"Svante" wrote in message
om...

It should not be THAT hard to add the two signals, given that phase
and amplitude is taken into account. Of course that depends on what
you mean with "near field"; if the microphone is put VERY close to the
membrane/port, then the effective distance (ie the amplitude) may be
hard to estimate correctly. On the other hand, the "inside-the-box"
method elegantly adds up the two volume flows automatically.

Only at very low frequencies. Phase cancellation of multiple driver systems
usually occurs at frequencies higher than can be measured using the "inside
box" method.
But remember you do not need a half wavelength for *some* cancellation to
take place.

TonyP.

"Svante" wrote in message
om...

It should not be THAT hard to add the two signals, given that phase
and amplitude is taken into account. Of course that depends on what
you mean with "near field"; if the microphone is put VERY close to the
membrane/port, then the effective distance (ie the amplitude) may be
hard to estimate correctly. On the other hand, the "inside-the-box"
method elegantly adds up the two volume flows automatically.

Only at very low frequencies. Phase cancellation of multiple driver systems
usually occurs at frequencies higher than can be measured using the "inside
box" method.
But remember you do not need a half wavelength for *some* cancellation to
take place.

TonyP.

"Svante" wrote in message
om...

It should not be THAT hard to add the two signals, given that phase
and amplitude is taken into account. Of course that depends on what
you mean with "near field"; if the microphone is put VERY close to the
membrane/port, then the effective distance (ie the amplitude) may be
hard to estimate correctly. On the other hand, the "inside-the-box"
method elegantly adds up the two volume flows automatically.

Only at very low frequencies. Phase cancellation of multiple driver systems
usually occurs at frequencies higher than can be measured using the "inside
box" method.
But remember you do not need a half wavelength for *some* cancellation to
take place.

TonyP.

"Tony Pearce" wrote in message . au...
"Svante" wrote in message
om...

It should not be THAT hard to add the two signals, given that phase
and amplitude is taken into account. Of course that depends on what
you mean with "near field"; if the microphone is put VERY close to the
membrane/port, then the effective distance (ie the amplitude) may be
hard to estimate correctly. On the other hand, the "inside-the-box"
method elegantly adds up the two volume flows automatically.

Only at very low frequencies. Phase cancellation of multiple driver systems
usually occurs at frequencies higher than can be measured using the "inside
box" method.
But remember you do not need a half wavelength for *some* cancellation to
take place.

Agree, we were talking about different frequency ranges here. I was
referring to the addition of the port and the woofer in a bass-reflex
system, this should not be VERY hard. Adding the sounds from a woofer
and a tweeter would be a completely different matter, given the higher
frequency at the crossover. And of course, the inside-the-box cannot
provide such an addition.

"Tony Pearce" wrote in message . au...
"Svante" wrote in message
om...

It should not be THAT hard to add the two signals, given that phase
and amplitude is taken into account. Of course that depends on what
you mean with "near field"; if the microphone is put VERY close to the
membrane/port, then the effective distance (ie the amplitude) may be
hard to estimate correctly. On the other hand, the "inside-the-box"
method elegantly adds up the two volume flows automatically.

Only at very low frequencies. Phase cancellation of multiple driver systems
usually occurs at frequencies higher than can be measured using the "inside
box" method.
But remember you do not need a half wavelength for *some* cancellation to
take place.

Agree, we were talking about different frequency ranges here. I was
referring to the addition of the port and the woofer in a bass-reflex
system, this should not be VERY hard. Adding the sounds from a woofer
and a tweeter would be a completely different matter, given the higher
frequency at the crossover. And of course, the inside-the-box cannot
provide such an addition.

"Tony Pearce" wrote in message . au...
"Svante" wrote in message
om...

It should not be THAT hard to add the two signals, given that phase
and amplitude is taken into account. Of course that depends on what
you mean with "near field"; if the microphone is put VERY close to the
membrane/port, then the effective distance (ie the amplitude) may be
hard to estimate correctly. On the other hand, the "inside-the-box"
method elegantly adds up the two volume flows automatically.

Only at very low frequencies. Phase cancellation of multiple driver systems
usually occurs at frequencies higher than can be measured using the "inside
box" method.
But remember you do not need a half wavelength for *some* cancellation to
take place.

Agree, we were talking about different frequency ranges here. I was
referring to the addition of the port and the woofer in a bass-reflex
system, this should not be VERY hard. Adding the sounds from a woofer
and a tweeter would be a completely different matter, given the higher
frequency at the crossover. And of course, the inside-the-box cannot
provide such an addition.

"Svante" wrote in message
om...
Agree, we were talking about different frequency ranges here. I was
referring to the addition of the port and the woofer in a bass-reflex
system, this should not be VERY hard. Adding the sounds from a woofer
and a tweeter would be a completely different matter, given the higher
frequency at the crossover. And of course, the inside-the-box cannot
provide such an addition.

You still miss the point I was making. The tweeter frequencies can be easily
measured using MLS gating systems. The problem is with multi - woofer
systems eg. D'Appolito designs commonly available these days. Near field
measurements are made on one woofer, then MLS measurements are made for high
frequencies. If the room height is small as it usually is, then errors will
occur when combining near field measurements at frequencies lower than can
be gated.

TonyP.

"Svante" wrote in message
om...
Agree, we were talking about different frequency ranges here. I was
referring to the addition of the port and the woofer in a bass-reflex
system, this should not be VERY hard. Adding the sounds from a woofer
and a tweeter would be a completely different matter, given the higher
frequency at the crossover. And of course, the inside-the-box cannot
provide such an addition.

You still miss the point I was making. The tweeter frequencies can be easily
measured using MLS gating systems. The problem is with multi - woofer
systems eg. D'Appolito designs commonly available these days. Near field
measurements are made on one woofer, then MLS measurements are made for high
frequencies. If the room height is small as it usually is, then errors will
occur when combining near field measurements at frequencies lower than can
be gated.

TonyP.

"Svante" wrote in message
om...
Agree, we were talking about different frequency ranges here. I was
referring to the addition of the port and the woofer in a bass-reflex
system, this should not be VERY hard. Adding the sounds from a woofer
and a tweeter would be a completely different matter, given the higher
frequency at the crossover. And of course, the inside-the-box cannot
provide such an addition.

You still miss the point I was making. The tweeter frequencies can be easily
measured using MLS gating systems. The problem is with multi - woofer
systems eg. D'Appolito designs commonly available these days. Near field
measurements are made on one woofer, then MLS measurements are made for high
frequencies. If the room height is small as it usually is, then errors will
occur when combining near field measurements at frequencies lower than can
be gated.

TonyP.

"Tony Pearce" wrote in message . au...
"Svante" wrote in message
om...
Agree, we were talking about different frequency ranges here. I was
referring to the addition of the port and the woofer in a bass-reflex
system, this should not be VERY hard. Adding the sounds from a woofer
and a tweeter would be a completely different matter, given the higher
frequency at the crossover. And of course, the inside-the-box cannot
provide such an addition.

You still miss the point I was making. The tweeter frequencies can be easily
measured using MLS gating systems. The problem is with multi - woofer
systems eg. D'Appolito designs commonly available these days. Near field
measurements are made on one woofer, then MLS measurements are made for high
frequencies. If the room height is small as it usually is, then errors will
occur when combining near field measurements at frequencies lower than can
be gated.

Hmm, in that case I still fail to understand what you mean. Could you
enlighten me on what a D'Appolito design is (I must confess I don't
know). Are you speaking about a closed box or bass-reflex.
I realise that the time between direct sound and the first reflection
will determine the lowest frequency that can be used when gating an
impulse response, but I fail to see why this would make combination of
this and near-field measurement hard. Do you mean that it would force
us to use the near-field measurement at a too high frequency?

"Tony Pearce" wrote in message . au...
"Svante" wrote in message
om...
Agree, we were talking about different frequency ranges here. I was
referring to the addition of the port and the woofer in a bass-reflex
system, this should not be VERY hard. Adding the sounds from a woofer
and a tweeter would be a completely different matter, given the higher
frequency at the crossover. And of course, the inside-the-box cannot
provide such an addition.

You still miss the point I was making. The tweeter frequencies can be easily
measured using MLS gating systems. The problem is with multi - woofer
systems eg. D'Appolito designs commonly available these days. Near field
measurements are made on one woofer, then MLS measurements are made for high
frequencies. If the room height is small as it usually is, then errors will
occur when combining near field measurements at frequencies lower than can
be gated.

Hmm, in that case I still fail to understand what you mean. Could you
enlighten me on what a D'Appolito design is (I must confess I don't
know). Are you speaking about a closed box or bass-reflex.
I realise that the time between direct sound and the first reflection
will determine the lowest frequency that can be used when gating an
impulse response, but I fail to see why this would make combination of
this and near-field measurement hard. Do you mean that it would force
us to use the near-field measurement at a too high frequency?

"Tony Pearce" wrote in message . au...
"Svante" wrote in message
om...
Agree, we were talking about different frequency ranges here. I was
referring to the addition of the port and the woofer in a bass-reflex
system, this should not be VERY hard. Adding the sounds from a woofer
and a tweeter would be a completely different matter, given the higher
frequency at the crossover. And of course, the inside-the-box cannot
provide such an addition.

You still miss the point I was making. The tweeter frequencies can be easily
measured using MLS gating systems. The problem is with multi - woofer
systems eg. D'Appolito designs commonly available these days. Near field
measurements are made on one woofer, then MLS measurements are made for high
frequencies. If the room height is small as it usually is, then errors will
occur when combining near field measurements at frequencies lower than can
be gated.

Hmm, in that case I still fail to understand what you mean. Could you
enlighten me on what a D'Appolito design is (I must confess I don't
know). Are you speaking about a closed box or bass-reflex.
I realise that the time between direct sound and the first reflection
will determine the lowest frequency that can be used when gating an
impulse response, but I fail to see why this would make combination of
this and near-field measurement hard. Do you mean that it would force
us to use the near-field measurement at a too high frequency?

On 18 Dec 2003 09:57:24 -0800, (Svante)
wrote:

"Tony Pearce" wrote in message . au...

You still miss the point I was making. The tweeter frequencies can be easily
measured using MLS gating systems. The problem is with multi - woofer
systems eg. D'Appolito designs commonly available these days. Near field
measurements are made on one woofer, then MLS measurements are made for high
frequencies. If the room height is small as it usually is, then errors will
occur when combining near field measurements at frequencies lower than can
be gated.

Hmm, in that case I still fail to understand what you mean. Could you
enlighten me on what a D'Appolito design is (I must confess I don't
know).

It's a vertical array with twin bass/mids and a third-order crossover,
and it's noted for a very smooth vertical dispersion pattern around
the crossover frequency. Many such 'WTW' designs are around today, but
not all are true d'Appolito arrays. Many are so-called '2.5 way'
designs, which are conventional single bass/mid designs at the tweeter
crossover point. Invented by audio legend Joe d'Apollito, hence the
name.

Are you speaking about a closed box or bass-reflex.

Can be either, as the key element is the crossover region from
bass/mids to tweeter, although most commercial designs seem to be
sealed.

I realise that the time between direct sound and the first reflection
will determine the lowest frequency that can be used when gating an
impulse response, but I fail to see why this would make combination of
this and near-field measurement hard. Do you mean that it would force
us to use the near-field measurement at a too high frequency?

I believe that's what he's getting at.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On 18 Dec 2003 09:57:24 -0800, (Svante)
wrote:

"Tony Pearce" wrote in message . au...

You still miss the point I was making. The tweeter frequencies can be easily
measured using MLS gating systems. The problem is with multi - woofer
systems eg. D'Appolito designs commonly available these days. Near field
measurements are made on one woofer, then MLS measurements are made for high
frequencies. If the room height is small as it usually is, then errors will
occur when combining near field measurements at frequencies lower than can
be gated.

Hmm, in that case I still fail to understand what you mean. Could you
enlighten me on what a D'Appolito design is (I must confess I don't
know).

It's a vertical array with twin bass/mids and a third-order crossover,
and it's noted for a very smooth vertical dispersion pattern around
the crossover frequency. Many such 'WTW' designs are around today, but
not all are true d'Appolito arrays. Many are so-called '2.5 way'
designs, which are conventional single bass/mid designs at the tweeter
crossover point. Invented by audio legend Joe d'Apollito, hence the
name.

Are you speaking about a closed box or bass-reflex.

Can be either, as the key element is the crossover region from
bass/mids to tweeter, although most commercial designs seem to be
sealed.

I realise that the time between direct sound and the first reflection
will determine the lowest frequency that can be used when gating an
impulse response, but I fail to see why this would make combination of
this and near-field measurement hard. Do you mean that it would force
us to use the near-field measurement at a too high frequency?

I believe that's what he's getting at.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On 18 Dec 2003 09:57:24 -0800, (Svante)
wrote:

"Tony Pearce" wrote in message . au...

You still miss the point I was making. The tweeter frequencies can be easily
measured using MLS gating systems. The problem is with multi - woofer
systems eg. D'Appolito designs commonly available these days. Near field
measurements are made on one woofer, then MLS measurements are made for high
frequencies. If the room height is small as it usually is, then errors will
occur when combining near field measurements at frequencies lower than can
be gated.

Hmm, in that case I still fail to understand what you mean. Could you
enlighten me on what a D'Appolito design is (I must confess I don't
know).

It's a vertical array with twin bass/mids and a third-order crossover,
and it's noted for a very smooth vertical dispersion pattern around
the crossover frequency. Many such 'WTW' designs are around today, but
not all are true d'Appolito arrays. Many are so-called '2.5 way'
designs, which are conventional single bass/mid designs at the tweeter
crossover point. Invented by audio legend Joe d'Apollito, hence the
name.

Are you speaking about a closed box or bass-reflex.

Can be either, as the key element is the crossover region from
bass/mids to tweeter, although most commercial designs seem to be
sealed.

I realise that the time between direct sound and the first reflection
will determine the lowest frequency that can be used when gating an
impulse response, but I fail to see why this would make combination of
this and near-field measurement hard. Do you mean that it would force
us to use the near-field measurement at a too high frequency?

I believe that's what he's getting at.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

(Stewart Pinkerton) wrote in message ...
On 18 Dec 2003 09:57:24 -0800, (Svante)
wrote:

"Tony Pearce" wrote in message . au...
Hmm, in that case I still fail to understand what you mean. Could you
enlighten me on what a D'Appolito design is (I must confess I don't
know).

It's a vertical array with twin bass/mids and a third-order crossover,
and it's noted for a very smooth vertical dispersion pattern around
the crossover frequency. Many such 'WTW' designs are around today, but
not all are true d'Appolito arrays. Many are so-called '2.5 way'
designs, which are conventional single bass/mid designs at the tweeter
crossover point. Invented by audio legend Joe d'Apollito, hence the
name.

Are the two bass/mid speakers identical? Do they both play the same
frequency range? If not, how does the filter look, that manages to
arrange that?

I was thinking the other day about something like this for the
bass/mid part of the speaker:

----------
|
Speaker 1
|
*----------
| |
Speaker 2 Capacitor
| |
----------*----------

I think that this network would give a straight frequency response if
the drivers have a flat response. At low frequencies both would play,
total power from the amplifier would be halved due to the doubled
impedance, but efficiency would be doubled due to the dual drivers so
the net gain would be =1. At high frequencies, only speaker 1 would
play, but the amplifier would deliver full power. The benefit from
this arrangement would be improved maximum acoustic output at low
frequencies, but the less directed radiation of a single speaker at
higher frequencies.

Is this what is done, combined with a standard third order crossover
filter in the d'Appolito design?

(Stewart Pinkerton) wrote in message ...
On 18 Dec 2003 09:57:24 -0800, (Svante)
wrote:

"Tony Pearce" wrote in message . au...
Hmm, in that case I still fail to understand what you mean. Could you
enlighten me on what a D'Appolito design is (I must confess I don't
know).

It's a vertical array with twin bass/mids and a third-order crossover,
and it's noted for a very smooth vertical dispersion pattern around
the crossover frequency. Many such 'WTW' designs are around today, but
not all are true d'Appolito arrays. Many are so-called '2.5 way'
designs, which are conventional single bass/mid designs at the tweeter
crossover point. Invented by audio legend Joe d'Apollito, hence the
name.

Are the two bass/mid speakers identical? Do they both play the same
frequency range? If not, how does the filter look, that manages to
arrange that?

I was thinking the other day about something like this for the
bass/mid part of the speaker:

----------
|
Speaker 1
|
*----------
| |
Speaker 2 Capacitor
| |
----------*----------

I think that this network would give a straight frequency response if
the drivers have a flat response. At low frequencies both would play,
total power from the amplifier would be halved due to the doubled
impedance, but efficiency would be doubled due to the dual drivers so
the net gain would be =1. At high frequencies, only speaker 1 would
play, but the amplifier would deliver full power. The benefit from
this arrangement would be improved maximum acoustic output at low
frequencies, but the less directed radiation of a single speaker at
higher frequencies.

Is this what is done, combined with a standard third order crossover
filter in the d'Appolito design?

(Stewart Pinkerton) wrote in message ...
On 18 Dec 2003 09:57:24 -0800, (Svante)
wrote:

"Tony Pearce" wrote in message . au...
Hmm, in that case I still fail to understand what you mean. Could you
enlighten me on what a D'Appolito design is (I must confess I don't
know).

It's a vertical array with twin bass/mids and a third-order crossover,
and it's noted for a very smooth vertical dispersion pattern around
the crossover frequency. Many such 'WTW' designs are around today, but
not all are true d'Appolito arrays. Many are so-called '2.5 way'
designs, which are conventional single bass/mid designs at the tweeter
crossover point. Invented by audio legend Joe d'Apollito, hence the
name.

Are the two bass/mid speakers identical? Do they both play the same
frequency range? If not, how does the filter look, that manages to
arrange that?

I was thinking the other day about something like this for the
bass/mid part of the speaker:

----------
|
Speaker 1
|
*----------
| |
Speaker 2 Capacitor
| |
----------*----------

I think that this network would give a straight frequency response if
the drivers have a flat response. At low frequencies both would play,
total power from the amplifier would be halved due to the doubled
impedance, but efficiency would be doubled due to the dual drivers so
the net gain would be =1. At high frequencies, only speaker 1 would
play, but the amplifier would deliver full power. The benefit from
this arrangement would be improved maximum acoustic output at low
frequencies, but the less directed radiation of a single speaker at
higher frequencies.

Is this what is done, combined with a standard third order crossover
filter in the d'Appolito design?

(Svante) wrote in message



Hmm, in that case I still fail to understand what you mean. Could you
enlighten me on what a D'Appolito design is (I must confess I don't
know). Are you speaking about a closed box or bass-reflex.

From "Advanced Speaker Systems" by Ray Alden:

"In his 1983 paper, "A Geometric Approach to Elimination Lobing Errors
in Multiway Loudspeakers," Dr. Joseph D'Appolito found a way to create
a sysmmetric vertical radiation patter from speakers. Reading the work
of Linkwitz, it occured to him that a symmetrical positioning of 3
drivers in a 2-way design, used with a 3rd-order crossover, would
produce the quasi-spherical vertical response pattern ....." " He
found that, in order for the 3/2 geometry to work properly, the
distance between the centers of the adjacent drivers should be kept
close to one wavelength of the crossovers frequency."

------- 0 woofer
|
d
|
------- o tweeter
|
d
|
------- 0 woofer

"d should be equal to one wavelength of the crossover frequeny Fc"


"The elegance of the 3/2 driver arrangement is that some type of
symmetrical vertical radiation pattern is produced *no matter* what
crossover type is used."

"... the 3/2 driver geometry produce a sysmmetric radiation pattern
even when used with a *mixed-order* crossover."



Bob Stanton

(Svante) wrote in message



Hmm, in that case I still fail to understand what you mean. Could you
enlighten me on what a D'Appolito design is (I must confess I don't
know). Are you speaking about a closed box or bass-reflex.

From "Advanced Speaker Systems" by Ray Alden:

"In his 1983 paper, "A Geometric Approach to Elimination Lobing Errors
in Multiway Loudspeakers," Dr. Joseph D'Appolito found a way to create
a sysmmetric vertical radiation patter from speakers. Reading the work
of Linkwitz, it occured to him that a symmetrical positioning of 3
drivers in a 2-way design, used with a 3rd-order crossover, would
produce the quasi-spherical vertical response pattern ....." " He
found that, in order for the 3/2 geometry to work properly, the
distance between the centers of the adjacent drivers should be kept
close to one wavelength of the crossovers frequency."

------- 0 woofer
|
d
|
------- o tweeter
|
d
|
------- 0 woofer

"d should be equal to one wavelength of the crossover frequeny Fc"


"The elegance of the 3/2 driver arrangement is that some type of
symmetrical vertical radiation pattern is produced *no matter* what
crossover type is used."

"... the 3/2 driver geometry produce a sysmmetric radiation pattern
even when used with a *mixed-order* crossover."



Bob Stanton

(Svante) wrote in message



Hmm, in that case I still fail to understand what you mean. Could you
enlighten me on what a D'Appolito design is (I must confess I don't
know). Are you speaking about a closed box or bass-reflex.

From "Advanced Speaker Systems" by Ray Alden:

"In his 1983 paper, "A Geometric Approach to Elimination Lobing Errors
in Multiway Loudspeakers," Dr. Joseph D'Appolito found a way to create
a sysmmetric vertical radiation patter from speakers. Reading the work
of Linkwitz, it occured to him that a symmetrical positioning of 3
drivers in a 2-way design, used with a 3rd-order crossover, would
produce the quasi-spherical vertical response pattern ....." " He
found that, in order for the 3/2 geometry to work properly, the
distance between the centers of the adjacent drivers should be kept
close to one wavelength of the crossovers frequency."

------- 0 woofer
|
d
|
------- o tweeter
|
d
|
------- 0 woofer

"d should be equal to one wavelength of the crossover frequeny Fc"


"The elegance of the 3/2 driver arrangement is that some type of
symmetrical vertical radiation pattern is produced *no matter* what
crossover type is used."

"... the 3/2 driver geometry produce a sysmmetric radiation pattern
even when used with a *mixed-order* crossover."



Bob Stanton

Lionel wrote in message news:bs09lc$faq$1@news-


I thought that "d" was MidBass center to MidBass center distance in a
MTM configuration (Midbass - Tweeter - Midbass).

------- 0 Midbass
|
|
|
d |------- o tweeter
|
|
|
------- 0 Midbass


d = (sound speed / Xover frequency)

example for a Xover fz of 1500 hz :
sound speed = 331m/s

d = 331 / 1500 = 0.22m = 8.66"

Could you please confirm.




Yes, one wavelength at 1500 Hz is about 8.7 in. (depends on the
temperature of the air)

I did a Google search for "D'appolito". I couldn't find his original
1983 paper, but I did find some references to it. The references
placed the midbass drivers at 2 W.L. apart. It looks like Ray Alden
was correct.

Bob Stanton

Lionel wrote in message news:bs09lc$faq$1@news-


I thought that "d" was MidBass center to MidBass center distance in a
MTM configuration (Midbass - Tweeter - Midbass).

------- 0 Midbass
|
|
|
d |------- o tweeter
|
|
|
------- 0 Midbass


d = (sound speed / Xover frequency)

example for a Xover fz of 1500 hz :
sound speed = 331m/s

d = 331 / 1500 = 0.22m = 8.66"

Could you please confirm.




Yes, one wavelength at 1500 Hz is about 8.7 in. (depends on the
temperature of the air)

I did a Google search for "D'appolito". I couldn't find his original
1983 paper, but I did find some references to it. The references
placed the midbass drivers at 2 W.L. apart. It looks like Ray Alden
was correct.

Bob Stanton

Lionel wrote in message news:bs09lc$faq$1@news-


I thought that "d" was MidBass center to MidBass center distance in a
MTM configuration (Midbass - Tweeter - Midbass).

------- 0 Midbass
|
|
|
d |------- o tweeter
|
|
|
------- 0 Midbass


d = (sound speed / Xover frequency)

example for a Xover fz of 1500 hz :
sound speed = 331m/s

d = 331 / 1500 = 0.22m = 8.66"

Could you please confirm.




Yes, one wavelength at 1500 Hz is about 8.7 in. (depends on the
temperature of the air)

I did a Google search for "D'appolito". I couldn't find his original
1983 paper, but I did find some references to it. The references
placed the midbass drivers at 2 W.L. apart. It looks like Ray Alden
was correct.

Bob Stanton

(Bob-Stanton) wrote in message m...
(Svante) wrote in message

Hmm, in that case I still fail to understand what you mean. Could you
enlighten me on what a D'Appolito design is (I must confess I don't
know). Are you speaking about a closed box or bass-reflex.

From "Advanced Speaker Systems" by Ray Alden:

"In his 1983 paper, "A Geometric Approach to Elimination Lobing Errors
in Multiway Loudspeakers," Dr. Joseph D'Appolito found a way to create

Ahh, that seems interesting!

Would you know where this article was published? JAES? Does the book
give a reference?

(Bob-Stanton) wrote in message m...
(Svante) wrote in message

Hmm, in that case I still fail to understand what you mean. Could you
enlighten me on what a D'Appolito design is (I must confess I don't
know). Are you speaking about a closed box or bass-reflex.

From "Advanced Speaker Systems" by Ray Alden:

"In his 1983 paper, "A Geometric Approach to Elimination Lobing Errors
in Multiway Loudspeakers," Dr. Joseph D'Appolito found a way to create

Ahh, that seems interesting!

Would you know where this article was published? JAES? Does the book
give a reference?

(Bob-Stanton) wrote in message m...
(Svante) wrote in message

Hmm, in that case I still fail to understand what you mean. Could you
enlighten me on what a D'Appolito design is (I must confess I don't
know). Are you speaking about a closed box or bass-reflex.

From "Advanced Speaker Systems" by Ray Alden:

"In his 1983 paper, "A Geometric Approach to Elimination Lobing Errors
in Multiway Loudspeakers," Dr. Joseph D'Appolito found a way to create

Ahh, that seems interesting!

Would you know where this article was published? JAES? Does the book
give a reference?

(Svante) wrote in message . com...


Ahh, that seems interesting!

Would you know where this article was published? JAES? Does the book
give a reference?



? ? :-(

(Svante) wrote in message . com...


Ahh, that seems interesting!

Would you know where this article was published? JAES? Does the book
give a reference?



? ? :-(

(Svante) wrote in message . com...


Ahh, that seems interesting!

Would you know where this article was published? JAES? Does the book
give a reference?



? ? :-(

(Bob-Stanton) wrote in message . com...
(Svante) wrote in message . com...

From "Advanced Speaker Systems" by Ray Alden:

"In his 1983 paper, "A Geometric Approach to Elimination Lobing Errors
in Multiway Loudspeakers," Dr. Joseph D'Appolito found a way to create

Ahh, that seems interesting!

Would you know where this article was published? JAES? Does the book
give a reference?

? ? :-(

Errh.. I mean, I don't have the book, but it seems as if the book
might refer to a scientific paper (from 1983) or similar. My guess was
that it was published in Journal of Audio Engineering Society (JAES),
but that is of course a guess. Books often have a reference list and I
wondered if you could look there to see where this 1983 paper was
published?

(Bob-Stanton) wrote in message . com...
(Svante) wrote in message . com...

From "Advanced Speaker Systems" by Ray Alden:

"In his 1983 paper, "A Geometric Approach to Elimination Lobing Errors
in Multiway Loudspeakers," Dr. Joseph D'Appolito found a way to create

Ahh, that seems interesting!

Would you know where this article was published? JAES? Does the book
give a reference?

? ? :-(

Errh.. I mean, I don't have the book, but it seems as if the book
might refer to a scientific paper (from 1983) or similar. My guess was
that it was published in Journal of Audio Engineering Society (JAES),
but that is of course a guess. Books often have a reference list and I
wondered if you could look there to see where this 1983 paper was
published?

(Bob-Stanton) wrote in message . com...
(Svante) wrote in message . com...

From "Advanced Speaker Systems" by Ray Alden:

"In his 1983 paper, "A Geometric Approach to Elimination Lobing Errors
in Multiway Loudspeakers," Dr. Joseph D'Appolito found a way to create

Ahh, that seems interesting!

Would you know where this article was published? JAES? Does the book
give a reference?

? ? :-(

Errh.. I mean, I don't have the book, but it seems as if the book
might refer to a scientific paper (from 1983) or similar. My guess was
that it was published in Journal of Audio Engineering Society (JAES),
but that is of course a guess. Books often have a reference list and I
wondered if you could look there to see where this 1983 paper was
published?

(Svante) wrote in message om...
(Bob-Stanton) wrote in message . com...
(Svante) wrote in message . com...

From "Advanced Speaker Systems" by Ray Alden:


Errh.. I mean, I don't have the book, but it seems as if the book
might refer to a scientific paper (from 1983) or similar. My guess was
that it was published in Journal of Audio Engineering Society (JAES),
but that is of course a guess. Books often have a reference list and I
wondered if you could look there to see where this 1983 paper was
published?



I found it. :-)

Speaker Builder, published by Audio Amateur Press
P.O.box 494, Peterborough, NH, 03458-0494
Telephone: 800 -524-9464

"Back issues are available."

"A High Powered Satellite Speaker", by Joseph D'Appolito, Issue 4/1984

Bob Stanton

(Svante) wrote in message om...
(Bob-Stanton) wrote in message . com...
(Svante) wrote in message . com...

From "Advanced Speaker Systems" by Ray Alden:


Errh.. I mean, I don't have the book, but it seems as if the book
might refer to a scientific paper (from 1983) or similar. My guess was
that it was published in Journal of Audio Engineering Society (JAES),
but that is of course a guess. Books often have a reference list and I
wondered if you could look there to see where this 1983 paper was
published?



I found it. :-)

Speaker Builder, published by Audio Amateur Press
P.O.box 494, Peterborough, NH, 03458-0494
Telephone: 800 -524-9464

"Back issues are available."

"A High Powered Satellite Speaker", by Joseph D'Appolito, Issue 4/1984

Bob Stanton

(Svante) wrote in message om...
(Bob-Stanton) wrote in message . com...
(Svante) wrote in message . com...

From "Advanced Speaker Systems" by Ray Alden:


Errh.. I mean, I don't have the book, but it seems as if the book
might refer to a scientific paper (from 1983) or similar. My guess was
that it was published in Journal of Audio Engineering Society (JAES),
but that is of course a guess. Books often have a reference list and I
wondered if you could look there to see where this 1983 paper was
published?



I found it. :-)

Speaker Builder, published by Audio Amateur Press
P.O.box 494, Peterborough, NH, 03458-0494
Telephone: 800 -524-9464

"Back issues are available."

"A High Powered Satellite Speaker", by Joseph D'Appolito, Issue 4/1984

Bob Stanton

(Bob-Stanton) wrote in message . com...
(Svante) wrote in message om...
(Bob-Stanton) wrote in message . com...
(Svante) wrote in message . com...

From "Advanced Speaker Systems" by Ray Alden:


Errh.. I mean, I don't have the book, but it seems as if the book
might refer to a scientific paper (from 1983) or similar. My guess was
that it was published in Journal of Audio Engineering Society (JAES),
but that is of course a guess. Books often have a reference list and I
wondered if you could look there to see where this 1983 paper was
published?



I found it. :-)

Speaker Builder, published by Audio Amateur Press
P.O.box 494, Peterborough, NH, 03458-0494
Telephone: 800 -524-9464

"Back issues are available."

"A High Powered Satellite Speaker", by Joseph D'Appolito, Issue 4/1984

Bob Stanton

OK, it was not what I hoped for (I don't have that book), but thanks anyway!

(Bob-Stanton) wrote in message . com...
(Svante) wrote in message om...
(Bob-Stanton) wrote in message . com...
(Svante) wrote in message . com...

From "Advanced Speaker Systems" by Ray Alden:


Errh.. I mean, I don't have the book, but it seems as if the book
might refer to a scientific paper (from 1983) or similar. My guess was
that it was published in Journal of Audio Engineering Society (JAES),
but that is of course a guess. Books often have a reference list and I
wondered if you could look there to see where this 1983 paper was
published?



I found it. :-)

Speaker Builder, published by Audio Amateur Press
P.O.box 494, Peterborough, NH, 03458-0494
Telephone: 800 -524-9464

"Back issues are available."

"A High Powered Satellite Speaker", by Joseph D'Appolito, Issue 4/1984

Bob Stanton

OK, it was not what I hoped for (I don't have that book), but thanks anyway!

(Bob-Stanton) wrote in message . com...
(Svante) wrote in message om...
(Bob-Stanton) wrote in message . com...
(Svante) wrote in message . com...

From "Advanced Speaker Systems" by Ray Alden:


Errh.. I mean, I don't have the book, but it seems as if the book
might refer to a scientific paper (from 1983) or similar. My guess was
that it was published in Journal of Audio Engineering Society (JAES),
but that is of course a guess. Books often have a reference list and I
wondered if you could look there to see where this 1983 paper was
published?



I found it. :-)

Speaker Builder, published by Audio Amateur Press
P.O.box 494, Peterborough, NH, 03458-0494
Telephone: 800 -524-9464

"Back issues are available."

"A High Powered Satellite Speaker", by Joseph D'Appolito, Issue 4/1984

Bob Stanton

OK, it was not what I hoped for (I don't have that book), but thanks anyway!

(Svante) wrote in message



Speaker Builder, published by Audio Amateur Press
P.O.box 494, Peterborough, NH, 03458-0494
Telephone: 800 -524-9464

"Back issues are available."

"A High Powered Satellite Speaker", by Joseph D'Appolito, Issue 4/1984

Bob Stanton

OK, it was not what I hoped for (I don't have that book), but thanks anyway!


Speaker Builder is a monthly magazine. I think they might send you a
copy of that artical, or maybe they have old issues on line.