Go Back   Home > Forums > >
Home Forums Rules Articles diyAudio Store Blogs Gallery Wiki Register Donations FAQ Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Multi-Way Conventional loudspeakers with crossovers

Cardioid Bass
Cardioid Bass
Please consider donating to help us continue to serve you.

Ads on/off / Custom Title / More PMs / More album space / Advanced printing & mass image saving
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 9th May 2008, 06:13 PM   #251
john k... is offline john k...  United States
diyAudio Member
 
john k...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: US
Hi Earl,

I did find a minor bug, but no big deal. The notch at 17 Hz for the monopolewas bugging me. Didn't make sense. The bug fix gets that out and corrects the dipole result as well. As I said I, I just threw this together. I can accept coding errors. They will get fixed.

A this point I don't have damping, and you are correct, it is a major concern. The first reference does show how to allow for nonzero admittance of the surfaces but I haven't worked through the details yet. I do have a FEM code that considers damping but I didn't write it and unfortunately it doesn't allow me to set up a cardioid source, not to mention that the procedure is very slow. I'm still working with the developer so hopefully at some time I can convince him to do cardioid. I'll keep pluging away. Something to do on a rainy day.
__________________
John k.... Music and Design NaO dsp Dipole Loudspeakers.
  Reply With Quote
Old 9th May 2008, 06:45 PM   #252
gedlee is offline gedlee  United States
diyAudio Member
 
gedlee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Novi, Michigan
Quote:
Originally posted by john k...
Hi Earl,
A this point I don't have damping, and you are correct, it is a major concern. The first reference does show how to allow for nonzero admittance of the surfaces but I haven't worked through the details yet. I do have a FEM code that considers damping but I didn't write it and unfortunately it doesn't allow me to set up a cardioid source, not to mention that the procedure is very slow. I'm still working with the developer so hopefully at some time I can convince him to do cardioid. I'll keep pluging away. Something to do on a rainy day.

You won't find the discussion in Morse and Ingard very illucidating.

Basically what is usually done is to ASSUME that the eigenmodes don't change. This is a reasonable assumption for light damping, but fails for large damping. Basically whet happens in the physics is that the modes share energy. In other words the energy in one mode leaks into adjacent modes through the damping. Tis is why damping at LF is such a good thing.

Then assume that only the Eigenvalue chnges, it becomes complex. The denominator has the eigenvalues squared. So expand the complex eigen values into real and imaginary parts. Discard the terms in the imaginary parts squared as these are small. The remaining complex term will have a real part times the damping value (the imaginary part). If you leave this like this you will find a strange thing happens because the damping will rise with frequency and the room will flatten way out at higher frequencies. I end up with

(i * kn * pi *c - eta)^2 for the denominator eigenvalue squared, where eta is the damping, assumed small, usually about 20 in english units. This works pretty well. Any other approach that I have tried yields very strange results.
__________________
Earl Geddes Gedlee Website
  Reply With Quote
Old 10th May 2008, 07:45 AM   #253
Graham Maynard is offline Graham Maynard  United Kingdom
R.I.P.
 
Graham Maynard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: UK
Comments made here by Lynn Olson would also relate to EQed dipole+monopole 'systems' generated cardioid bass.

http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showt...2&goto=newpost


Cheers .......... Graham.
  Reply With Quote
Old 10th May 2008, 11:05 AM   #254
john k... is offline john k...  United States
diyAudio Member
 
john k...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: US
Quote:
Originally posted by gedlee



You won't find the discussion in Morse and Ingard very illucidating.

Maybe I am missing something but they seem to present a very straight forward discussion for the corrections to the eigenfunctions and eigenvalues for small admittance. So if I assume that the wall admittance is small but real, then energy is lost to the wall and that should provid the damping, no? As you note, the eigenfunctions don't change much for small admittance so initially I will not alter them. It becomes a matter of how the eigenvalues in the denominator change.
__________________
John k.... Music and Design NaO dsp Dipole Loudspeakers.
  Reply With Quote
Old 10th May 2008, 05:10 PM   #255
gedlee is offline gedlee  United States
diyAudio Member
 
gedlee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Novi, Michigan
Quote:
Originally posted by john k...


Maybe I am missing something but they seem to present a very straight forward discussion for the corrections to the eigenfunctions and eigenvalues for small admittance. So if I assume that the wall admittance is small but real, then energy is lost to the wall and that should provid the damping, no? As you note, the eigenfunctions don't change much for small admittance so initially I will not alter them. It becomes a matter of how the eigenvalues in the denominator change.

Quite correct and my last post on this was wrong. (Sorry about that.) That was an earlier attempt. If you look at the equation you can see that I just use a complex eigenvalue with mode independent damping. M&I use mode dependent damping, which is more accurate if the damping is only on one wall, but if the damping is well distributed, as I always try and do, then a mode independant form is completely accurate. ALL OF THIS ASSUMES small damping which is the real problem.
__________________
Earl Geddes Gedlee Website
  Reply With Quote
Old 13th May 2008, 02:19 PM   #256
john k... is offline john k...  United States
diyAudio Member
 
john k...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: US
Well, I have modified my room mode analysis to include frequency dependent “real” admittance (conductance) and "tune" the admittance model using FEM simulations from SoundEasy. The agreement between SE for monopoles and dipoles is very good. I then redid the calculations for the monopole, dipole and cardioid I had previously posted.

http://www.musicanddesign.com/roomgain2A.html


While there are differences, I think I have to pretty much agree with Earl that at low frequency there is little differences between sources (except below the room fundamental) unless they are placed in very critical (not necessarily good) positions. The dips you see in the 30 to 40Hz region, which are common to all source types, have more to do with the listener position than source position, type, or orientation. The null is basically a result of the listener being center left to right in the room. Being centered there is little SPL generated at the listening from the first mode in the side to side direction which is at 34.4 Hz since this position is a pressure node for that mode, and all odd numbered nodes in the side to side direction. Looking at the plot at the lower right, where the listener is off center, you can see that region begins to fill in for all sources. But remember, this is for a dipole and cardioid source orientated at an angle to the walls. If the dipoe and cardioid are orientated with the axis parallel to a side wall the dipole wil sill have the deep null when the listened moves to the left or right of center. The cardioid will behave much like a monopole and the null will fill in.
__________________
John k.... Music and Design NaO dsp Dipole Loudspeakers.
  Reply With Quote
Old 13th May 2008, 03:23 PM   #257
gedlee is offline gedlee  United States
diyAudio Member
 
gedlee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Novi, Michigan
Quote:
Originally posted by john k...

While there are differences, I think I have to pretty much agree with Earl that at low frequency there is little differences between sources (except below the room fundamental) unless they are placed in very critical (not necessarily good) positions.

John

Timely. I just finished my analysis which took a lot into consideration. I used four source positions and seven almost random) listener positions (all near the room center, basically any of these locations is a likely listener). I normalized all sources to have a flat average response at the listener positions (basically they all have flat power response into the room). This is the most logical thing to do since all sources are then on an equal footing - all are EQ'd to flat power.

After all this data I conclude that no source is statistically any different than any other. Basically, the room dominates the problem and the source type makes no real difference. We appear to completely agree on this point .

Of course the cardiod and dipole require a lot more power at the low end to achieve a flat room sound power, which is not an insignificant factor.

I will post my paper shortly, which I am going to write up and send to JAES.

I expect that this will shake up some people .

Its good to have collaborations from two people who initially disagreed. Good work.

(Although, I would like to point out that our analysis differ substantially in detail. And close inspection of yours will find that your figures 3 and 5 should be very similar and they are completely different. I don't find this much change with such a small movement of the source and receiver.)
__________________
Earl Geddes Gedlee Website
  Reply With Quote
Old 13th May 2008, 04:47 PM   #258
john k... is offline john k...  United States
diyAudio Member
 
john k...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: US
Quote:
Originally posted by gedlee



Its good to have collaborations from two people who initially disagreed. Good work.

(Although, I would like to point out that our analysis differ substantially in detail. And close inspection of yours will find that your figures 3 and 5 should be very similar and they are completely different. I don't find this much change with such a small movement of the source and receiver.)
Well, I would say we agree on most of the issues. I'll still say that directivity matters, but at the same time, it only matters if you happen to be so unlucky as to place a monopole woofer exactly at a pressure node or a dipole exactly at a velocity node. There the cardioid has an advantage, but as you note it is countered by the added complexity of eq for the gradient roll of and the need for more power.

I am also putting a page up on the effects of orientation which show that a dipole doesn't excite modes orthogonal to its axis. Certainly the differences between cardioids and monopoles are less significant that those of a dipole. But I think the idea that a dipole is better because it excites fewer modes is just incorrect. If the dipole is positioned so as to excite fewer modes then the end result can only be dips in the response at those modes that can not be corrected by equalization. The only thing left is what happens below the room fundamental.

I am glad I got involved in this thread. I have previously based my opinions on what I have read by other researchers. I never bothered to take a deeper look into this myself until getting into this thread. I had made some assessment using the SoundEasy FEM analysis but I really had to look at the math to see what is going on.

All in all I still think, for those who love dipole midrange the NaO Mini is spot on. It has the advantage of dipole mids which morph to cardioid in the 100 Hz region and then to monopole at low frequency when set up as designed. Still, since the woofers a in separate, self powered enclosures, they can be positioned in any manner the listener prefers to optimize the low frequency response if the design configuration doesn't work out for them. The flexibility of detached woofers is really what it is all about.

As for the differences you site with figure 3 and 5, all I can say is that is what comes out of the analysis and in view of the conformation I made with the SoundEasy FEM code I don’t know how to respond. I’ll try to make a direct comparison with Se for those cases and see.
__________________
John k.... Music and Design NaO dsp Dipole Loudspeakers.
  Reply With Quote
Old 13th May 2008, 05:08 PM   #259
augerpro is offline augerpro  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
I hate to oversimplify this-just trying to wrap my brain around it- but are you two in agreement that for bass there is no advantage to any of these forms assuming you didn't just happen to place in the worst possible place? How about if you were running a woofer up around 200-300hz, any advantage to cardioid over monopole considering front wall reflections? From power response and polar response perspective are these forms still about equal-considering they are running up to 200-300hz? I should mention I ask these questions in the context of a 3 way design where the mid (and possibly tweeter) are dipole.
__________________
~Brandon
DriverVault Soma Sonus
  Reply With Quote
Old 13th May 2008, 05:45 PM   #260
gedlee is offline gedlee  United States
diyAudio Member
 
gedlee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Novi, Michigan
Quote:
Originally posted by augerpro
I hate to oversimplify this-just trying to wrap my brain around it- but are you two in agreement that for bass there is no advantage to any of these forms assuming you didn't just happen to place in the worst possible place? How about if you were running a woofer up around 200-300hz, any advantage to cardioid over monopole considering front wall reflections? From power response and polar response perspective are these forms still about equal-considering they are running up to 200-300hz? I should mention I ask these questions in the context of a 3 way design where the mid (and possibly tweeter) are dipole.

Our discussion has been about LF - below about 150 Hz. You are correct, in general, for typical locations of sources and listeners it makes no difference the source type - except for the need to EQ dipoles and cardiods. Your not likely to get much agreement on the frequency range that you mention.

I would tend to say that there would be some advantage to directivity in this frequency range, however, I have found that unworkable in practice. Of more importance to me is narrow controlled directivity above 1 kHz and a match of directivity at the crossover. The need for directivity control below 1 kHz IMO becomes ever less and less important. Its certainly not a bad thing so long as nothing important is given up to achieve it. I just haven't found it to be practical (read cost effective) to do that.
__________________
Earl Geddes Gedlee Website
  Reply With Quote
Old 13th May 2008, 07:44 PM   #261
Etienne88 is offline Etienne88  Sweden
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
I am happy that both of you (Earl and John) come to an agreement despite quite a tough debate...!
Thank you for all the effort you put into it and thank you for a valuable result for the DIY community.

Earl, I wish you luck in shaking up some JAES people!

Regards,
Etienne
  Reply With Quote
Old 13th May 2008, 08:40 PM   #262
Salas is offline Salas  Greece
diyAudio Chief Moderator
 
Salas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Athens-Greece
Cardioid Bass
Quote:
Originally posted by augerpro
I hate to oversimplify this-just trying to wrap my brain around it- but are you two in agreement that for bass there is no advantage to any of these forms assuming you didn't just happen to place in the worst possible place? How about if you were running a woofer up around 200-300hz, any advantage to cardioid over monopole considering front wall reflections? From power response and polar response perspective are these forms still about equal-considering they are running up to 200-300hz? I should mention I ask these questions in the context of a 3 way design where the mid (and possibly tweeter) are dipole.

200-500Hz is better suited to cardioid.
  Reply With Quote
Old 13th May 2008, 10:02 PM   #263
gedlee is offline gedlee  United States
diyAudio Member
 
gedlee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Novi, Michigan
Quote:
Originally posted by salas


200-500Hz is better suited to cardioid.

I completely agree since a dipole has rear radiation that is of no use and can only cause problems. Cardiod is attractive in this frequency range and if I ever do a Magna Summa I might consider it.
__________________
Earl Geddes Gedlee Website
  Reply With Quote
Old 13th May 2008, 10:15 PM   #264
john k... is offline john k...  United States
diyAudio Member
 
john k...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: US
Quote:
Originally posted by salas



200-500Hz is better suited to cardioid.

Hi Salas,

I think that depends on preferences. What I do believe is that above 150 Hz or so constant directivity is desirable, be it dipole, cardioid or omni. At that point it becomes very dependent on the room and preferences. But as I develop the ICTA I may move away from a cardioid type woofer though I expect to keep the mids and top end cardioid. On the other hand, there is nothing wrong with taking the NaO II approach where the choice of cardioid or sealed box is in the hands of the listener.

Earl,

I checked the top plot on the right (number 3) against SE's FEM. The good news is that the agreement is pretty good. The bad news is that what I posted isn't the correct result. I must have mixed up some files or something. I'll have to recheck all the plots, again.
__________________
John k.... Music and Design NaO dsp Dipole Loudspeakers.
  Reply With Quote
Old 13th May 2008, 11:52 PM   #265
gedlee is offline gedlee  United States
diyAudio Member
 
gedlee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Novi, Michigan
Quote:
Originally posted by john k...



Hi Salas,
Earl,

I checked the top plot on the right (number 3) against SE's FEM. The good news is that the agreement is pretty good. The bad news is that what I posted isn't the correct result. I must have mixed up some files or something. I'll have to recheck all the plots, again.

Then it was four versus six that I question. Some of our differences may come from damping. I prefer to use larger values than you are using because, to me, thats more realistic. In a real room there is more damping from the entire structure moving than you will ever get from wall treatments. Putting a value of impedance on the walls thus yields a vvalue far below my expectation.

You can find my raw data for the subwoofer study here. http://www.gedlee.com/archive.htm
__________________
Earl Geddes Gedlee Website
  Reply With Quote
Old 14th May 2008, 10:53 PM   #266
ion is offline ion  Sweden
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Quote:
Originally posted by Graham Maynard
Comments made here by Lynn Olson would also relate to EQed dipole+monopole 'systems' generated cardioid bass.

http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showt...2&goto=newpost

Cheers .......... Graham.
Pardon me,

I'd be grateful if you could specify which one of the 3500+ posts you are referring to. The link only goes to "newpost". Thanks!

And thank you Dr. Kreskowsky, Dr. Geddes and everyone else who has contributed to a interresting read!

/Jon
  Reply With Quote
Old 15th May 2008, 07:13 AM   #267
Graham Maynard is offline Graham Maynard  United Kingdom
R.I.P.
 
Graham Maynard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: UK
Hi Jon,

Posts 3546 to 3551 inclusive. I'll see if this works;-

http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showt...72#post1506272

Cheers .... Graham
  Reply With Quote
Old 15th May 2008, 10:32 AM   #268
john k... is offline john k...  United States
diyAudio Member
 
john k...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: US
Quote:
Originally posted by Graham Maynard
Hi Jon,

Posts 3546 to 3551 inclusive. I'll see if this works;-

http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showt...72#post1506272

Cheers .... Graham

If you are implying that the comments made by Lynn regarding minimum phase somehow apply to a cardioid made form an eqed Dipole +monopole you are mistaken. It will be minimum phase.


Earl,

I noticed that you were counting figures differently after I posted. All the figures agree pretty well with SE. You comment about damping is possiblity. I don't know exactly what SE uses as wall damping (admittance) models. It may be purely resistive or could include reactive components as well (but I don't think so). The user can select wall characteristics based onSoft and comfortable, mediud absorption, hard finish, steel panels. Obviously these are supposed to be "user friendly" terms.

Another issue to remember is that the model I am using, as you noted, is really only 1st order accurate applicable for small admittance. It is probably being pushed pretty hard at the beta values I am using. But the predicted behavior is still pretty reasonable, particualrly in regard to looking at differences between sources. I would not exect full FEM simulations to suddenly indicate that dipole behave totally differently than the simple model predicts.
__________________
John k.... Music and Design NaO dsp Dipole Loudspeakers.
  Reply With Quote
Old 15th May 2008, 12:56 PM   #269
gedlee is offline gedlee  United States
diyAudio Member
 
gedlee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Novi, Michigan
John

As I said, how the damping is handled will make a big difference. It was a major portion of my thesis. I would suggest you look at the older Morse "Vibration and Sound" because in it he derives the exact expressions that I used. I find that discussion clearer than Morse and Ingard (in fact I find the entire earlier book clearer). I got mine used (first edition) from Amazon for less that the new paperbacks cost from ASA.
__________________
Earl Geddes Gedlee Website
  Reply With Quote
Old 15th May 2008, 08:13 PM   #270
Graham Maynard is offline Graham Maynard  United Kingdom
R.I.P.
 
Graham Maynard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: UK
Above, John K wrote;-

>> "If you are implying that the comments made by Lynn regarding minimum phase somehow apply to a cardioid made form an eqed Dipole +monopole you are mistaken. It will be minimum phase." <<

( You know John - this snide remark is ridiculous ! )

I wrote;-
>> " Comments made here by Lynn Olson would also relate to EQed dipole+monopole 'systems' generated cardioid bass."" <<

because I thought Lynn's comments were relevent as he was pointing out aspects related to responses in TIME, not just amplitude and phase etc., for responses in time are also crucially relevent to cardioid response generation, and time aspects are not covered by many amplitude or phase versus frequency plots shown in this thread. Such standard frequency responses were also raised by Lynn in relation to waveform coherence !

I should not be expected to have to explain my thoughts to satisfy anyone's 'imaginings' about what I did not write about, nor think about !

Watch out - the *thought* police are about !

Cheers ...... Graham.
  Reply With Quote
Old 16th May 2008, 08:56 PM   #271
al2002 is offline al2002  India
diyAudio Member
 
al2002's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: USA
Quote:
Originally posted by Etienne88


Jean-Michel Le Cléac'h does think so. He is a very respectable man in the hifi world, he achieved great things like his horn design or his filter setup never having business in mind. Then he back up his saying as a real scientist. For these reasons I would tend to think like him. But if you prove me he is wrong with solid argument I will change my mind...
Given the masking effects in a real room with typical stereo speakers I would expect the audibility to be well above B-L thresholds. Unless you have access to quality data that shows otherwise, there is not much to dispute, is there?

Quote:
The truth is subjective, isn't it?
Strongly disagree in this case. However, I am not interested in getting involved in a philosophical discussion.

Quote:
Its original document is written in French, I will try to translate as good as I can: "People often refer to Blauert and Laws criteria has an argument tending to prove that phase distortion is inaudible. Blauert and Laws criteria is very little pertinent in hifi. The fact that two waves coming from 2 drivers seems to come from one source only does implies that the phase distortion is not audible."

In the original language:
On fait souvent référence au critère de Blauert et Laws comme un des arguments tendant à prouver que la distorsion de phase ne s'entend pas.
Remarque : le critère de Blauert et Laws est peu pertinent en haute-fidélité. Le fait que des trains d'ondes émis par deux hautparleurs semblent provenir d'une seule source ne signifie pas que la distorsion de phase n'est pas audible.

Now if you need further information, you would have to ask the author himself. He posts sometimes here.

Regards,
Etienne
I fear I do not speak French, but something seems to be lost in the translation. Your translation: ".... implies that the phase distortion is not audible" seems to suggest that he agrees. Can you please provide a reference with some measured data?
  Reply With Quote
Old 17th May 2008, 06:22 AM   #272
Etienne88 is offline Etienne88  Sweden
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Quote:
Originally posted by al2002

I am not interested in getting involved in a philosophical discussion.
Me neither!

Quote:
Originally posted by al2002

Can you please provide a reference with some measured data?
As I said: if you need further information, you would have to ask the author himself. He posts sometimes here.

Regards,
Etienne
  Reply With Quote
Old 17th May 2008, 06:39 PM   #273
al2002 is offline al2002  India
diyAudio Member
 
al2002's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: USA
It's not really all that important. This is more like a third order effect - there are more important things to worry about in speaker design.

Quote:
As I said: if you need further information, you would have to ask the author himself. He posts sometimes here.

Regards,
Etienne [/B]
  Reply With Quote
Old 20th May 2008, 02:02 PM   #274
john k... is offline john k...  United States
diyAudio Member
 
john k...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: US
Earl, if you are out there I have a question for you. In general can the in room response at low frequency, for arbitrary source and listening positions, be decomposed into a minimum phase compnent plus a linear phase component? That is, can it be reduced to minimum phase by removal of a time delay? I know this is possible in some cases but does it apply in general?
__________________
John k.... Music and Design NaO dsp Dipole Loudspeakers.
  Reply With Quote
Old 20th May 2008, 02:25 PM   #275
gedlee is offline gedlee  United States
diyAudio Member
 
gedlee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Novi, Michigan
Quote:
Originally posted by john k...
Earl, if you are out there I have a question for you. In general can the in room response at low frequency, for arbitrary source and listening positions, be decomposed into a minimum phase compnent plus a linear phase component? That is, can it be reduced to minimum phase by removal of a time delay? I know this is possible in some cases but does it apply in general?
John, I have never viewed the problem in that light before so I am not sure. I do know that the concept of "minimum phase" is one that is derived for electrical circuits and one dimension problems, but in general such features of a system won't hold in three dimensional acoustic fields. In the geometical or statistical region of acoustics the direct field can obey such principles since there is no multi-path etc. and it is basically a one dimensional problem. The reverberation or steady state field would most definately not obey any minimum phase criteria. I have never been convinced that the free field sound radiation problem in 3 dimensions is minimum phase at all. In fact I believe that it isn't. The amplitude, phase and time of arrival of a wavefront can all change independently with angle about a complex source.

At LF in a room, it is kind of ridiculous to talk about a direct field since the time of propagation to a wall is on the same order as the period. Thus a single period cannot even have passed before there is multipath. How could such a situation be minimum phase except by coincidence.
__________________
Earl Geddes Gedlee Website
  Reply With Quote

Reply


Cardioid BassHide this!Advertise here!
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Adventures in cardioid MBK Multi-Way 123 2nd January 2017 03:53 AM
any electric bass players? im building a bass guitar cab KOA Instruments and Amps 27 30th April 2007 03:49 PM
cardioid design? Nappylady Multi-Way 6 24th January 2004 09:07 AM
For all Bass Junkies out there (Behringer Bass processor usage report) VEC7OR Digital Line Level 5 27th October 2003 09:18 AM


New To Site? Need Help?

All times are GMT. The time now is 03:52 AM.


Search Engine Optimisation provided by DragonByte SEO (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Resources saved on this page: MySQL 15.79%
vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright ©1999-2019 diyAudio
Wiki