Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#82
|
|||
|
|||
Old speaker boxes
In article ,
(Bill Turner) wrote: YOU HAVE TO LEARN WHAT IS IMPORTANT TO THE GROUP. MANY HAVE LEARNED THINGS THAT ARE NOT TRUE IN THEIR QUEST FOR KNOWLEDGE. So it's what's important to the group that counts, and truth is irrelevant. Regards, John Byrns Surf my web pages at, http://users.rcn.com/jbyrns/ |
#83
|
|||
|
|||
Old speaker boxes
In rec.antiques.radio+phono Sanders wrote:
I bow out from the group as my knowledge learned is useless. Knowledge without backup is always useless in a discussion, your response is that of a troll, not of someone enthousiastic about what they learned or know. --- Met vriendelijke groet, Maarten Bakker. |
#84
|
|||
|
|||
Old speaker boxes
In rec.antiques.radio+phono Sanders wrote:
I bow out from the group as my knowledge learned is useless. Knowledge without backup is always useless in a discussion, your response is that of a troll, not of someone enthousiastic about what they learned or know. --- Met vriendelijke groet, Maarten Bakker. |
#85
|
|||
|
|||
Old speaker boxes
In rec.antiques.radio+phono Sanders wrote:
I bow out from the group as my knowledge learned is useless. Knowledge without backup is always useless in a discussion, your response is that of a troll, not of someone enthousiastic about what they learned or know. --- Met vriendelijke groet, Maarten Bakker. |
#86
|
|||
|
|||
Old speaker boxes
In rec.antiques.radio+phono Sanders wrote:
I bow out from the group as my knowledge learned is useless. Knowledge without backup is always useless in a discussion, your response is that of a troll, not of someone enthousiastic about what they learned or know. --- Met vriendelijke groet, Maarten Bakker. |
#87
|
|||
|
|||
Old speaker boxes
|
#88
|
|||
|
|||
Old speaker boxes
|
#89
|
|||
|
|||
Old speaker boxes
|
#90
|
|||
|
|||
Old speaker boxes
|
#91
|
|||
|
|||
Old speaker boxes - long post
Peter,
Top post or bottom post, I have heard both?? Here is the email I sent to Dick and didn't post it because of its length. Here it it for those who are interested. John Dick, Since you ended it with a smile I will answer back directly to you. This is much too long for a post and it is evident you were NOT trying to be a jerk to me. Thank You! I didn't mention the company, because I wasn't sure about it being considered advertising for his company. I was a struggling musician and I had worked for a company back in Denver in mid 70'- 90' named "Gold Sound", who other than having just "boxes" with drivers in them for sale, we sold more drivers than anything. Brands such as JBL, EV, Dynaaudio, Morrel, SEAS, etc. We even experimented with tweeters that needed no x-over (Pizo's - lol) If you drilled out the plastic and damped them, they would work well as super tweets I was a sound tech for concerts, did custom installs, did minor electronic repair of equipment, and of course, sales. It was my job to make sure the FOH sounded "good" whether in a concert hall or a person's home. The speaker techs that worked there were my instructors. All of them were electrical engineering students up at CU. The names Thiele and Small were used a lot by them during their creations. Some of their creations were failures. Others like the all Dyna MTM arrangement (Diapolado?) were amazing sound for the price as compared to other boxes and how they were built. We even took new drivers and ran low power sine waves through them to "break in" the spiders before installing them in cabinets. It was amazing how some drivers would spec out as more accurate, but they just didn't sound right. Boxes were often built with 1" HDF and braced like crazy to keep the boxes from flexing and not projecting the sound out the front. We used felt around the tweeters to prevent reflected sound from the tweeters bouncing off the front of the cabinet and causing two different tweeter signals reaching the ear. Many things were experimented with such as driver voice coil alignment, but that really complicated box construction vs what the ear heard. It is amazing how many corners are cut when the customer doesn't see the inside of the box. Things such as poor quality x-over components and smaller wire size to cut final costs. We were in constant competition with "Listen Up" and their high priced "List and Above" - "Bait and Switch" sales techniques which they had been taken to court for more than once. Ron Gold, the owner, even had a judgment on them for duplicating speakers he had designed. The speakers he designed were listed in an audio magazine as some of the best of the best. He stretched it some, as all owners will do, and did not tell you that it was referencing his 8, 10, and 12 being used for car audio. We didn't due retail car audio, but if you knew what kind of speakers you wanted, we supplied them. Many places referred people to us to get better speakers than the car audio stores sold. Your mathematical understanding of the subject is quite excellent. I took what the techs told me as "truth" because like you, they backed up their assumptions with the same experts you have used. When I took customers into the "listening rooms", I would take them through many different listening scenarios. Speakers, like B&W and BOSE, were a joke compared to many of the things in there that were created by the techs. There is where I "heard" the difference of speakers and what they could do. Good tweeters would make a cymbal ring or the clock bells ring in "Time" by Pink Floyd sound real. Cheap tweeters just hissed. I would use acappella groups to demo midranges. Depending on the customers tastes, ZZ Top or acoustic jazz bands were used for bass demo. Ported rolled suspension boxes could not match the "snap" of an acoustic bass in a sealed box. They explained it to me as the "throw" of the speaker was extended for too long of a time to be ready for the next signal to come through. They could reproduce the sound of thunder well though. This is where I got my assumptions about speaker box construction. Building PA speakers using rigid surrounds BY JBL and EV were always ported using the Small/Thiele parameters in construction of port/box size parameters. My ears knew what things were supposed to sound like because of playing/sound reinforcing live music. I sold more systems than the sales people and they wondered why. I believe that there are "Audio" illusions about specs just as there are "Optical" illusions about the "visual truth" when presented to the "end user". I hope this clears up that I am not such a complete idiot as referenced about my knowledge and there is a basis for my opinions on the subject. Since you are considered the group's head guru on sound/speaker tech, I will bow out from the group about making any more "stupid" suggestions concerning sound and its faithful reproduction from what I have learned in the time I was there. I was not trying to be a jerk prima-donna about my knowledge of the subject of sound! Good Luck And Best Of Wishes Dick !!!! John Sanders Peter Larsen wrote: Sanders wrote: Fine, tell my teachers that they didn't know what they were talking about. A post from Dick Pierce constitutes just that. Relay it to your teachers if what you posted is what they told you. Please learn the usenet posting style, you could be a very interesting contributor from what I have read of your posts. Kind regards Peter Larsen |
#92
|
|||
|
|||
Old speaker boxes - long post
Peter,
Top post or bottom post, I have heard both?? Here is the email I sent to Dick and didn't post it because of its length. Here it it for those who are interested. John Dick, Since you ended it with a smile I will answer back directly to you. This is much too long for a post and it is evident you were NOT trying to be a jerk to me. Thank You! I didn't mention the company, because I wasn't sure about it being considered advertising for his company. I was a struggling musician and I had worked for a company back in Denver in mid 70'- 90' named "Gold Sound", who other than having just "boxes" with drivers in them for sale, we sold more drivers than anything. Brands such as JBL, EV, Dynaaudio, Morrel, SEAS, etc. We even experimented with tweeters that needed no x-over (Pizo's - lol) If you drilled out the plastic and damped them, they would work well as super tweets I was a sound tech for concerts, did custom installs, did minor electronic repair of equipment, and of course, sales. It was my job to make sure the FOH sounded "good" whether in a concert hall or a person's home. The speaker techs that worked there were my instructors. All of them were electrical engineering students up at CU. The names Thiele and Small were used a lot by them during their creations. Some of their creations were failures. Others like the all Dyna MTM arrangement (Diapolado?) were amazing sound for the price as compared to other boxes and how they were built. We even took new drivers and ran low power sine waves through them to "break in" the spiders before installing them in cabinets. It was amazing how some drivers would spec out as more accurate, but they just didn't sound right. Boxes were often built with 1" HDF and braced like crazy to keep the boxes from flexing and not projecting the sound out the front. We used felt around the tweeters to prevent reflected sound from the tweeters bouncing off the front of the cabinet and causing two different tweeter signals reaching the ear. Many things were experimented with such as driver voice coil alignment, but that really complicated box construction vs what the ear heard. It is amazing how many corners are cut when the customer doesn't see the inside of the box. Things such as poor quality x-over components and smaller wire size to cut final costs. We were in constant competition with "Listen Up" and their high priced "List and Above" - "Bait and Switch" sales techniques which they had been taken to court for more than once. Ron Gold, the owner, even had a judgment on them for duplicating speakers he had designed. The speakers he designed were listed in an audio magazine as some of the best of the best. He stretched it some, as all owners will do, and did not tell you that it was referencing his 8, 10, and 12 being used for car audio. We didn't due retail car audio, but if you knew what kind of speakers you wanted, we supplied them. Many places referred people to us to get better speakers than the car audio stores sold. Your mathematical understanding of the subject is quite excellent. I took what the techs told me as "truth" because like you, they backed up their assumptions with the same experts you have used. When I took customers into the "listening rooms", I would take them through many different listening scenarios. Speakers, like B&W and BOSE, were a joke compared to many of the things in there that were created by the techs. There is where I "heard" the difference of speakers and what they could do. Good tweeters would make a cymbal ring or the clock bells ring in "Time" by Pink Floyd sound real. Cheap tweeters just hissed. I would use acappella groups to demo midranges. Depending on the customers tastes, ZZ Top or acoustic jazz bands were used for bass demo. Ported rolled suspension boxes could not match the "snap" of an acoustic bass in a sealed box. They explained it to me as the "throw" of the speaker was extended for too long of a time to be ready for the next signal to come through. They could reproduce the sound of thunder well though. This is where I got my assumptions about speaker box construction. Building PA speakers using rigid surrounds BY JBL and EV were always ported using the Small/Thiele parameters in construction of port/box size parameters. My ears knew what things were supposed to sound like because of playing/sound reinforcing live music. I sold more systems than the sales people and they wondered why. I believe that there are "Audio" illusions about specs just as there are "Optical" illusions about the "visual truth" when presented to the "end user". I hope this clears up that I am not such a complete idiot as referenced about my knowledge and there is a basis for my opinions on the subject. Since you are considered the group's head guru on sound/speaker tech, I will bow out from the group about making any more "stupid" suggestions concerning sound and its faithful reproduction from what I have learned in the time I was there. I was not trying to be a jerk prima-donna about my knowledge of the subject of sound! Good Luck And Best Of Wishes Dick !!!! John Sanders Peter Larsen wrote: Sanders wrote: Fine, tell my teachers that they didn't know what they were talking about. A post from Dick Pierce constitutes just that. Relay it to your teachers if what you posted is what they told you. Please learn the usenet posting style, you could be a very interesting contributor from what I have read of your posts. Kind regards Peter Larsen |
#93
|
|||
|
|||
Old speaker boxes - long post
Peter,
Top post or bottom post, I have heard both?? Here is the email I sent to Dick and didn't post it because of its length. Here it it for those who are interested. John Dick, Since you ended it with a smile I will answer back directly to you. This is much too long for a post and it is evident you were NOT trying to be a jerk to me. Thank You! I didn't mention the company, because I wasn't sure about it being considered advertising for his company. I was a struggling musician and I had worked for a company back in Denver in mid 70'- 90' named "Gold Sound", who other than having just "boxes" with drivers in them for sale, we sold more drivers than anything. Brands such as JBL, EV, Dynaaudio, Morrel, SEAS, etc. We even experimented with tweeters that needed no x-over (Pizo's - lol) If you drilled out the plastic and damped them, they would work well as super tweets I was a sound tech for concerts, did custom installs, did minor electronic repair of equipment, and of course, sales. It was my job to make sure the FOH sounded "good" whether in a concert hall or a person's home. The speaker techs that worked there were my instructors. All of them were electrical engineering students up at CU. The names Thiele and Small were used a lot by them during their creations. Some of their creations were failures. Others like the all Dyna MTM arrangement (Diapolado?) were amazing sound for the price as compared to other boxes and how they were built. We even took new drivers and ran low power sine waves through them to "break in" the spiders before installing them in cabinets. It was amazing how some drivers would spec out as more accurate, but they just didn't sound right. Boxes were often built with 1" HDF and braced like crazy to keep the boxes from flexing and not projecting the sound out the front. We used felt around the tweeters to prevent reflected sound from the tweeters bouncing off the front of the cabinet and causing two different tweeter signals reaching the ear. Many things were experimented with such as driver voice coil alignment, but that really complicated box construction vs what the ear heard. It is amazing how many corners are cut when the customer doesn't see the inside of the box. Things such as poor quality x-over components and smaller wire size to cut final costs. We were in constant competition with "Listen Up" and their high priced "List and Above" - "Bait and Switch" sales techniques which they had been taken to court for more than once. Ron Gold, the owner, even had a judgment on them for duplicating speakers he had designed. The speakers he designed were listed in an audio magazine as some of the best of the best. He stretched it some, as all owners will do, and did not tell you that it was referencing his 8, 10, and 12 being used for car audio. We didn't due retail car audio, but if you knew what kind of speakers you wanted, we supplied them. Many places referred people to us to get better speakers than the car audio stores sold. Your mathematical understanding of the subject is quite excellent. I took what the techs told me as "truth" because like you, they backed up their assumptions with the same experts you have used. When I took customers into the "listening rooms", I would take them through many different listening scenarios. Speakers, like B&W and BOSE, were a joke compared to many of the things in there that were created by the techs. There is where I "heard" the difference of speakers and what they could do. Good tweeters would make a cymbal ring or the clock bells ring in "Time" by Pink Floyd sound real. Cheap tweeters just hissed. I would use acappella groups to demo midranges. Depending on the customers tastes, ZZ Top or acoustic jazz bands were used for bass demo. Ported rolled suspension boxes could not match the "snap" of an acoustic bass in a sealed box. They explained it to me as the "throw" of the speaker was extended for too long of a time to be ready for the next signal to come through. They could reproduce the sound of thunder well though. This is where I got my assumptions about speaker box construction. Building PA speakers using rigid surrounds BY JBL and EV were always ported using the Small/Thiele parameters in construction of port/box size parameters. My ears knew what things were supposed to sound like because of playing/sound reinforcing live music. I sold more systems than the sales people and they wondered why. I believe that there are "Audio" illusions about specs just as there are "Optical" illusions about the "visual truth" when presented to the "end user". I hope this clears up that I am not such a complete idiot as referenced about my knowledge and there is a basis for my opinions on the subject. Since you are considered the group's head guru on sound/speaker tech, I will bow out from the group about making any more "stupid" suggestions concerning sound and its faithful reproduction from what I have learned in the time I was there. I was not trying to be a jerk prima-donna about my knowledge of the subject of sound! Good Luck And Best Of Wishes Dick !!!! John Sanders Peter Larsen wrote: Sanders wrote: Fine, tell my teachers that they didn't know what they were talking about. A post from Dick Pierce constitutes just that. Relay it to your teachers if what you posted is what they told you. Please learn the usenet posting style, you could be a very interesting contributor from what I have read of your posts. Kind regards Peter Larsen |
#94
|
|||
|
|||
Old speaker boxes - long post
Peter,
Top post or bottom post, I have heard both?? Here is the email I sent to Dick and didn't post it because of its length. Here it it for those who are interested. John Dick, Since you ended it with a smile I will answer back directly to you. This is much too long for a post and it is evident you were NOT trying to be a jerk to me. Thank You! I didn't mention the company, because I wasn't sure about it being considered advertising for his company. I was a struggling musician and I had worked for a company back in Denver in mid 70'- 90' named "Gold Sound", who other than having just "boxes" with drivers in them for sale, we sold more drivers than anything. Brands such as JBL, EV, Dynaaudio, Morrel, SEAS, etc. We even experimented with tweeters that needed no x-over (Pizo's - lol) If you drilled out the plastic and damped them, they would work well as super tweets I was a sound tech for concerts, did custom installs, did minor electronic repair of equipment, and of course, sales. It was my job to make sure the FOH sounded "good" whether in a concert hall or a person's home. The speaker techs that worked there were my instructors. All of them were electrical engineering students up at CU. The names Thiele and Small were used a lot by them during their creations. Some of their creations were failures. Others like the all Dyna MTM arrangement (Diapolado?) were amazing sound for the price as compared to other boxes and how they were built. We even took new drivers and ran low power sine waves through them to "break in" the spiders before installing them in cabinets. It was amazing how some drivers would spec out as more accurate, but they just didn't sound right. Boxes were often built with 1" HDF and braced like crazy to keep the boxes from flexing and not projecting the sound out the front. We used felt around the tweeters to prevent reflected sound from the tweeters bouncing off the front of the cabinet and causing two different tweeter signals reaching the ear. Many things were experimented with such as driver voice coil alignment, but that really complicated box construction vs what the ear heard. It is amazing how many corners are cut when the customer doesn't see the inside of the box. Things such as poor quality x-over components and smaller wire size to cut final costs. We were in constant competition with "Listen Up" and their high priced "List and Above" - "Bait and Switch" sales techniques which they had been taken to court for more than once. Ron Gold, the owner, even had a judgment on them for duplicating speakers he had designed. The speakers he designed were listed in an audio magazine as some of the best of the best. He stretched it some, as all owners will do, and did not tell you that it was referencing his 8, 10, and 12 being used for car audio. We didn't due retail car audio, but if you knew what kind of speakers you wanted, we supplied them. Many places referred people to us to get better speakers than the car audio stores sold. Your mathematical understanding of the subject is quite excellent. I took what the techs told me as "truth" because like you, they backed up their assumptions with the same experts you have used. When I took customers into the "listening rooms", I would take them through many different listening scenarios. Speakers, like B&W and BOSE, were a joke compared to many of the things in there that were created by the techs. There is where I "heard" the difference of speakers and what they could do. Good tweeters would make a cymbal ring or the clock bells ring in "Time" by Pink Floyd sound real. Cheap tweeters just hissed. I would use acappella groups to demo midranges. Depending on the customers tastes, ZZ Top or acoustic jazz bands were used for bass demo. Ported rolled suspension boxes could not match the "snap" of an acoustic bass in a sealed box. They explained it to me as the "throw" of the speaker was extended for too long of a time to be ready for the next signal to come through. They could reproduce the sound of thunder well though. This is where I got my assumptions about speaker box construction. Building PA speakers using rigid surrounds BY JBL and EV were always ported using the Small/Thiele parameters in construction of port/box size parameters. My ears knew what things were supposed to sound like because of playing/sound reinforcing live music. I sold more systems than the sales people and they wondered why. I believe that there are "Audio" illusions about specs just as there are "Optical" illusions about the "visual truth" when presented to the "end user". I hope this clears up that I am not such a complete idiot as referenced about my knowledge and there is a basis for my opinions on the subject. Since you are considered the group's head guru on sound/speaker tech, I will bow out from the group about making any more "stupid" suggestions concerning sound and its faithful reproduction from what I have learned in the time I was there. I was not trying to be a jerk prima-donna about my knowledge of the subject of sound! Good Luck And Best Of Wishes Dick !!!! John Sanders Peter Larsen wrote: Sanders wrote: Fine, tell my teachers that they didn't know what they were talking about. A post from Dick Pierce constitutes just that. Relay it to your teachers if what you posted is what they told you. Please learn the usenet posting style, you could be a very interesting contributor from what I have read of your posts. Kind regards Peter Larsen |
#95
|
|||
|
|||
Old speaker boxes - long post
Sanders wrote:
Peter, Top post or bottom post, I have heard both?? Neither actually, look at how Dick wrote his follow up to you. Please allow me to leave the rest uncommented except for a thank you. Kind regards Peter Larsen -- ******************************************* * My site is at: http://www.muyiovatki.dk * ******************************************* |
#96
|
|||
|
|||
Old speaker boxes - long post
Sanders wrote:
Peter, Top post or bottom post, I have heard both?? Neither actually, look at how Dick wrote his follow up to you. Please allow me to leave the rest uncommented except for a thank you. Kind regards Peter Larsen -- ******************************************* * My site is at: http://www.muyiovatki.dk * ******************************************* |
#97
|
|||
|
|||
Old speaker boxes - long post
Sanders wrote:
Peter, Top post or bottom post, I have heard both?? Neither actually, look at how Dick wrote his follow up to you. Please allow me to leave the rest uncommented except for a thank you. Kind regards Peter Larsen -- ******************************************* * My site is at: http://www.muyiovatki.dk * ******************************************* |
#98
|
|||
|
|||
Old speaker boxes - long post
Sanders wrote:
Peter, Top post or bottom post, I have heard both?? Neither actually, look at how Dick wrote his follow up to you. Please allow me to leave the rest uncommented except for a thank you. Kind regards Peter Larsen -- ******************************************* * My site is at: http://www.muyiovatki.dk * ******************************************* |
#99
|
|||
|
|||
Old speaker boxes - long post
Sanders wrote in message ...
Top post or bottom post, I have heard both?? How about addressing points where they are made? I didn't mention the company, because I wasn't sure about it being considered advertising for his company. I was a struggling musician and I had worked for a company back in Denver in mid 70'- 90' named "Gold Sound", who other than having just "boxes" with drivers in them for sale, we sold more drivers than anything. [lots of details snipped} The speaker techs that worked there were my instructors. All of them were electrical engineering students up at CU. So, in fact, NONE of them were "instructors" in the common usage of the term, i.e., there profession was not as instructors. Indeed, it's doubtful that they were studying acoustics, and probably knew fairly little about loudspeakers, as they were simply, as you stated, students. So, it's not only possible, it may well be LIKELY that they were, in a word, wrong. The names Thiele and Small were used a lot by them during their creations. Yes, and my grandfather kissed Jane Withers. Some of their creations were failures. Others like the all Dyna MTM arrangement (Diapolado?) were amazing sound for the price as compared to other boxes and how they were built. We even took new drivers and ran low power sine waves through them to "break in" the spiders before installing them in cabinets. It was amazing how some drivers would spec out as more accurate, but they just didn't sound right. All of your details are most enlightening. What they do is paint a very clear and unabiguous picture of an electroncis/speaker dealer and distributor that has little in the way of real design expertise and measurement facilities. You describe a lot of fiddling and trial- and-error guesswork and dead end "experiments" and more. Much of the stuff you describe those with the requisite knowledge and experience wouldn't eveb bother trying: they'e already did the stuff when they were kids or know better not to waste their time.. I knew Mr. Gold, several of the driver manufacturing companies I have provided engineering consultation to sold Mr. Gold drivers. I know reasonably well who he is and what his capabilities are. He was a good dealer for some products. But, with all due respect to Mr. Gold and his establishment, that's ALL he was. This is no denigration of him or his organization, but Gold Sound was not then and certainly is not now considered in the industry a center of loudspeaker physics or engineering. They are a dealer. It is amazing how many corners are cut when the customer doesn't see the inside of the box. Things such as poor quality x-over components and smaller wire size to cut final costs. This is an interesting comment. Pray tell, what do you think the effect "smaller wire" will have on the performance of a loudspeaker? Ron Gold, the owner, even had a judgment on them for duplicating speakers he had designed. Again, all due respect to Mr. Gold and other companies who use the court system: a court filled with lawyers is without a doubt the the group of people LEAST qualified to make judgements on the engineering properties or quality of speakers. Further, having, in fact, been called as an expert witness on a number of such cases, I can assure you that once one gets down to brass tacks, there is SO little that is truly new and something not known to experts in the field, that if Mr. Gold did win, it was on the persistance of his legal team, NOT on the uniqueness on his designs. When I took customers into the "listening rooms", I would take them through many different listening scenarios. Speakers, like B&W and BOSE, were a joke compared to many of the things in there that were created by the techs. Two comments: first, suggesting, even infereentially, that Bose and B&W are somehow equivalent is a most telling comment, regrettably, to many, it's amusing at the very best. Second, if you want to play force of expert, consider the level of expertise that exists at both companies, regardless of what I ar anyone may or may not think of the products, both companies have on staff some of finest engineers in the business. Ported rolled suspension boxes could not match the "snap" of an acoustic bass in a sealed box. They explained it to me as the "throw" of the speaker was extended for too long of a time to be ready for the next signal to come through. And they were wrong. It's as simple as that. Assuming you are representing their viewpoints correctly, and I mean not to be insulting, but they do NOT have a clue as to what they are talking about. This is where I got my assumptions about speaker box construction. Building PA speakers using rigid surrounds BY JBL and EV were always ported using the Small/Thiele parameters in construction of port/box size parameters. And here is PRECISELY where the gap between your assumptions and reality bites you in the rear. The requirements for PA systems is VERY DIFFERENT then for home music reproduction. These speakers, because of the very large volumes they must fill, end up with design criteria that are very different. ALL speakers must deal with the limits of the bandwidth- efficiency-enclosure volume tradeoff equation: n0 = kn Vb F3^3 where n0 is the passband reference efficiency, kn is the system efficiency constant, Vb is the enclosure volume and F3 is the low end cutoff. The value for kn in reflex systems is twice that as for sealed box, but in a PA situation, you're requirements are severaly constrained: you HAVE to minimize Vb (for portability) and maximize n0 (for maximum acoustic output). Thus, you are FORCED into using reflex tuning AND a high cutoff frequency. As a result, you end up with light-weight cones, for high efficiency, and relatively stiff suspensions, becaause since the enclosure compliance is low (the cabinet is small) the suspension compliance must ALSO be low. From this, without the REAL background that you and, quite apparently, your "instructors" were lacking, you were unable to extrapolate the underlying principles, of which you were all unaware, to the more general case. I hope this clears up that I am not such a complete idiot as referenced about my knowledge and there is a basis for my opinions on the subject. I don't think anyone was calling you a complete idiot. Rather, the objective statement was made that you were wrong. Thank you for providing the basis of your opinions, we are enlightened now as to WHY you and your instructors were wrong. Since you are considered the group's head guru on sound/speaker tech, I will bow out from the group about making any more "stupid" suggestions concerning sound and its faithful reproduction from what I have learned in the time I was there. So, now, where does that make any sense? "Okay, I found out I was wrong, there's a lot to learn here, so I will leave." I was not trying to be a jerk prima-donna about my knowledge of the subject of sound! But, I would venture, that cutting and running is NOT the brightest thing in the world to do, eh? |
#100
|
|||
|
|||
Old speaker boxes - long post
Sanders wrote in message ...
Top post or bottom post, I have heard both?? How about addressing points where they are made? I didn't mention the company, because I wasn't sure about it being considered advertising for his company. I was a struggling musician and I had worked for a company back in Denver in mid 70'- 90' named "Gold Sound", who other than having just "boxes" with drivers in them for sale, we sold more drivers than anything. [lots of details snipped} The speaker techs that worked there were my instructors. All of them were electrical engineering students up at CU. So, in fact, NONE of them were "instructors" in the common usage of the term, i.e., there profession was not as instructors. Indeed, it's doubtful that they were studying acoustics, and probably knew fairly little about loudspeakers, as they were simply, as you stated, students. So, it's not only possible, it may well be LIKELY that they were, in a word, wrong. The names Thiele and Small were used a lot by them during their creations. Yes, and my grandfather kissed Jane Withers. Some of their creations were failures. Others like the all Dyna MTM arrangement (Diapolado?) were amazing sound for the price as compared to other boxes and how they were built. We even took new drivers and ran low power sine waves through them to "break in" the spiders before installing them in cabinets. It was amazing how some drivers would spec out as more accurate, but they just didn't sound right. All of your details are most enlightening. What they do is paint a very clear and unabiguous picture of an electroncis/speaker dealer and distributor that has little in the way of real design expertise and measurement facilities. You describe a lot of fiddling and trial- and-error guesswork and dead end "experiments" and more. Much of the stuff you describe those with the requisite knowledge and experience wouldn't eveb bother trying: they'e already did the stuff when they were kids or know better not to waste their time.. I knew Mr. Gold, several of the driver manufacturing companies I have provided engineering consultation to sold Mr. Gold drivers. I know reasonably well who he is and what his capabilities are. He was a good dealer for some products. But, with all due respect to Mr. Gold and his establishment, that's ALL he was. This is no denigration of him or his organization, but Gold Sound was not then and certainly is not now considered in the industry a center of loudspeaker physics or engineering. They are a dealer. It is amazing how many corners are cut when the customer doesn't see the inside of the box. Things such as poor quality x-over components and smaller wire size to cut final costs. This is an interesting comment. Pray tell, what do you think the effect "smaller wire" will have on the performance of a loudspeaker? Ron Gold, the owner, even had a judgment on them for duplicating speakers he had designed. Again, all due respect to Mr. Gold and other companies who use the court system: a court filled with lawyers is without a doubt the the group of people LEAST qualified to make judgements on the engineering properties or quality of speakers. Further, having, in fact, been called as an expert witness on a number of such cases, I can assure you that once one gets down to brass tacks, there is SO little that is truly new and something not known to experts in the field, that if Mr. Gold did win, it was on the persistance of his legal team, NOT on the uniqueness on his designs. When I took customers into the "listening rooms", I would take them through many different listening scenarios. Speakers, like B&W and BOSE, were a joke compared to many of the things in there that were created by the techs. Two comments: first, suggesting, even infereentially, that Bose and B&W are somehow equivalent is a most telling comment, regrettably, to many, it's amusing at the very best. Second, if you want to play force of expert, consider the level of expertise that exists at both companies, regardless of what I ar anyone may or may not think of the products, both companies have on staff some of finest engineers in the business. Ported rolled suspension boxes could not match the "snap" of an acoustic bass in a sealed box. They explained it to me as the "throw" of the speaker was extended for too long of a time to be ready for the next signal to come through. And they were wrong. It's as simple as that. Assuming you are representing their viewpoints correctly, and I mean not to be insulting, but they do NOT have a clue as to what they are talking about. This is where I got my assumptions about speaker box construction. Building PA speakers using rigid surrounds BY JBL and EV were always ported using the Small/Thiele parameters in construction of port/box size parameters. And here is PRECISELY where the gap between your assumptions and reality bites you in the rear. The requirements for PA systems is VERY DIFFERENT then for home music reproduction. These speakers, because of the very large volumes they must fill, end up with design criteria that are very different. ALL speakers must deal with the limits of the bandwidth- efficiency-enclosure volume tradeoff equation: n0 = kn Vb F3^3 where n0 is the passband reference efficiency, kn is the system efficiency constant, Vb is the enclosure volume and F3 is the low end cutoff. The value for kn in reflex systems is twice that as for sealed box, but in a PA situation, you're requirements are severaly constrained: you HAVE to minimize Vb (for portability) and maximize n0 (for maximum acoustic output). Thus, you are FORCED into using reflex tuning AND a high cutoff frequency. As a result, you end up with light-weight cones, for high efficiency, and relatively stiff suspensions, becaause since the enclosure compliance is low (the cabinet is small) the suspension compliance must ALSO be low. From this, without the REAL background that you and, quite apparently, your "instructors" were lacking, you were unable to extrapolate the underlying principles, of which you were all unaware, to the more general case. I hope this clears up that I am not such a complete idiot as referenced about my knowledge and there is a basis for my opinions on the subject. I don't think anyone was calling you a complete idiot. Rather, the objective statement was made that you were wrong. Thank you for providing the basis of your opinions, we are enlightened now as to WHY you and your instructors were wrong. Since you are considered the group's head guru on sound/speaker tech, I will bow out from the group about making any more "stupid" suggestions concerning sound and its faithful reproduction from what I have learned in the time I was there. So, now, where does that make any sense? "Okay, I found out I was wrong, there's a lot to learn here, so I will leave." I was not trying to be a jerk prima-donna about my knowledge of the subject of sound! But, I would venture, that cutting and running is NOT the brightest thing in the world to do, eh? |
#101
|
|||
|
|||
Old speaker boxes - long post
Sanders wrote in message ...
Top post or bottom post, I have heard both?? How about addressing points where they are made? I didn't mention the company, because I wasn't sure about it being considered advertising for his company. I was a struggling musician and I had worked for a company back in Denver in mid 70'- 90' named "Gold Sound", who other than having just "boxes" with drivers in them for sale, we sold more drivers than anything. [lots of details snipped} The speaker techs that worked there were my instructors. All of them were electrical engineering students up at CU. So, in fact, NONE of them were "instructors" in the common usage of the term, i.e., there profession was not as instructors. Indeed, it's doubtful that they were studying acoustics, and probably knew fairly little about loudspeakers, as they were simply, as you stated, students. So, it's not only possible, it may well be LIKELY that they were, in a word, wrong. The names Thiele and Small were used a lot by them during their creations. Yes, and my grandfather kissed Jane Withers. Some of their creations were failures. Others like the all Dyna MTM arrangement (Diapolado?) were amazing sound for the price as compared to other boxes and how they were built. We even took new drivers and ran low power sine waves through them to "break in" the spiders before installing them in cabinets. It was amazing how some drivers would spec out as more accurate, but they just didn't sound right. All of your details are most enlightening. What they do is paint a very clear and unabiguous picture of an electroncis/speaker dealer and distributor that has little in the way of real design expertise and measurement facilities. You describe a lot of fiddling and trial- and-error guesswork and dead end "experiments" and more. Much of the stuff you describe those with the requisite knowledge and experience wouldn't eveb bother trying: they'e already did the stuff when they were kids or know better not to waste their time.. I knew Mr. Gold, several of the driver manufacturing companies I have provided engineering consultation to sold Mr. Gold drivers. I know reasonably well who he is and what his capabilities are. He was a good dealer for some products. But, with all due respect to Mr. Gold and his establishment, that's ALL he was. This is no denigration of him or his organization, but Gold Sound was not then and certainly is not now considered in the industry a center of loudspeaker physics or engineering. They are a dealer. It is amazing how many corners are cut when the customer doesn't see the inside of the box. Things such as poor quality x-over components and smaller wire size to cut final costs. This is an interesting comment. Pray tell, what do you think the effect "smaller wire" will have on the performance of a loudspeaker? Ron Gold, the owner, even had a judgment on them for duplicating speakers he had designed. Again, all due respect to Mr. Gold and other companies who use the court system: a court filled with lawyers is without a doubt the the group of people LEAST qualified to make judgements on the engineering properties or quality of speakers. Further, having, in fact, been called as an expert witness on a number of such cases, I can assure you that once one gets down to brass tacks, there is SO little that is truly new and something not known to experts in the field, that if Mr. Gold did win, it was on the persistance of his legal team, NOT on the uniqueness on his designs. When I took customers into the "listening rooms", I would take them through many different listening scenarios. Speakers, like B&W and BOSE, were a joke compared to many of the things in there that were created by the techs. Two comments: first, suggesting, even infereentially, that Bose and B&W are somehow equivalent is a most telling comment, regrettably, to many, it's amusing at the very best. Second, if you want to play force of expert, consider the level of expertise that exists at both companies, regardless of what I ar anyone may or may not think of the products, both companies have on staff some of finest engineers in the business. Ported rolled suspension boxes could not match the "snap" of an acoustic bass in a sealed box. They explained it to me as the "throw" of the speaker was extended for too long of a time to be ready for the next signal to come through. And they were wrong. It's as simple as that. Assuming you are representing their viewpoints correctly, and I mean not to be insulting, but they do NOT have a clue as to what they are talking about. This is where I got my assumptions about speaker box construction. Building PA speakers using rigid surrounds BY JBL and EV were always ported using the Small/Thiele parameters in construction of port/box size parameters. And here is PRECISELY where the gap between your assumptions and reality bites you in the rear. The requirements for PA systems is VERY DIFFERENT then for home music reproduction. These speakers, because of the very large volumes they must fill, end up with design criteria that are very different. ALL speakers must deal with the limits of the bandwidth- efficiency-enclosure volume tradeoff equation: n0 = kn Vb F3^3 where n0 is the passband reference efficiency, kn is the system efficiency constant, Vb is the enclosure volume and F3 is the low end cutoff. The value for kn in reflex systems is twice that as for sealed box, but in a PA situation, you're requirements are severaly constrained: you HAVE to minimize Vb (for portability) and maximize n0 (for maximum acoustic output). Thus, you are FORCED into using reflex tuning AND a high cutoff frequency. As a result, you end up with light-weight cones, for high efficiency, and relatively stiff suspensions, becaause since the enclosure compliance is low (the cabinet is small) the suspension compliance must ALSO be low. From this, without the REAL background that you and, quite apparently, your "instructors" were lacking, you were unable to extrapolate the underlying principles, of which you were all unaware, to the more general case. I hope this clears up that I am not such a complete idiot as referenced about my knowledge and there is a basis for my opinions on the subject. I don't think anyone was calling you a complete idiot. Rather, the objective statement was made that you were wrong. Thank you for providing the basis of your opinions, we are enlightened now as to WHY you and your instructors were wrong. Since you are considered the group's head guru on sound/speaker tech, I will bow out from the group about making any more "stupid" suggestions concerning sound and its faithful reproduction from what I have learned in the time I was there. So, now, where does that make any sense? "Okay, I found out I was wrong, there's a lot to learn here, so I will leave." I was not trying to be a jerk prima-donna about my knowledge of the subject of sound! But, I would venture, that cutting and running is NOT the brightest thing in the world to do, eh? |
#102
|
|||
|
|||
Old speaker boxes - long post
Sanders wrote in message ...
Top post or bottom post, I have heard both?? How about addressing points where they are made? I didn't mention the company, because I wasn't sure about it being considered advertising for his company. I was a struggling musician and I had worked for a company back in Denver in mid 70'- 90' named "Gold Sound", who other than having just "boxes" with drivers in them for sale, we sold more drivers than anything. [lots of details snipped} The speaker techs that worked there were my instructors. All of them were electrical engineering students up at CU. So, in fact, NONE of them were "instructors" in the common usage of the term, i.e., there profession was not as instructors. Indeed, it's doubtful that they were studying acoustics, and probably knew fairly little about loudspeakers, as they were simply, as you stated, students. So, it's not only possible, it may well be LIKELY that they were, in a word, wrong. The names Thiele and Small were used a lot by them during their creations. Yes, and my grandfather kissed Jane Withers. Some of their creations were failures. Others like the all Dyna MTM arrangement (Diapolado?) were amazing sound for the price as compared to other boxes and how they were built. We even took new drivers and ran low power sine waves through them to "break in" the spiders before installing them in cabinets. It was amazing how some drivers would spec out as more accurate, but they just didn't sound right. All of your details are most enlightening. What they do is paint a very clear and unabiguous picture of an electroncis/speaker dealer and distributor that has little in the way of real design expertise and measurement facilities. You describe a lot of fiddling and trial- and-error guesswork and dead end "experiments" and more. Much of the stuff you describe those with the requisite knowledge and experience wouldn't eveb bother trying: they'e already did the stuff when they were kids or know better not to waste their time.. I knew Mr. Gold, several of the driver manufacturing companies I have provided engineering consultation to sold Mr. Gold drivers. I know reasonably well who he is and what his capabilities are. He was a good dealer for some products. But, with all due respect to Mr. Gold and his establishment, that's ALL he was. This is no denigration of him or his organization, but Gold Sound was not then and certainly is not now considered in the industry a center of loudspeaker physics or engineering. They are a dealer. It is amazing how many corners are cut when the customer doesn't see the inside of the box. Things such as poor quality x-over components and smaller wire size to cut final costs. This is an interesting comment. Pray tell, what do you think the effect "smaller wire" will have on the performance of a loudspeaker? Ron Gold, the owner, even had a judgment on them for duplicating speakers he had designed. Again, all due respect to Mr. Gold and other companies who use the court system: a court filled with lawyers is without a doubt the the group of people LEAST qualified to make judgements on the engineering properties or quality of speakers. Further, having, in fact, been called as an expert witness on a number of such cases, I can assure you that once one gets down to brass tacks, there is SO little that is truly new and something not known to experts in the field, that if Mr. Gold did win, it was on the persistance of his legal team, NOT on the uniqueness on his designs. When I took customers into the "listening rooms", I would take them through many different listening scenarios. Speakers, like B&W and BOSE, were a joke compared to many of the things in there that were created by the techs. Two comments: first, suggesting, even infereentially, that Bose and B&W are somehow equivalent is a most telling comment, regrettably, to many, it's amusing at the very best. Second, if you want to play force of expert, consider the level of expertise that exists at both companies, regardless of what I ar anyone may or may not think of the products, both companies have on staff some of finest engineers in the business. Ported rolled suspension boxes could not match the "snap" of an acoustic bass in a sealed box. They explained it to me as the "throw" of the speaker was extended for too long of a time to be ready for the next signal to come through. And they were wrong. It's as simple as that. Assuming you are representing their viewpoints correctly, and I mean not to be insulting, but they do NOT have a clue as to what they are talking about. This is where I got my assumptions about speaker box construction. Building PA speakers using rigid surrounds BY JBL and EV were always ported using the Small/Thiele parameters in construction of port/box size parameters. And here is PRECISELY where the gap between your assumptions and reality bites you in the rear. The requirements for PA systems is VERY DIFFERENT then for home music reproduction. These speakers, because of the very large volumes they must fill, end up with design criteria that are very different. ALL speakers must deal with the limits of the bandwidth- efficiency-enclosure volume tradeoff equation: n0 = kn Vb F3^3 where n0 is the passband reference efficiency, kn is the system efficiency constant, Vb is the enclosure volume and F3 is the low end cutoff. The value for kn in reflex systems is twice that as for sealed box, but in a PA situation, you're requirements are severaly constrained: you HAVE to minimize Vb (for portability) and maximize n0 (for maximum acoustic output). Thus, you are FORCED into using reflex tuning AND a high cutoff frequency. As a result, you end up with light-weight cones, for high efficiency, and relatively stiff suspensions, becaause since the enclosure compliance is low (the cabinet is small) the suspension compliance must ALSO be low. From this, without the REAL background that you and, quite apparently, your "instructors" were lacking, you were unable to extrapolate the underlying principles, of which you were all unaware, to the more general case. I hope this clears up that I am not such a complete idiot as referenced about my knowledge and there is a basis for my opinions on the subject. I don't think anyone was calling you a complete idiot. Rather, the objective statement was made that you were wrong. Thank you for providing the basis of your opinions, we are enlightened now as to WHY you and your instructors were wrong. Since you are considered the group's head guru on sound/speaker tech, I will bow out from the group about making any more "stupid" suggestions concerning sound and its faithful reproduction from what I have learned in the time I was there. So, now, where does that make any sense? "Okay, I found out I was wrong, there's a lot to learn here, so I will leave." I was not trying to be a jerk prima-donna about my knowledge of the subject of sound! But, I would venture, that cutting and running is NOT the brightest thing in the world to do, eh? |
#103
|
|||
|
|||
Old speaker boxes - long post
But, I would venture, that cutting and running is NOT the brightest thing in the world to do, eh? Not cutting and running as you put it, I have nothing knowledgeable to offer the group as you have put it. My knowledge is useless and my ears don't know what they are hearing. But then again bees and hummingbirds are not supposed to be able to fly according to aerodynamic theory and the "experts" can give mathematical equations why this is the "truth" as to why they should not be able to fly, yet they do fly. Once the "experts" thought the world was flat and the sun circled around the earth. All I am saying is that going on theories from "experts" does not always prove something is right. So I bow out to the "experts". John |
#104
|
|||
|
|||
Old speaker boxes - long post
But, I would venture, that cutting and running is NOT the brightest thing in the world to do, eh? Not cutting and running as you put it, I have nothing knowledgeable to offer the group as you have put it. My knowledge is useless and my ears don't know what they are hearing. But then again bees and hummingbirds are not supposed to be able to fly according to aerodynamic theory and the "experts" can give mathematical equations why this is the "truth" as to why they should not be able to fly, yet they do fly. Once the "experts" thought the world was flat and the sun circled around the earth. All I am saying is that going on theories from "experts" does not always prove something is right. So I bow out to the "experts". John |
#105
|
|||
|
|||
Old speaker boxes - long post
But, I would venture, that cutting and running is NOT the brightest thing in the world to do, eh? Not cutting and running as you put it, I have nothing knowledgeable to offer the group as you have put it. My knowledge is useless and my ears don't know what they are hearing. But then again bees and hummingbirds are not supposed to be able to fly according to aerodynamic theory and the "experts" can give mathematical equations why this is the "truth" as to why they should not be able to fly, yet they do fly. Once the "experts" thought the world was flat and the sun circled around the earth. All I am saying is that going on theories from "experts" does not always prove something is right. So I bow out to the "experts". John |
#106
|
|||
|
|||
Old speaker boxes - long post
But, I would venture, that cutting and running is NOT the brightest thing in the world to do, eh? Not cutting and running as you put it, I have nothing knowledgeable to offer the group as you have put it. My knowledge is useless and my ears don't know what they are hearing. But then again bees and hummingbirds are not supposed to be able to fly according to aerodynamic theory and the "experts" can give mathematical equations why this is the "truth" as to why they should not be able to fly, yet they do fly. Once the "experts" thought the world was flat and the sun circled around the earth. All I am saying is that going on theories from "experts" does not always prove something is right. So I bow out to the "experts". John |
#107
|
|||
|
|||
Old speaker boxes - long post
Sanders wrote:
But, I would venture, that cutting and running is NOT the brightest thing in the world to do, eh? Not cutting and running as you put it, I have nothing knowledgeable to offer the group as you have put it. My knowledge is useless and my ears don't know what they are hearing. Well, that's a start. But then again bees and hummingbirds are not supposed to be able to fly according to aerodynamic theory and the "experts" can give mathematical equations why this is the "truth" as to why they should not be able to fly, yet they do fly. They fly because they do follow aerodynamic theory. Some of the old theorys were wrong, just as some of the "theories" you mentioned were wrong. Once the "experts" thought the world was flat and the sun circled around the earth. As a science progresses, the actual facts become more well known, and fit the theorems a little better. When ships masts disappeared from the horizon last, "experts" began coming to more accurate conclusions about the shape of the earth. All I am saying is that going on theories from "experts" does not always prove something is right. Dick doesn't deal in a bunch of bogus "theories". You could learn a great deal about sound from his posts. If you choose not to, that's your decision. For the rest of us, we are fortunate to have Dick here. He has "always" backed up any assertions he makes with hard scientific evidence, not "bogus theories". He is, by any standard you choose to use, an "audio expert"; your speaker installer friends at Gold Sound were not. So I bow out to the "experts". John With a condescending sneer? Yeah, right. Really classy exit. Don't slam the door on your way out. Harvey Gerst Indian Trail Recording Studio http://www.ITRstudio.com/ |
#108
|
|||
|
|||
Old speaker boxes - long post
Sanders wrote:
But, I would venture, that cutting and running is NOT the brightest thing in the world to do, eh? Not cutting and running as you put it, I have nothing knowledgeable to offer the group as you have put it. My knowledge is useless and my ears don't know what they are hearing. Well, that's a start. But then again bees and hummingbirds are not supposed to be able to fly according to aerodynamic theory and the "experts" can give mathematical equations why this is the "truth" as to why they should not be able to fly, yet they do fly. They fly because they do follow aerodynamic theory. Some of the old theorys were wrong, just as some of the "theories" you mentioned were wrong. Once the "experts" thought the world was flat and the sun circled around the earth. As a science progresses, the actual facts become more well known, and fit the theorems a little better. When ships masts disappeared from the horizon last, "experts" began coming to more accurate conclusions about the shape of the earth. All I am saying is that going on theories from "experts" does not always prove something is right. Dick doesn't deal in a bunch of bogus "theories". You could learn a great deal about sound from his posts. If you choose not to, that's your decision. For the rest of us, we are fortunate to have Dick here. He has "always" backed up any assertions he makes with hard scientific evidence, not "bogus theories". He is, by any standard you choose to use, an "audio expert"; your speaker installer friends at Gold Sound were not. So I bow out to the "experts". John With a condescending sneer? Yeah, right. Really classy exit. Don't slam the door on your way out. Harvey Gerst Indian Trail Recording Studio http://www.ITRstudio.com/ |
#109
|
|||
|
|||
Old speaker boxes - long post
Sanders wrote:
But, I would venture, that cutting and running is NOT the brightest thing in the world to do, eh? Not cutting and running as you put it, I have nothing knowledgeable to offer the group as you have put it. My knowledge is useless and my ears don't know what they are hearing. Well, that's a start. But then again bees and hummingbirds are not supposed to be able to fly according to aerodynamic theory and the "experts" can give mathematical equations why this is the "truth" as to why they should not be able to fly, yet they do fly. They fly because they do follow aerodynamic theory. Some of the old theorys were wrong, just as some of the "theories" you mentioned were wrong. Once the "experts" thought the world was flat and the sun circled around the earth. As a science progresses, the actual facts become more well known, and fit the theorems a little better. When ships masts disappeared from the horizon last, "experts" began coming to more accurate conclusions about the shape of the earth. All I am saying is that going on theories from "experts" does not always prove something is right. Dick doesn't deal in a bunch of bogus "theories". You could learn a great deal about sound from his posts. If you choose not to, that's your decision. For the rest of us, we are fortunate to have Dick here. He has "always" backed up any assertions he makes with hard scientific evidence, not "bogus theories". He is, by any standard you choose to use, an "audio expert"; your speaker installer friends at Gold Sound were not. So I bow out to the "experts". John With a condescending sneer? Yeah, right. Really classy exit. Don't slam the door on your way out. Harvey Gerst Indian Trail Recording Studio http://www.ITRstudio.com/ |
#110
|
|||
|
|||
Old speaker boxes - long post
Sanders wrote:
But, I would venture, that cutting and running is NOT the brightest thing in the world to do, eh? Not cutting and running as you put it, I have nothing knowledgeable to offer the group as you have put it. My knowledge is useless and my ears don't know what they are hearing. Well, that's a start. But then again bees and hummingbirds are not supposed to be able to fly according to aerodynamic theory and the "experts" can give mathematical equations why this is the "truth" as to why they should not be able to fly, yet they do fly. They fly because they do follow aerodynamic theory. Some of the old theorys were wrong, just as some of the "theories" you mentioned were wrong. Once the "experts" thought the world was flat and the sun circled around the earth. As a science progresses, the actual facts become more well known, and fit the theorems a little better. When ships masts disappeared from the horizon last, "experts" began coming to more accurate conclusions about the shape of the earth. All I am saying is that going on theories from "experts" does not always prove something is right. Dick doesn't deal in a bunch of bogus "theories". You could learn a great deal about sound from his posts. If you choose not to, that's your decision. For the rest of us, we are fortunate to have Dick here. He has "always" backed up any assertions he makes with hard scientific evidence, not "bogus theories". He is, by any standard you choose to use, an "audio expert"; your speaker installer friends at Gold Sound were not. So I bow out to the "experts". John With a condescending sneer? Yeah, right. Really classy exit. Don't slam the door on your way out. Harvey Gerst Indian Trail Recording Studio http://www.ITRstudio.com/ |
#111
|
|||
|
|||
Old speaker boxes - long post
I am a passing listener to this exchange and am now about to become an
active participant, per se. I have read much of the discussion and without the original input from Mr. Sanders, I doubt that the rest of us sideline weasels would have been able to enjoy some free acoustic education education and for me even, enlightenment, on Speaker design and Enclosure design as well as some of the more important formulae as considered by Mr. Pierce in his presentation of the various engineering theories. I learned something here, not much, as my math is no longer as strong as others, but I did learn some stuff. I would like to thank Mr. Sanders for relating his personal experiences and Mr. Pierce for taking the time to respond to various points of Mr. Sanders with the appropriate input with being high and mighty about it. I myself, in my youth, built many a Speaker enclosure with various types of drivers in use. Some of these experiments were good, some not. The two best experiments that worked well, were, a Fibreglass Horn, modeled off the metal horn of an Altec A7. It's redeeming feature was that it did not ring when struck. The second experiment was an attempt to copy Klipsch LaScala's, and this was also modestly succesfull, producing a very deep bass capable bin. As to the math, well, thta never came into the question at the time, I din't even know that there was math or physics principles to describe what was going on or not going on. Had I known much more, I am sure thta I would have paid attention. One thing this effort has done for me is to consider that the next pair of speakers I build, should be done from good quality modern components and wiht a matched good quality modern enclosure design. No longer is it suffcicient to slap a well stregnthened box together with a speaker bought at Radio Shack, the results will be mixed at best. Taking into consideration thta there are some knowledgeable Audio Engineers participating in this conference, I would like to pose a rather broad question on your opinions. Dr. Floyd Toole, a renowned Canadian, physicist and phycho-acoustician performed a great deal of experimentation and measurements over 20 years at the laboratories of the National Research Council. A large amount of his fundemental work has gone into use by a number of Canadian Speaker manufacturers. Would the community of todays Audio Engineers agree with the work he did and would the use of his work have resulted in a many different Canadian manufactured speakers sounding similar in nature between the various manufacturers? Regards, Richard Tomkins (sideline weasel) |
#112
|
|||
|
|||
Old speaker boxes - long post
I am a passing listener to this exchange and am now about to become an
active participant, per se. I have read much of the discussion and without the original input from Mr. Sanders, I doubt that the rest of us sideline weasels would have been able to enjoy some free acoustic education education and for me even, enlightenment, on Speaker design and Enclosure design as well as some of the more important formulae as considered by Mr. Pierce in his presentation of the various engineering theories. I learned something here, not much, as my math is no longer as strong as others, but I did learn some stuff. I would like to thank Mr. Sanders for relating his personal experiences and Mr. Pierce for taking the time to respond to various points of Mr. Sanders with the appropriate input with being high and mighty about it. I myself, in my youth, built many a Speaker enclosure with various types of drivers in use. Some of these experiments were good, some not. The two best experiments that worked well, were, a Fibreglass Horn, modeled off the metal horn of an Altec A7. It's redeeming feature was that it did not ring when struck. The second experiment was an attempt to copy Klipsch LaScala's, and this was also modestly succesfull, producing a very deep bass capable bin. As to the math, well, thta never came into the question at the time, I din't even know that there was math or physics principles to describe what was going on or not going on. Had I known much more, I am sure thta I would have paid attention. One thing this effort has done for me is to consider that the next pair of speakers I build, should be done from good quality modern components and wiht a matched good quality modern enclosure design. No longer is it suffcicient to slap a well stregnthened box together with a speaker bought at Radio Shack, the results will be mixed at best. Taking into consideration thta there are some knowledgeable Audio Engineers participating in this conference, I would like to pose a rather broad question on your opinions. Dr. Floyd Toole, a renowned Canadian, physicist and phycho-acoustician performed a great deal of experimentation and measurements over 20 years at the laboratories of the National Research Council. A large amount of his fundemental work has gone into use by a number of Canadian Speaker manufacturers. Would the community of todays Audio Engineers agree with the work he did and would the use of his work have resulted in a many different Canadian manufactured speakers sounding similar in nature between the various manufacturers? Regards, Richard Tomkins (sideline weasel) |
#113
|
|||
|
|||
Old speaker boxes - long post
I am a passing listener to this exchange and am now about to become an
active participant, per se. I have read much of the discussion and without the original input from Mr. Sanders, I doubt that the rest of us sideline weasels would have been able to enjoy some free acoustic education education and for me even, enlightenment, on Speaker design and Enclosure design as well as some of the more important formulae as considered by Mr. Pierce in his presentation of the various engineering theories. I learned something here, not much, as my math is no longer as strong as others, but I did learn some stuff. I would like to thank Mr. Sanders for relating his personal experiences and Mr. Pierce for taking the time to respond to various points of Mr. Sanders with the appropriate input with being high and mighty about it. I myself, in my youth, built many a Speaker enclosure with various types of drivers in use. Some of these experiments were good, some not. The two best experiments that worked well, were, a Fibreglass Horn, modeled off the metal horn of an Altec A7. It's redeeming feature was that it did not ring when struck. The second experiment was an attempt to copy Klipsch LaScala's, and this was also modestly succesfull, producing a very deep bass capable bin. As to the math, well, thta never came into the question at the time, I din't even know that there was math or physics principles to describe what was going on or not going on. Had I known much more, I am sure thta I would have paid attention. One thing this effort has done for me is to consider that the next pair of speakers I build, should be done from good quality modern components and wiht a matched good quality modern enclosure design. No longer is it suffcicient to slap a well stregnthened box together with a speaker bought at Radio Shack, the results will be mixed at best. Taking into consideration thta there are some knowledgeable Audio Engineers participating in this conference, I would like to pose a rather broad question on your opinions. Dr. Floyd Toole, a renowned Canadian, physicist and phycho-acoustician performed a great deal of experimentation and measurements over 20 years at the laboratories of the National Research Council. A large amount of his fundemental work has gone into use by a number of Canadian Speaker manufacturers. Would the community of todays Audio Engineers agree with the work he did and would the use of his work have resulted in a many different Canadian manufactured speakers sounding similar in nature between the various manufacturers? Regards, Richard Tomkins (sideline weasel) |
#114
|
|||
|
|||
Old speaker boxes - long post
I am a passing listener to this exchange and am now about to become an
active participant, per se. I have read much of the discussion and without the original input from Mr. Sanders, I doubt that the rest of us sideline weasels would have been able to enjoy some free acoustic education education and for me even, enlightenment, on Speaker design and Enclosure design as well as some of the more important formulae as considered by Mr. Pierce in his presentation of the various engineering theories. I learned something here, not much, as my math is no longer as strong as others, but I did learn some stuff. I would like to thank Mr. Sanders for relating his personal experiences and Mr. Pierce for taking the time to respond to various points of Mr. Sanders with the appropriate input with being high and mighty about it. I myself, in my youth, built many a Speaker enclosure with various types of drivers in use. Some of these experiments were good, some not. The two best experiments that worked well, were, a Fibreglass Horn, modeled off the metal horn of an Altec A7. It's redeeming feature was that it did not ring when struck. The second experiment was an attempt to copy Klipsch LaScala's, and this was also modestly succesfull, producing a very deep bass capable bin. As to the math, well, thta never came into the question at the time, I din't even know that there was math or physics principles to describe what was going on or not going on. Had I known much more, I am sure thta I would have paid attention. One thing this effort has done for me is to consider that the next pair of speakers I build, should be done from good quality modern components and wiht a matched good quality modern enclosure design. No longer is it suffcicient to slap a well stregnthened box together with a speaker bought at Radio Shack, the results will be mixed at best. Taking into consideration thta there are some knowledgeable Audio Engineers participating in this conference, I would like to pose a rather broad question on your opinions. Dr. Floyd Toole, a renowned Canadian, physicist and phycho-acoustician performed a great deal of experimentation and measurements over 20 years at the laboratories of the National Research Council. A large amount of his fundemental work has gone into use by a number of Canadian Speaker manufacturers. Would the community of todays Audio Engineers agree with the work he did and would the use of his work have resulted in a many different Canadian manufactured speakers sounding similar in nature between the various manufacturers? Regards, Richard Tomkins (sideline weasel) |
#115
|
|||
|
|||
Old speaker boxes - long post
Dr. Floyd Toole, a renowned Canadian, physicist and phycho-acoustician
performed a great deal of experimentation and measurements over 20 years at the laboratories of the National Research Council. A large amount of his fundemental work has gone into use by a number of Canadian Speaker manufacturers. Would the community of todays Audio Engineers agree with the work he did and would the use of his work have resulted in a many different Canadian manufactured speakers sounding similar in nature between the various manufacturers? Having met Dr. Toole, sat in on some listening sessions, and read bits and pieces of his writing, it is my opinion that he has contributed nothing whatever _fundamental_ to the arts and sciences of sound reproduction. His work has been useful in determining what people _like_ -- not what is accurate or realistic. |
#116
|
|||
|
|||
Old speaker boxes - long post
Dr. Floyd Toole, a renowned Canadian, physicist and phycho-acoustician
performed a great deal of experimentation and measurements over 20 years at the laboratories of the National Research Council. A large amount of his fundemental work has gone into use by a number of Canadian Speaker manufacturers. Would the community of todays Audio Engineers agree with the work he did and would the use of his work have resulted in a many different Canadian manufactured speakers sounding similar in nature between the various manufacturers? Having met Dr. Toole, sat in on some listening sessions, and read bits and pieces of his writing, it is my opinion that he has contributed nothing whatever _fundamental_ to the arts and sciences of sound reproduction. His work has been useful in determining what people _like_ -- not what is accurate or realistic. |
#117
|
|||
|
|||
Old speaker boxes - long post
Dr. Floyd Toole, a renowned Canadian, physicist and phycho-acoustician
performed a great deal of experimentation and measurements over 20 years at the laboratories of the National Research Council. A large amount of his fundemental work has gone into use by a number of Canadian Speaker manufacturers. Would the community of todays Audio Engineers agree with the work he did and would the use of his work have resulted in a many different Canadian manufactured speakers sounding similar in nature between the various manufacturers? Having met Dr. Toole, sat in on some listening sessions, and read bits and pieces of his writing, it is my opinion that he has contributed nothing whatever _fundamental_ to the arts and sciences of sound reproduction. His work has been useful in determining what people _like_ -- not what is accurate or realistic. |
#118
|
|||
|
|||
Old speaker boxes - long post
Dr. Floyd Toole, a renowned Canadian, physicist and phycho-acoustician
performed a great deal of experimentation and measurements over 20 years at the laboratories of the National Research Council. A large amount of his fundemental work has gone into use by a number of Canadian Speaker manufacturers. Would the community of todays Audio Engineers agree with the work he did and would the use of his work have resulted in a many different Canadian manufactured speakers sounding similar in nature between the various manufacturers? Having met Dr. Toole, sat in on some listening sessions, and read bits and pieces of his writing, it is my opinion that he has contributed nothing whatever _fundamental_ to the arts and sciences of sound reproduction. His work has been useful in determining what people _like_ -- not what is accurate or realistic. |
#119
|
|||
|
|||
Old speaker boxes - long post
In article , "William Sommerwerck"
wrote: His work has been useful in determining what people _like_ -- not what is accurate or realistic. Since we are talking about home entertainment equipment here, isn't it important that people like the results provided by the equipment, perhaps even more important than accuracy or realism? Regards, John Byrns Surf my web pages at, http://users.rcn.com/jbyrns/ |
#120
|
|||
|
|||
Old speaker boxes - long post
In article , "William Sommerwerck"
wrote: His work has been useful in determining what people _like_ -- not what is accurate or realistic. Since we are talking about home entertainment equipment here, isn't it important that people like the results provided by the equipment, perhaps even more important than accuracy or realism? Regards, John Byrns Surf my web pages at, http://users.rcn.com/jbyrns/ |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Bose 901 Review | General | |||
My equipment review of the Bose 901 | Audio Opinions | |||
Comments about Blind Testing | High End Audio | |||
bulding speaker boxes and bass tubes | General | |||
Speaker Wiring affects phase relationships | Car Audio |