strobed rising smoke or falling evaporating frozen CO2 as it traverses a LS aperture at audio frequencies with sine/square energisation ?
Cheers ............. Graham.
Show and Tell?
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
Hi John,
Nice visualisations.
However, what I was thinking about is where the radiating wavelength is shorter than the baffle/LS aperture, and what happens within and at the edge of the aperture prior to spatial launch; esp at frequencies relating to odd numbers of half wavelengths wrt aperture dimension.
Cheers ............ Graham.
Nice visualisations.
However, what I was thinking about is where the radiating wavelength is shorter than the baffle/LS aperture, and what happens within and at the edge of the aperture prior to spatial launch; esp at frequencies relating to odd numbers of half wavelengths wrt aperture dimension.
Cheers ............ Graham.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Waterfals and such
You'll note the quotes used, meaning the driver is certainly as close to "perfect" as you or anyone is likely to ever see. Show me any real driver anywhere close to that. You won't find it. The point was valid.
The first line really is meaningless, of course it won't, that should go without saying. It's a straw man argument. All research conducted are attempts to show correlations based upon analysis of large data sets.
As for the second point, "data" used to make correlations in any reliable manner require, again, large data sets that in addition to large numbers of test subjects, involves a full set of measurements, on-axis, off-axis, distortion, large signal, small signal, etc. Then there are the room condition variables. All measurements and number of test subjects and test protocols made to date in this thread and the original have been totally inadequate for the purpose of making any reliable correlations.
Let's wait and see what is forthcoming.
Dave
soongsc said:
You'll note the quotes used, meaning the driver is certainly as close to "perfect" as you or anyone is likely to ever see. Show me any real driver anywhere close to that. You won't find it. The point was valid.
The first line really is meaningless, of course it won't, that should go without saying. It's a straw man argument. All research conducted are attempts to show correlations based upon analysis of large data sets.
As for the second point, "data" used to make correlations in any reliable manner require, again, large data sets that in addition to large numbers of test subjects, involves a full set of measurements, on-axis, off-axis, distortion, large signal, small signal, etc. Then there are the room condition variables. All measurements and number of test subjects and test protocols made to date in this thread and the original have been totally inadequate for the purpose of making any reliable correlations.
Let's wait and see what is forthcoming.
Dave
john k... said:
I assume that each of those is for a single sine wave construction. The lines of constant pressure are interesting, especially how they vary, significantly, with distance. The effects of diffraction are quite evident. More interesting is the more constant nature of the lines of constant pressure from the flat panel radiator and how the areas of pressure intensity are higher for the flat panel. I wonder how much is related to little in the way of diffraction effects with a flat panel.
Dave
Graham Maynard said:
The data is for 4k Hz. The speakers were, a Yamaha MSP-10 (upper) and W-3232 flat panel from WASEDA EE.
link to the pdf http://www.acoust.rise.waseda.ac.jp/publications/happyou/icassp/icassp-oikawa-2005march.pdf
Alex from Oz said:
Alex,
In the interest of further attempting to scientifically measuring the reported effects of EnABL, I'd like to try and replicate your results (and/or others') and have them tested, to try and determine a correlation between what is subjectively reported and what is measured with speaker measuring equipment and techniques.
BudP and Dave from Planet 10 have agreed to be part of a controlled experiment with speaker drivers.
I've managed to enlist Al from RAW Acoustics to measure some off the shelf speaker drivers that both BudP and Dave from Planet 10 are then going to treat after the raw drivers are broken in and measured by RAW.
Both BudP and Dave will then independantly receive each, some of the broken in (and measured) drivers, treat them, then send back for post treatment measurements by RAW.
We then plan on having the (post EnABL treated) drivers sent to another facility for tests as well, to check for discontinuity between final (post EnABL) measurements.
I'd also like to see if we can measure any effects that have been reported about EnABL being successfully used to minimize diffraction on speaker cabinet edges, and effects on ports in speakers.
Based on what I have read, we can do this in a non destructive way with a decal type EnABL pattern.
If you can provide me dimensions of the patterns that yield the best results in both those instances (and the most effective applications), I can have them reproduced by having a colleague of mine cut the patterns.
We can have the patterns computer generated, and cut on a plotter out of adhesive backed vinyl material used in the graphics industry, which comes in various thicknesses. We can have those patterns weeded and pre-masked for easy application on baffle edges and speaker ports.
Just so there is no disconnect, I'd like clear instructions on how to replicate the most successful EnABL treatments on baffle edges and ports, and their correct application.
If someone has files drawn up, I can reproduce those. Short of that, if you can provide me with dimensions and measurements, I can draw them in CAD myself and then have the EnABL patterns cut and pre-masked, then sent to RAW for testing.
We will provide full details and documentation of how we will replicate the patterns, and how we conduct the tests.
In the interest of full disclosure, I'd like to keep all correspondances about this here in this thread, instead of private messages.
Cheers
Hi John,
Thanks again.
It appears that wave development is viewed ahead of the driver.
It might be interesting to view frequency induced pressure relationships much closer to the cone surface between edge and centre using this method.
Might reveal presence of surface modification induced changes, though the averaging process would limit display to steady state.
Cheers .............. Graham.
Thanks again.
It appears that wave development is viewed ahead of the driver.
It might be interesting to view frequency induced pressure relationships much closer to the cone surface between edge and centre using this method.
Might reveal presence of surface modification induced changes, though the averaging process would limit display to steady state.
Cheers .............. Graham.
BudP said:
Hi, anything consistentently predictable is fine by me too. /
/sreten.rjb said:
Hi,
I'd suggest an overview would indicate far more extravagant
claims than that stated above, those claims only backtracked
on when shown to be plainly wrong.
As I keep saying
, I expect EnABLing to be shown to be avery mundane subset of driver modification, and never shown
to exhibit the radical levels of improvement originally claimed.
/sreten.
It depends on the specific technical definition of "very mundane " and "radical levels of improvement".sreten said:
Hi, anything consistentently predictable is fine by me too. /
Hi,
I'd suggest an overview would indicate far more extravagant
claims than that stated above, those claims only backtracked
on when shown to be plainly wrong.
As I keep saying
very mundane subset of driver modification, and never shown
to exhibit the radical levels of improvement originally claimed.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.