Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41   Report Post  
William Sommerwerck
 
Posts: n/a
Default Old speaker boxes

Foam surrounds and ports will never give accurate response.
It only allows for a slower base [sic!!!] response to go lower in
a smaller box. To understand that after each note, the speaker
must get back to "0" as fast as possible. Foam surrounds need
a sealed box to do this. Good bass-reflex speakers count on a
rigid surround and tuned port to accomplish the same task.


Pardon my bluntness, but you don't know what the h*** you're talking about.

To over-simplify it, a properly designed sealed-box woofer is _less_ resonant
than a bass-reflex design, and the driver "returns to zero" more quickly.

"Good" and "bass reflex" is a contradiction in terms.

  #42   Report Post  
William Sommerwerck
 
Posts: n/a
Default Old speaker boxes

Foam surrounds and ports will never give accurate response.
It only allows for a slower base [sic!!!] response to go lower in
a smaller box. To understand that after each note, the speaker
must get back to "0" as fast as possible. Foam surrounds need
a sealed box to do this. Good bass-reflex speakers count on a
rigid surround and tuned port to accomplish the same task.


Pardon my bluntness, but you don't know what the h*** you're talking about.

To over-simplify it, a properly designed sealed-box woofer is _less_ resonant
than a bass-reflex design, and the driver "returns to zero" more quickly.

"Good" and "bass reflex" is a contradiction in terms.

  #43   Report Post  
Sanders
 
Posts: n/a
Default Old speaker boxes

Fine, tell my teachers that they didn't know what they were talking about.

I must admit that rolled suspension speakers have probably improved
since I started dealing with sound, but back when I started, what I said
was the truth for all things the company I worked for went with, and
they are still in business so they must of known something about what
the hell they were doing. The rolled speakers spiders were not very
rigid in the begining of their use compared to the rigid surrounds

This is not to start a flame, but if I'm missing something???

Tuned ports worked best with rigid speakers, which now seem to be rare
in use anymore because larger amps allow for more inefficent speakers
than when I started.

All I did was comment on all the different things we tried with speakers
and which did the best RTA tests we did with them.

John

Mikey wrote:

You should consult a speaker building book.


"Jebus" wrote in message
...

Hello. I currently have 2 old (about 30 years old), but very nice (made


out

of 2 in. thick wood). However, as many woofers are made today, they have
the cone in the back for air to come out. Well these tanks have something
like that, but in the front. However, isteand of anything plastic,


there's

a piece of fabric covering the hole (almost like a small grill). Over


time

from all the use of the speakers, this cloth has become stretched and


causes

unwanted vibrations/sound in the bass parts especially. Is it safe to
remove this or should i replace the cloth? or should i just replace it


with

another part? would adding more of these holes produce better sound?
Thanks.






  #44   Report Post  
Sanders
 
Posts: n/a
Default Old speaker boxes

Fine, tell my teachers that they didn't know what they were talking about.

I must admit that rolled suspension speakers have probably improved
since I started dealing with sound, but back when I started, what I said
was the truth for all things the company I worked for went with, and
they are still in business so they must of known something about what
the hell they were doing. The rolled speakers spiders were not very
rigid in the begining of their use compared to the rigid surrounds

This is not to start a flame, but if I'm missing something???

Tuned ports worked best with rigid speakers, which now seem to be rare
in use anymore because larger amps allow for more inefficent speakers
than when I started.

All I did was comment on all the different things we tried with speakers
and which did the best RTA tests we did with them.

John

Mikey wrote:

You should consult a speaker building book.


"Jebus" wrote in message
...

Hello. I currently have 2 old (about 30 years old), but very nice (made


out

of 2 in. thick wood). However, as many woofers are made today, they have
the cone in the back for air to come out. Well these tanks have something
like that, but in the front. However, isteand of anything plastic,


there's

a piece of fabric covering the hole (almost like a small grill). Over


time

from all the use of the speakers, this cloth has become stretched and


causes

unwanted vibrations/sound in the bass parts especially. Is it safe to
remove this or should i replace the cloth? or should i just replace it


with

another part? would adding more of these holes produce better sound?
Thanks.






  #45   Report Post  
Sanders
 
Posts: n/a
Default Old speaker boxes

Fine, tell my teachers that they didn't know what they were talking about.

I must admit that rolled suspension speakers have probably improved
since I started dealing with sound, but back when I started, what I said
was the truth for all things the company I worked for went with, and
they are still in business so they must of known something about what
the hell they were doing. The rolled speakers spiders were not very
rigid in the begining of their use compared to the rigid surrounds

This is not to start a flame, but if I'm missing something???

Tuned ports worked best with rigid speakers, which now seem to be rare
in use anymore because larger amps allow for more inefficent speakers
than when I started.

All I did was comment on all the different things we tried with speakers
and which did the best RTA tests we did with them.

John

Mikey wrote:

You should consult a speaker building book.


"Jebus" wrote in message
...

Hello. I currently have 2 old (about 30 years old), but very nice (made


out

of 2 in. thick wood). However, as many woofers are made today, they have
the cone in the back for air to come out. Well these tanks have something
like that, but in the front. However, isteand of anything plastic,


there's

a piece of fabric covering the hole (almost like a small grill). Over


time

from all the use of the speakers, this cloth has become stretched and


causes

unwanted vibrations/sound in the bass parts especially. Is it safe to
remove this or should i replace the cloth? or should i just replace it


with

another part? would adding more of these holes produce better sound?
Thanks.








  #46   Report Post  
Sanders
 
Posts: n/a
Default Old speaker boxes

Fine, tell my teachers that they didn't know what they were talking about.

I must admit that rolled suspension speakers have probably improved
since I started dealing with sound, but back when I started, what I said
was the truth for all things the company I worked for went with, and
they are still in business so they must of known something about what
the hell they were doing. The rolled speakers spiders were not very
rigid in the begining of their use compared to the rigid surrounds

This is not to start a flame, but if I'm missing something???

Tuned ports worked best with rigid speakers, which now seem to be rare
in use anymore because larger amps allow for more inefficent speakers
than when I started.

All I did was comment on all the different things we tried with speakers
and which did the best RTA tests we did with them.

John

Mikey wrote:

You should consult a speaker building book.


"Jebus" wrote in message
...

Hello. I currently have 2 old (about 30 years old), but very nice (made


out

of 2 in. thick wood). However, as many woofers are made today, they have
the cone in the back for air to come out. Well these tanks have something
like that, but in the front. However, isteand of anything plastic,


there's

a piece of fabric covering the hole (almost like a small grill). Over


time

from all the use of the speakers, this cloth has become stretched and


causes

unwanted vibrations/sound in the bass parts especially. Is it safe to
remove this or should i replace the cloth? or should i just replace it


with

another part? would adding more of these holes produce better sound?
Thanks.






  #47   Report Post  
TonyP
 
Posts: n/a
Default Old speaker boxes


"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message
...
Pardon my bluntness, but you don't know what the h*** you're talking

about.

Are you looking in a morror by any chance?

To over-simplify it, a properly designed sealed-box woofer is _less_

resonant
than a bass-reflex design, and the driver "returns to zero" more quickly.


If the speaker returns to zero more quickly than the input signal, the box
is definitely overdamped.

"Good" and "bass reflex" is a contradiction in terms.


You might argue that good (sound?) and moving coil loudspeakers are a
contradiction in terms (I wouldn't) but science is not on your side if you
are simply stating that sealed boxes are necessarily better than ported.

TonyP.


  #48   Report Post  
TonyP
 
Posts: n/a
Default Old speaker boxes


"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message
...
Pardon my bluntness, but you don't know what the h*** you're talking

about.

Are you looking in a morror by any chance?

To over-simplify it, a properly designed sealed-box woofer is _less_

resonant
than a bass-reflex design, and the driver "returns to zero" more quickly.


If the speaker returns to zero more quickly than the input signal, the box
is definitely overdamped.

"Good" and "bass reflex" is a contradiction in terms.


You might argue that good (sound?) and moving coil loudspeakers are a
contradiction in terms (I wouldn't) but science is not on your side if you
are simply stating that sealed boxes are necessarily better than ported.

TonyP.


  #49   Report Post  
TonyP
 
Posts: n/a
Default Old speaker boxes


"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message
...
Pardon my bluntness, but you don't know what the h*** you're talking

about.

Are you looking in a morror by any chance?

To over-simplify it, a properly designed sealed-box woofer is _less_

resonant
than a bass-reflex design, and the driver "returns to zero" more quickly.


If the speaker returns to zero more quickly than the input signal, the box
is definitely overdamped.

"Good" and "bass reflex" is a contradiction in terms.


You might argue that good (sound?) and moving coil loudspeakers are a
contradiction in terms (I wouldn't) but science is not on your side if you
are simply stating that sealed boxes are necessarily better than ported.

TonyP.


  #50   Report Post  
TonyP
 
Posts: n/a
Default Old speaker boxes


"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message
...
Pardon my bluntness, but you don't know what the h*** you're talking

about.

Are you looking in a morror by any chance?

To over-simplify it, a properly designed sealed-box woofer is _less_

resonant
than a bass-reflex design, and the driver "returns to zero" more quickly.


If the speaker returns to zero more quickly than the input signal, the box
is definitely overdamped.

"Good" and "bass reflex" is a contradiction in terms.


You might argue that good (sound?) and moving coil loudspeakers are a
contradiction in terms (I wouldn't) but science is not on your side if you
are simply stating that sealed boxes are necessarily better than ported.

TonyP.




  #51   Report Post  
William Sommerwerck
 
Posts: n/a
Default Old speaker boxes

Pardon my bluntness, but you don't know what the h***
you're talking about.


Are you looking in a morror [sic] by any chance?


I'm a degreed EE, and I reviewed audio equipment for over a decade. You're
trying to apply "common sense" to an issue where math and physics provide a
more-accurate explanation of what's going on.


To over-simplify it, a properly designed sealed-box woofer is _less_
resonant than a bass-reflex design, and the driver "returns to zero"
more quickly.


If the speaker returns to zero more quickly than the input signal,
the box is definitely overdamped.


READ WHAT I WROTE. "More quickly" means more quickly than a bass-reflex
enclosure. Do I have to spell out everything in total, utter, mindless detail?

To the best of my knowledge, a driver cannot "return to rest" before the signal.


"Good" and "bass reflex" is a contradiction in terms.


You might argue that good (sound?) and moving coil loudspeakers are a
contradiction in terms (I wouldn't) but science is not on your side if you
are simply stating that sealed boxes are necessarily better than ported.


Sorry, but science _is_ on my side. A sealed box is superior to ported.

Why? Because (given a maximally flat design) a sealed box rolls off at 12db/8ve,
while a ported box falls at 24dB/8ve. The tradeoff is that the ported box gains
efficiency in exchange for the more-abrupt rolloff. Which appears to be the
reason that most companies have switched to ported designs -- even AR.

All other things being equal (including the corner frequency), would you rather
listen to a speaker with a two-pole rolloff, or a four-pole rolloff? Well, which
has less phase shift? Lower group delay? Rings less?

It's also possible to build a sealed-box system that is so overdamped that it
rolls off at 6b/8ve. Such a design lends itself to a compensating bass boost
from the amplifier. To the best of my knowledge, only KLH ever produced such a
system, and that was 40+ years ago. The box woofers for the Apogee systems used
a second-order slow-rolloff alignment. (It was not Chebyschev. I forget which it
was.)

In "High-Performance Loudspeakers" (a book which, oddly, pays almost no
attention to electrostatic and orthodynamic/ribbon systems) the author claims
that listeners prefer overdamped bass, even when the corner frequency is higher
than that of a sealed or ported box. This isn't at all surprising, because an
overdamped design, thought it "lingers," does not ring, and it has _more_ output
below the corner frequency than a sealed or ported design.

  #52   Report Post  
William Sommerwerck
 
Posts: n/a
Default Old speaker boxes

Pardon my bluntness, but you don't know what the h***
you're talking about.


Are you looking in a morror [sic] by any chance?


I'm a degreed EE, and I reviewed audio equipment for over a decade. You're
trying to apply "common sense" to an issue where math and physics provide a
more-accurate explanation of what's going on.


To over-simplify it, a properly designed sealed-box woofer is _less_
resonant than a bass-reflex design, and the driver "returns to zero"
more quickly.


If the speaker returns to zero more quickly than the input signal,
the box is definitely overdamped.


READ WHAT I WROTE. "More quickly" means more quickly than a bass-reflex
enclosure. Do I have to spell out everything in total, utter, mindless detail?

To the best of my knowledge, a driver cannot "return to rest" before the signal.


"Good" and "bass reflex" is a contradiction in terms.


You might argue that good (sound?) and moving coil loudspeakers are a
contradiction in terms (I wouldn't) but science is not on your side if you
are simply stating that sealed boxes are necessarily better than ported.


Sorry, but science _is_ on my side. A sealed box is superior to ported.

Why? Because (given a maximally flat design) a sealed box rolls off at 12db/8ve,
while a ported box falls at 24dB/8ve. The tradeoff is that the ported box gains
efficiency in exchange for the more-abrupt rolloff. Which appears to be the
reason that most companies have switched to ported designs -- even AR.

All other things being equal (including the corner frequency), would you rather
listen to a speaker with a two-pole rolloff, or a four-pole rolloff? Well, which
has less phase shift? Lower group delay? Rings less?

It's also possible to build a sealed-box system that is so overdamped that it
rolls off at 6b/8ve. Such a design lends itself to a compensating bass boost
from the amplifier. To the best of my knowledge, only KLH ever produced such a
system, and that was 40+ years ago. The box woofers for the Apogee systems used
a second-order slow-rolloff alignment. (It was not Chebyschev. I forget which it
was.)

In "High-Performance Loudspeakers" (a book which, oddly, pays almost no
attention to electrostatic and orthodynamic/ribbon systems) the author claims
that listeners prefer overdamped bass, even when the corner frequency is higher
than that of a sealed or ported box. This isn't at all surprising, because an
overdamped design, thought it "lingers," does not ring, and it has _more_ output
below the corner frequency than a sealed or ported design.

  #53   Report Post  
William Sommerwerck
 
Posts: n/a
Default Old speaker boxes

Pardon my bluntness, but you don't know what the h***
you're talking about.


Are you looking in a morror [sic] by any chance?


I'm a degreed EE, and I reviewed audio equipment for over a decade. You're
trying to apply "common sense" to an issue where math and physics provide a
more-accurate explanation of what's going on.


To over-simplify it, a properly designed sealed-box woofer is _less_
resonant than a bass-reflex design, and the driver "returns to zero"
more quickly.


If the speaker returns to zero more quickly than the input signal,
the box is definitely overdamped.


READ WHAT I WROTE. "More quickly" means more quickly than a bass-reflex
enclosure. Do I have to spell out everything in total, utter, mindless detail?

To the best of my knowledge, a driver cannot "return to rest" before the signal.


"Good" and "bass reflex" is a contradiction in terms.


You might argue that good (sound?) and moving coil loudspeakers are a
contradiction in terms (I wouldn't) but science is not on your side if you
are simply stating that sealed boxes are necessarily better than ported.


Sorry, but science _is_ on my side. A sealed box is superior to ported.

Why? Because (given a maximally flat design) a sealed box rolls off at 12db/8ve,
while a ported box falls at 24dB/8ve. The tradeoff is that the ported box gains
efficiency in exchange for the more-abrupt rolloff. Which appears to be the
reason that most companies have switched to ported designs -- even AR.

All other things being equal (including the corner frequency), would you rather
listen to a speaker with a two-pole rolloff, or a four-pole rolloff? Well, which
has less phase shift? Lower group delay? Rings less?

It's also possible to build a sealed-box system that is so overdamped that it
rolls off at 6b/8ve. Such a design lends itself to a compensating bass boost
from the amplifier. To the best of my knowledge, only KLH ever produced such a
system, and that was 40+ years ago. The box woofers for the Apogee systems used
a second-order slow-rolloff alignment. (It was not Chebyschev. I forget which it
was.)

In "High-Performance Loudspeakers" (a book which, oddly, pays almost no
attention to electrostatic and orthodynamic/ribbon systems) the author claims
that listeners prefer overdamped bass, even when the corner frequency is higher
than that of a sealed or ported box. This isn't at all surprising, because an
overdamped design, thought it "lingers," does not ring, and it has _more_ output
below the corner frequency than a sealed or ported design.

  #54   Report Post  
William Sommerwerck
 
Posts: n/a
Default Old speaker boxes

Pardon my bluntness, but you don't know what the h***
you're talking about.


Are you looking in a morror [sic] by any chance?


I'm a degreed EE, and I reviewed audio equipment for over a decade. You're
trying to apply "common sense" to an issue where math and physics provide a
more-accurate explanation of what's going on.


To over-simplify it, a properly designed sealed-box woofer is _less_
resonant than a bass-reflex design, and the driver "returns to zero"
more quickly.


If the speaker returns to zero more quickly than the input signal,
the box is definitely overdamped.


READ WHAT I WROTE. "More quickly" means more quickly than a bass-reflex
enclosure. Do I have to spell out everything in total, utter, mindless detail?

To the best of my knowledge, a driver cannot "return to rest" before the signal.


"Good" and "bass reflex" is a contradiction in terms.


You might argue that good (sound?) and moving coil loudspeakers are a
contradiction in terms (I wouldn't) but science is not on your side if you
are simply stating that sealed boxes are necessarily better than ported.


Sorry, but science _is_ on my side. A sealed box is superior to ported.

Why? Because (given a maximally flat design) a sealed box rolls off at 12db/8ve,
while a ported box falls at 24dB/8ve. The tradeoff is that the ported box gains
efficiency in exchange for the more-abrupt rolloff. Which appears to be the
reason that most companies have switched to ported designs -- even AR.

All other things being equal (including the corner frequency), would you rather
listen to a speaker with a two-pole rolloff, or a four-pole rolloff? Well, which
has less phase shift? Lower group delay? Rings less?

It's also possible to build a sealed-box system that is so overdamped that it
rolls off at 6b/8ve. Such a design lends itself to a compensating bass boost
from the amplifier. To the best of my knowledge, only KLH ever produced such a
system, and that was 40+ years ago. The box woofers for the Apogee systems used
a second-order slow-rolloff alignment. (It was not Chebyschev. I forget which it
was.)

In "High-Performance Loudspeakers" (a book which, oddly, pays almost no
attention to electrostatic and orthodynamic/ribbon systems) the author claims
that listeners prefer overdamped bass, even when the corner frequency is higher
than that of a sealed or ported box. This isn't at all surprising, because an
overdamped design, thought it "lingers," does not ring, and it has _more_ output
below the corner frequency than a sealed or ported design.

  #55   Report Post  
Dick Pierce
 
Posts: n/a
Default Old speaker boxes

Sanders wrote in message ...
Fine, tell my teachers that they didn't know what they were
talking about.


First, since you failed to tell us who your teacher were, that's
kind of difficult, isn't it.

Second, we do not know if what you are telling us is their
misinterpretations of the physics of loudspeakers, or yours.
You're the one that made the statements, thus we criticize
those words.

If you would be so kind as to supply their course notes and
texts, I would be more than happy to tell them they are wrong,
but for time being, the best I can do is tell you that you are
wrong.

Third, since you're into "well tell THEM they're wrong," I suggest
you get yourself a copy of the following articles:

Thiele, A. N., "Loudspeakers in Vented Boxes," Part I, JAES 1971
May, Part II, 1971 June (Reprint from Proc. IRE Aus 1961 Aug)

Small, R. H., "Direct-Radiator Loudspeaker System Analysis,"
JAES, 1972 June

Small, R. H., "Closed-Box Loudspeaker Systems," "Part I -
Analysis" JAES, 1972 Dec, "Part II - Synthesis," JAES 173 Jan-Feb

Small, R. H., "Vented-Box Loudspeaker Systems," Part I -
Small-Signal Analysis" JAES, 1973 June, "Part II - Large
Signal Analysis," JAES 1973 Jul/Aug, "Part III - Synthesis,"
JAES 1973 Sep, "Part IV - Appendices," JAES 1973 Oct.

Now, Show us, with the same level of mathematical rigor that they
employed in their work that they are wrong, and you have a shot at
the title. Note the two authors, two of many, that I cited, Messrs.
Thiele and Small, and perhaps you might ask yourself why THE dominant
model and design basis for all direct-radiator system designed is
designated the "Thiele-Small" model.

Once you have knocked them off, then I'll be happy to supply further
citations.

I must admit that rolled suspension speakers have probably improved
since I started dealing with sound,


"Rolled suspension" drivers were invented in the late 1950's and
became commonplace in the early 1960's. Are you suggesting that your
last involvement in sound was 40 years ago, and that you have
missed the entire development since then. That might explain the
fact that you seem to be unaware of the work of Messr's Thiele,
Small, Benson and others.

but back when I started, what I said
was the truth for all things the company I worked for went with, and
they are still in business so they must of known something about what
the hell they were doing.


Again, since you fail to mention WHO this company is, your reference
to them has zero credibility. And, it should be noted, there are a
number of companies that suffer from longevity undeserved given their
"expertise." Note, for example, General Motors, about to introduce
a hyprid gas-electric SUV that gets a whopping 15 miles per gallon.
What idiot dreamt THAT up?

The rolled speakers spiders were not very
rigid in the begining of their use compared to the rigid surrounds


And precisely what does this mean?

This is not to start a flame, but if I'm missing something???


Yes, you're missing the entire physical foundational background
to direct radiator loudspeaker system behavior. Note the citations
above as a starting point to correct said deficiency.

Tuned ports worked best with rigid speakers, which now seem to be rare
in use anymore because larger amps allow for more inefficent speakers
than when I started.


Sorry, my friend, but this is yet more nonsense. You're making
assertions with absolutely no physical foundation to support
them. The efficiency of a driver is NOT dependent upon the suspension
stiffness, as shown by Thiele, Small and even going as far back as
MacClachlin (1938). The efficiency, expressed in terms of fundamental
electro-mechanical parameters, is:

p0 B^2 l^2
n = ------ * ----------
2 pi c Re Mms^2

where p0 is the density of air (~ 1.18 kg/m^3) c is the velocity of
sound (~ 342 m/s), B is the flux density in the gap (in Tesla), l
is the length of the voice coil conductor in the gap (meters), Re
is the DC resistance of the voice coil, and Mms is the effective
moving mass of the driver. Please note the complete absence of a
stiffness or a compliance term in this realtion. Should you feel
this equation is in error, it is equation 11 in the second citation
above, and I might suggest you take it up with Mr. Small, the author.

All I did was comment on all the different things we tried with speakers
and which did the best RTA tests we did with them.


Well, you in fact, made specific testable technical assertions, which
when tested were shown to be wrong. And some of what you asserted was
self-contradictory.

Further, you alluded to transient behavior of speakers. RTA, by
which I assume you mean "real-time analyzers," are generally
represented by parallel-narrow-band bandpass filter analyzers.
Such devices are utterly incapable of evaluating the transient
response of systems.

Now, when I talk about "transient response," I'm speaking from the
viewpoint of using impulse or MLS stimulus driven FFT systems which,
by their very nature measure transient response. As I have several
different versions here, along with the sufficently wide bandwidth
ancillary equipment to support them, I would humbly venture to
suggest that the several thousands of measurements I have conducted
over the last quarter century or so fail completely to provde ANY
data that supports your assertions. I would point you, again, to
the above citations and, should you need them, I'd be happy to
provide several dozen more that also not only fail to support your
assertions, but contradict them rather unambiguously.

So, in the meantime, who ARE these teachers that mislead you?
Perhaps you could apply for at least a partial tuition refund.
What is this company that seemingly has not studied the rather
vast technical literature base on direct-radiator loudspeaker
physics? Perhaps they could use some consulting? :-)


  #56   Report Post  
Dick Pierce
 
Posts: n/a
Default Old speaker boxes

Sanders wrote in message ...
Fine, tell my teachers that they didn't know what they were
talking about.


First, since you failed to tell us who your teacher were, that's
kind of difficult, isn't it.

Second, we do not know if what you are telling us is their
misinterpretations of the physics of loudspeakers, or yours.
You're the one that made the statements, thus we criticize
those words.

If you would be so kind as to supply their course notes and
texts, I would be more than happy to tell them they are wrong,
but for time being, the best I can do is tell you that you are
wrong.

Third, since you're into "well tell THEM they're wrong," I suggest
you get yourself a copy of the following articles:

Thiele, A. N., "Loudspeakers in Vented Boxes," Part I, JAES 1971
May, Part II, 1971 June (Reprint from Proc. IRE Aus 1961 Aug)

Small, R. H., "Direct-Radiator Loudspeaker System Analysis,"
JAES, 1972 June

Small, R. H., "Closed-Box Loudspeaker Systems," "Part I -
Analysis" JAES, 1972 Dec, "Part II - Synthesis," JAES 173 Jan-Feb

Small, R. H., "Vented-Box Loudspeaker Systems," Part I -
Small-Signal Analysis" JAES, 1973 June, "Part II - Large
Signal Analysis," JAES 1973 Jul/Aug, "Part III - Synthesis,"
JAES 1973 Sep, "Part IV - Appendices," JAES 1973 Oct.

Now, Show us, with the same level of mathematical rigor that they
employed in their work that they are wrong, and you have a shot at
the title. Note the two authors, two of many, that I cited, Messrs.
Thiele and Small, and perhaps you might ask yourself why THE dominant
model and design basis for all direct-radiator system designed is
designated the "Thiele-Small" model.

Once you have knocked them off, then I'll be happy to supply further
citations.

I must admit that rolled suspension speakers have probably improved
since I started dealing with sound,


"Rolled suspension" drivers were invented in the late 1950's and
became commonplace in the early 1960's. Are you suggesting that your
last involvement in sound was 40 years ago, and that you have
missed the entire development since then. That might explain the
fact that you seem to be unaware of the work of Messr's Thiele,
Small, Benson and others.

but back when I started, what I said
was the truth for all things the company I worked for went with, and
they are still in business so they must of known something about what
the hell they were doing.


Again, since you fail to mention WHO this company is, your reference
to them has zero credibility. And, it should be noted, there are a
number of companies that suffer from longevity undeserved given their
"expertise." Note, for example, General Motors, about to introduce
a hyprid gas-electric SUV that gets a whopping 15 miles per gallon.
What idiot dreamt THAT up?

The rolled speakers spiders were not very
rigid in the begining of their use compared to the rigid surrounds


And precisely what does this mean?

This is not to start a flame, but if I'm missing something???


Yes, you're missing the entire physical foundational background
to direct radiator loudspeaker system behavior. Note the citations
above as a starting point to correct said deficiency.

Tuned ports worked best with rigid speakers, which now seem to be rare
in use anymore because larger amps allow for more inefficent speakers
than when I started.


Sorry, my friend, but this is yet more nonsense. You're making
assertions with absolutely no physical foundation to support
them. The efficiency of a driver is NOT dependent upon the suspension
stiffness, as shown by Thiele, Small and even going as far back as
MacClachlin (1938). The efficiency, expressed in terms of fundamental
electro-mechanical parameters, is:

p0 B^2 l^2
n = ------ * ----------
2 pi c Re Mms^2

where p0 is the density of air (~ 1.18 kg/m^3) c is the velocity of
sound (~ 342 m/s), B is the flux density in the gap (in Tesla), l
is the length of the voice coil conductor in the gap (meters), Re
is the DC resistance of the voice coil, and Mms is the effective
moving mass of the driver. Please note the complete absence of a
stiffness or a compliance term in this realtion. Should you feel
this equation is in error, it is equation 11 in the second citation
above, and I might suggest you take it up with Mr. Small, the author.

All I did was comment on all the different things we tried with speakers
and which did the best RTA tests we did with them.


Well, you in fact, made specific testable technical assertions, which
when tested were shown to be wrong. And some of what you asserted was
self-contradictory.

Further, you alluded to transient behavior of speakers. RTA, by
which I assume you mean "real-time analyzers," are generally
represented by parallel-narrow-band bandpass filter analyzers.
Such devices are utterly incapable of evaluating the transient
response of systems.

Now, when I talk about "transient response," I'm speaking from the
viewpoint of using impulse or MLS stimulus driven FFT systems which,
by their very nature measure transient response. As I have several
different versions here, along with the sufficently wide bandwidth
ancillary equipment to support them, I would humbly venture to
suggest that the several thousands of measurements I have conducted
over the last quarter century or so fail completely to provde ANY
data that supports your assertions. I would point you, again, to
the above citations and, should you need them, I'd be happy to
provide several dozen more that also not only fail to support your
assertions, but contradict them rather unambiguously.

So, in the meantime, who ARE these teachers that mislead you?
Perhaps you could apply for at least a partial tuition refund.
What is this company that seemingly has not studied the rather
vast technical literature base on direct-radiator loudspeaker
physics? Perhaps they could use some consulting? :-)
  #57   Report Post  
Dick Pierce
 
Posts: n/a
Default Old speaker boxes

Sanders wrote in message ...
Fine, tell my teachers that they didn't know what they were
talking about.


First, since you failed to tell us who your teacher were, that's
kind of difficult, isn't it.

Second, we do not know if what you are telling us is their
misinterpretations of the physics of loudspeakers, or yours.
You're the one that made the statements, thus we criticize
those words.

If you would be so kind as to supply their course notes and
texts, I would be more than happy to tell them they are wrong,
but for time being, the best I can do is tell you that you are
wrong.

Third, since you're into "well tell THEM they're wrong," I suggest
you get yourself a copy of the following articles:

Thiele, A. N., "Loudspeakers in Vented Boxes," Part I, JAES 1971
May, Part II, 1971 June (Reprint from Proc. IRE Aus 1961 Aug)

Small, R. H., "Direct-Radiator Loudspeaker System Analysis,"
JAES, 1972 June

Small, R. H., "Closed-Box Loudspeaker Systems," "Part I -
Analysis" JAES, 1972 Dec, "Part II - Synthesis," JAES 173 Jan-Feb

Small, R. H., "Vented-Box Loudspeaker Systems," Part I -
Small-Signal Analysis" JAES, 1973 June, "Part II - Large
Signal Analysis," JAES 1973 Jul/Aug, "Part III - Synthesis,"
JAES 1973 Sep, "Part IV - Appendices," JAES 1973 Oct.

Now, Show us, with the same level of mathematical rigor that they
employed in their work that they are wrong, and you have a shot at
the title. Note the two authors, two of many, that I cited, Messrs.
Thiele and Small, and perhaps you might ask yourself why THE dominant
model and design basis for all direct-radiator system designed is
designated the "Thiele-Small" model.

Once you have knocked them off, then I'll be happy to supply further
citations.

I must admit that rolled suspension speakers have probably improved
since I started dealing with sound,


"Rolled suspension" drivers were invented in the late 1950's and
became commonplace in the early 1960's. Are you suggesting that your
last involvement in sound was 40 years ago, and that you have
missed the entire development since then. That might explain the
fact that you seem to be unaware of the work of Messr's Thiele,
Small, Benson and others.

but back when I started, what I said
was the truth for all things the company I worked for went with, and
they are still in business so they must of known something about what
the hell they were doing.


Again, since you fail to mention WHO this company is, your reference
to them has zero credibility. And, it should be noted, there are a
number of companies that suffer from longevity undeserved given their
"expertise." Note, for example, General Motors, about to introduce
a hyprid gas-electric SUV that gets a whopping 15 miles per gallon.
What idiot dreamt THAT up?

The rolled speakers spiders were not very
rigid in the begining of their use compared to the rigid surrounds


And precisely what does this mean?

This is not to start a flame, but if I'm missing something???


Yes, you're missing the entire physical foundational background
to direct radiator loudspeaker system behavior. Note the citations
above as a starting point to correct said deficiency.

Tuned ports worked best with rigid speakers, which now seem to be rare
in use anymore because larger amps allow for more inefficent speakers
than when I started.


Sorry, my friend, but this is yet more nonsense. You're making
assertions with absolutely no physical foundation to support
them. The efficiency of a driver is NOT dependent upon the suspension
stiffness, as shown by Thiele, Small and even going as far back as
MacClachlin (1938). The efficiency, expressed in terms of fundamental
electro-mechanical parameters, is:

p0 B^2 l^2
n = ------ * ----------
2 pi c Re Mms^2

where p0 is the density of air (~ 1.18 kg/m^3) c is the velocity of
sound (~ 342 m/s), B is the flux density in the gap (in Tesla), l
is the length of the voice coil conductor in the gap (meters), Re
is the DC resistance of the voice coil, and Mms is the effective
moving mass of the driver. Please note the complete absence of a
stiffness or a compliance term in this realtion. Should you feel
this equation is in error, it is equation 11 in the second citation
above, and I might suggest you take it up with Mr. Small, the author.

All I did was comment on all the different things we tried with speakers
and which did the best RTA tests we did with them.


Well, you in fact, made specific testable technical assertions, which
when tested were shown to be wrong. And some of what you asserted was
self-contradictory.

Further, you alluded to transient behavior of speakers. RTA, by
which I assume you mean "real-time analyzers," are generally
represented by parallel-narrow-band bandpass filter analyzers.
Such devices are utterly incapable of evaluating the transient
response of systems.

Now, when I talk about "transient response," I'm speaking from the
viewpoint of using impulse or MLS stimulus driven FFT systems which,
by their very nature measure transient response. As I have several
different versions here, along with the sufficently wide bandwidth
ancillary equipment to support them, I would humbly venture to
suggest that the several thousands of measurements I have conducted
over the last quarter century or so fail completely to provde ANY
data that supports your assertions. I would point you, again, to
the above citations and, should you need them, I'd be happy to
provide several dozen more that also not only fail to support your
assertions, but contradict them rather unambiguously.

So, in the meantime, who ARE these teachers that mislead you?
Perhaps you could apply for at least a partial tuition refund.
What is this company that seemingly has not studied the rather
vast technical literature base on direct-radiator loudspeaker
physics? Perhaps they could use some consulting? :-)
  #58   Report Post  
Dick Pierce
 
Posts: n/a
Default Old speaker boxes

Sanders wrote in message ...
Fine, tell my teachers that they didn't know what they were
talking about.


First, since you failed to tell us who your teacher were, that's
kind of difficult, isn't it.

Second, we do not know if what you are telling us is their
misinterpretations of the physics of loudspeakers, or yours.
You're the one that made the statements, thus we criticize
those words.

If you would be so kind as to supply their course notes and
texts, I would be more than happy to tell them they are wrong,
but for time being, the best I can do is tell you that you are
wrong.

Third, since you're into "well tell THEM they're wrong," I suggest
you get yourself a copy of the following articles:

Thiele, A. N., "Loudspeakers in Vented Boxes," Part I, JAES 1971
May, Part II, 1971 June (Reprint from Proc. IRE Aus 1961 Aug)

Small, R. H., "Direct-Radiator Loudspeaker System Analysis,"
JAES, 1972 June

Small, R. H., "Closed-Box Loudspeaker Systems," "Part I -
Analysis" JAES, 1972 Dec, "Part II - Synthesis," JAES 173 Jan-Feb

Small, R. H., "Vented-Box Loudspeaker Systems," Part I -
Small-Signal Analysis" JAES, 1973 June, "Part II - Large
Signal Analysis," JAES 1973 Jul/Aug, "Part III - Synthesis,"
JAES 1973 Sep, "Part IV - Appendices," JAES 1973 Oct.

Now, Show us, with the same level of mathematical rigor that they
employed in their work that they are wrong, and you have a shot at
the title. Note the two authors, two of many, that I cited, Messrs.
Thiele and Small, and perhaps you might ask yourself why THE dominant
model and design basis for all direct-radiator system designed is
designated the "Thiele-Small" model.

Once you have knocked them off, then I'll be happy to supply further
citations.

I must admit that rolled suspension speakers have probably improved
since I started dealing with sound,


"Rolled suspension" drivers were invented in the late 1950's and
became commonplace in the early 1960's. Are you suggesting that your
last involvement in sound was 40 years ago, and that you have
missed the entire development since then. That might explain the
fact that you seem to be unaware of the work of Messr's Thiele,
Small, Benson and others.

but back when I started, what I said
was the truth for all things the company I worked for went with, and
they are still in business so they must of known something about what
the hell they were doing.


Again, since you fail to mention WHO this company is, your reference
to them has zero credibility. And, it should be noted, there are a
number of companies that suffer from longevity undeserved given their
"expertise." Note, for example, General Motors, about to introduce
a hyprid gas-electric SUV that gets a whopping 15 miles per gallon.
What idiot dreamt THAT up?

The rolled speakers spiders were not very
rigid in the begining of their use compared to the rigid surrounds


And precisely what does this mean?

This is not to start a flame, but if I'm missing something???


Yes, you're missing the entire physical foundational background
to direct radiator loudspeaker system behavior. Note the citations
above as a starting point to correct said deficiency.

Tuned ports worked best with rigid speakers, which now seem to be rare
in use anymore because larger amps allow for more inefficent speakers
than when I started.


Sorry, my friend, but this is yet more nonsense. You're making
assertions with absolutely no physical foundation to support
them. The efficiency of a driver is NOT dependent upon the suspension
stiffness, as shown by Thiele, Small and even going as far back as
MacClachlin (1938). The efficiency, expressed in terms of fundamental
electro-mechanical parameters, is:

p0 B^2 l^2
n = ------ * ----------
2 pi c Re Mms^2

where p0 is the density of air (~ 1.18 kg/m^3) c is the velocity of
sound (~ 342 m/s), B is the flux density in the gap (in Tesla), l
is the length of the voice coil conductor in the gap (meters), Re
is the DC resistance of the voice coil, and Mms is the effective
moving mass of the driver. Please note the complete absence of a
stiffness or a compliance term in this realtion. Should you feel
this equation is in error, it is equation 11 in the second citation
above, and I might suggest you take it up with Mr. Small, the author.

All I did was comment on all the different things we tried with speakers
and which did the best RTA tests we did with them.


Well, you in fact, made specific testable technical assertions, which
when tested were shown to be wrong. And some of what you asserted was
self-contradictory.

Further, you alluded to transient behavior of speakers. RTA, by
which I assume you mean "real-time analyzers," are generally
represented by parallel-narrow-band bandpass filter analyzers.
Such devices are utterly incapable of evaluating the transient
response of systems.

Now, when I talk about "transient response," I'm speaking from the
viewpoint of using impulse or MLS stimulus driven FFT systems which,
by their very nature measure transient response. As I have several
different versions here, along with the sufficently wide bandwidth
ancillary equipment to support them, I would humbly venture to
suggest that the several thousands of measurements I have conducted
over the last quarter century or so fail completely to provde ANY
data that supports your assertions. I would point you, again, to
the above citations and, should you need them, I'd be happy to
provide several dozen more that also not only fail to support your
assertions, but contradict them rather unambiguously.

So, in the meantime, who ARE these teachers that mislead you?
Perhaps you could apply for at least a partial tuition refund.
What is this company that seemingly has not studied the rather
vast technical literature base on direct-radiator loudspeaker
physics? Perhaps they could use some consulting? :-)
  #59   Report Post  
Sanders
 
Posts: n/a
Default Old speaker boxes

I bow out from the group as my knowledge learned is useless.

Good luck all !!!

John

Dick Pierce wrote:

Sanders wrote in message ...

Fine, tell my teachers that they didn't know what they were
talking about.



First, since you failed to tell us who your teacher were, that's
kind of difficult, isn't it.

Second, we do not know if what you are telling us is their
misinterpretations of the physics of loudspeakers, or yours.
You're the one that made the statements, thus we criticize
those words.

If you would be so kind as to supply their course notes and
texts, I would be more than happy to tell them they are wrong,
but for time being, the best I can do is tell you that you are
wrong.

Third, since you're into "well tell THEM they're wrong," I suggest
you get yourself a copy of the following articles:

Thiele, A. N., "Loudspeakers in Vented Boxes," Part I, JAES 1971
May, Part II, 1971 June (Reprint from Proc. IRE Aus 1961 Aug)

Small, R. H., "Direct-Radiator Loudspeaker System Analysis,"
JAES, 1972 June

Small, R. H., "Closed-Box Loudspeaker Systems," "Part I -
Analysis" JAES, 1972 Dec, "Part II - Synthesis," JAES 173 Jan-Feb

Small, R. H., "Vented-Box Loudspeaker Systems," Part I -
Small-Signal Analysis" JAES, 1973 June, "Part II - Large
Signal Analysis," JAES 1973 Jul/Aug, "Part III - Synthesis,"
JAES 1973 Sep, "Part IV - Appendices," JAES 1973 Oct.

Now, Show us, with the same level of mathematical rigor that they
employed in their work that they are wrong, and you have a shot at
the title. Note the two authors, two of many, that I cited, Messrs.
Thiele and Small, and perhaps you might ask yourself why THE dominant
model and design basis for all direct-radiator system designed is
designated the "Thiele-Small" model.

Once you have knocked them off, then I'll be happy to supply further
citations.


I must admit that rolled suspension speakers have probably improved
since I started dealing with sound,



"Rolled suspension" drivers were invented in the late 1950's and
became commonplace in the early 1960's. Are you suggesting that your
last involvement in sound was 40 years ago, and that you have
missed the entire development since then. That might explain the
fact that you seem to be unaware of the work of Messr's Thiele,
Small, Benson and others.


but back when I started, what I said
was the truth for all things the company I worked for went with, and
they are still in business so they must of known something about what
the hell they were doing.



Again, since you fail to mention WHO this company is, your reference
to them has zero credibility. And, it should be noted, there are a
number of companies that suffer from longevity undeserved given their
"expertise." Note, for example, General Motors, about to introduce
a hyprid gas-electric SUV that gets a whopping 15 miles per gallon.
What idiot dreamt THAT up?


The rolled speakers spiders were not very
rigid in the begining of their use compared to the rigid surrounds



And precisely what does this mean?


This is not to start a flame, but if I'm missing something???



Yes, you're missing the entire physical foundational background
to direct radiator loudspeaker system behavior. Note the citations
above as a starting point to correct said deficiency.


Tuned ports worked best with rigid speakers, which now seem to be rare
in use anymore because larger amps allow for more inefficent speakers
than when I started.



Sorry, my friend, but this is yet more nonsense. You're making
assertions with absolutely no physical foundation to support
them. The efficiency of a driver is NOT dependent upon the suspension
stiffness, as shown by Thiele, Small and even going as far back as
MacClachlin (1938). The efficiency, expressed in terms of fundamental
electro-mechanical parameters, is:

p0 B^2 l^2
n = ------ * ----------
2 pi c Re Mms^2

where p0 is the density of air (~ 1.18 kg/m^3) c is the velocity of
sound (~ 342 m/s), B is the flux density in the gap (in Tesla), l
is the length of the voice coil conductor in the gap (meters), Re
is the DC resistance of the voice coil, and Mms is the effective
moving mass of the driver. Please note the complete absence of a
stiffness or a compliance term in this realtion. Should you feel
this equation is in error, it is equation 11 in the second citation
above, and I might suggest you take it up with Mr. Small, the author.


All I did was comment on all the different things we tried with speakers
and which did the best RTA tests we did with them.



Well, you in fact, made specific testable technical assertions, which
when tested were shown to be wrong. And some of what you asserted was
self-contradictory.

Further, you alluded to transient behavior of speakers. RTA, by
which I assume you mean "real-time analyzers," are generally
represented by parallel-narrow-band bandpass filter analyzers.
Such devices are utterly incapable of evaluating the transient
response of systems.

Now, when I talk about "transient response," I'm speaking from the
viewpoint of using impulse or MLS stimulus driven FFT systems which,
by their very nature measure transient response. As I have several
different versions here, along with the sufficently wide bandwidth
ancillary equipment to support them, I would humbly venture to
suggest that the several thousands of measurements I have conducted
over the last quarter century or so fail completely to provde ANY
data that supports your assertions. I would point you, again, to
the above citations and, should you need them, I'd be happy to
provide several dozen more that also not only fail to support your
assertions, but contradict them rather unambiguously.

So, in the meantime, who ARE these teachers that mislead you?
Perhaps you could apply for at least a partial tuition refund.
What is this company that seemingly has not studied the rather
vast technical literature base on direct-radiator loudspeaker
physics? Perhaps they could use some consulting? :-)


  #60   Report Post  
Sanders
 
Posts: n/a
Default Old speaker boxes

I bow out from the group as my knowledge learned is useless.

Good luck all !!!

John

Dick Pierce wrote:

Sanders wrote in message ...

Fine, tell my teachers that they didn't know what they were
talking about.



First, since you failed to tell us who your teacher were, that's
kind of difficult, isn't it.

Second, we do not know if what you are telling us is their
misinterpretations of the physics of loudspeakers, or yours.
You're the one that made the statements, thus we criticize
those words.

If you would be so kind as to supply their course notes and
texts, I would be more than happy to tell them they are wrong,
but for time being, the best I can do is tell you that you are
wrong.

Third, since you're into "well tell THEM they're wrong," I suggest
you get yourself a copy of the following articles:

Thiele, A. N., "Loudspeakers in Vented Boxes," Part I, JAES 1971
May, Part II, 1971 June (Reprint from Proc. IRE Aus 1961 Aug)

Small, R. H., "Direct-Radiator Loudspeaker System Analysis,"
JAES, 1972 June

Small, R. H., "Closed-Box Loudspeaker Systems," "Part I -
Analysis" JAES, 1972 Dec, "Part II - Synthesis," JAES 173 Jan-Feb

Small, R. H., "Vented-Box Loudspeaker Systems," Part I -
Small-Signal Analysis" JAES, 1973 June, "Part II - Large
Signal Analysis," JAES 1973 Jul/Aug, "Part III - Synthesis,"
JAES 1973 Sep, "Part IV - Appendices," JAES 1973 Oct.

Now, Show us, with the same level of mathematical rigor that they
employed in their work that they are wrong, and you have a shot at
the title. Note the two authors, two of many, that I cited, Messrs.
Thiele and Small, and perhaps you might ask yourself why THE dominant
model and design basis for all direct-radiator system designed is
designated the "Thiele-Small" model.

Once you have knocked them off, then I'll be happy to supply further
citations.


I must admit that rolled suspension speakers have probably improved
since I started dealing with sound,



"Rolled suspension" drivers were invented in the late 1950's and
became commonplace in the early 1960's. Are you suggesting that your
last involvement in sound was 40 years ago, and that you have
missed the entire development since then. That might explain the
fact that you seem to be unaware of the work of Messr's Thiele,
Small, Benson and others.


but back when I started, what I said
was the truth for all things the company I worked for went with, and
they are still in business so they must of known something about what
the hell they were doing.



Again, since you fail to mention WHO this company is, your reference
to them has zero credibility. And, it should be noted, there are a
number of companies that suffer from longevity undeserved given their
"expertise." Note, for example, General Motors, about to introduce
a hyprid gas-electric SUV that gets a whopping 15 miles per gallon.
What idiot dreamt THAT up?


The rolled speakers spiders were not very
rigid in the begining of their use compared to the rigid surrounds



And precisely what does this mean?


This is not to start a flame, but if I'm missing something???



Yes, you're missing the entire physical foundational background
to direct radiator loudspeaker system behavior. Note the citations
above as a starting point to correct said deficiency.


Tuned ports worked best with rigid speakers, which now seem to be rare
in use anymore because larger amps allow for more inefficent speakers
than when I started.



Sorry, my friend, but this is yet more nonsense. You're making
assertions with absolutely no physical foundation to support
them. The efficiency of a driver is NOT dependent upon the suspension
stiffness, as shown by Thiele, Small and even going as far back as
MacClachlin (1938). The efficiency, expressed in terms of fundamental
electro-mechanical parameters, is:

p0 B^2 l^2
n = ------ * ----------
2 pi c Re Mms^2

where p0 is the density of air (~ 1.18 kg/m^3) c is the velocity of
sound (~ 342 m/s), B is the flux density in the gap (in Tesla), l
is the length of the voice coil conductor in the gap (meters), Re
is the DC resistance of the voice coil, and Mms is the effective
moving mass of the driver. Please note the complete absence of a
stiffness or a compliance term in this realtion. Should you feel
this equation is in error, it is equation 11 in the second citation
above, and I might suggest you take it up with Mr. Small, the author.


All I did was comment on all the different things we tried with speakers
and which did the best RTA tests we did with them.



Well, you in fact, made specific testable technical assertions, which
when tested were shown to be wrong. And some of what you asserted was
self-contradictory.

Further, you alluded to transient behavior of speakers. RTA, by
which I assume you mean "real-time analyzers," are generally
represented by parallel-narrow-band bandpass filter analyzers.
Such devices are utterly incapable of evaluating the transient
response of systems.

Now, when I talk about "transient response," I'm speaking from the
viewpoint of using impulse or MLS stimulus driven FFT systems which,
by their very nature measure transient response. As I have several
different versions here, along with the sufficently wide bandwidth
ancillary equipment to support them, I would humbly venture to
suggest that the several thousands of measurements I have conducted
over the last quarter century or so fail completely to provde ANY
data that supports your assertions. I would point you, again, to
the above citations and, should you need them, I'd be happy to
provide several dozen more that also not only fail to support your
assertions, but contradict them rather unambiguously.

So, in the meantime, who ARE these teachers that mislead you?
Perhaps you could apply for at least a partial tuition refund.
What is this company that seemingly has not studied the rather
vast technical literature base on direct-radiator loudspeaker
physics? Perhaps they could use some consulting? :-)




  #61   Report Post  
Sanders
 
Posts: n/a
Default Old speaker boxes

I bow out from the group as my knowledge learned is useless.

Good luck all !!!

John

Dick Pierce wrote:

Sanders wrote in message ...

Fine, tell my teachers that they didn't know what they were
talking about.



First, since you failed to tell us who your teacher were, that's
kind of difficult, isn't it.

Second, we do not know if what you are telling us is their
misinterpretations of the physics of loudspeakers, or yours.
You're the one that made the statements, thus we criticize
those words.

If you would be so kind as to supply their course notes and
texts, I would be more than happy to tell them they are wrong,
but for time being, the best I can do is tell you that you are
wrong.

Third, since you're into "well tell THEM they're wrong," I suggest
you get yourself a copy of the following articles:

Thiele, A. N., "Loudspeakers in Vented Boxes," Part I, JAES 1971
May, Part II, 1971 June (Reprint from Proc. IRE Aus 1961 Aug)

Small, R. H., "Direct-Radiator Loudspeaker System Analysis,"
JAES, 1972 June

Small, R. H., "Closed-Box Loudspeaker Systems," "Part I -
Analysis" JAES, 1972 Dec, "Part II - Synthesis," JAES 173 Jan-Feb

Small, R. H., "Vented-Box Loudspeaker Systems," Part I -
Small-Signal Analysis" JAES, 1973 June, "Part II - Large
Signal Analysis," JAES 1973 Jul/Aug, "Part III - Synthesis,"
JAES 1973 Sep, "Part IV - Appendices," JAES 1973 Oct.

Now, Show us, with the same level of mathematical rigor that they
employed in their work that they are wrong, and you have a shot at
the title. Note the two authors, two of many, that I cited, Messrs.
Thiele and Small, and perhaps you might ask yourself why THE dominant
model and design basis for all direct-radiator system designed is
designated the "Thiele-Small" model.

Once you have knocked them off, then I'll be happy to supply further
citations.


I must admit that rolled suspension speakers have probably improved
since I started dealing with sound,



"Rolled suspension" drivers were invented in the late 1950's and
became commonplace in the early 1960's. Are you suggesting that your
last involvement in sound was 40 years ago, and that you have
missed the entire development since then. That might explain the
fact that you seem to be unaware of the work of Messr's Thiele,
Small, Benson and others.


but back when I started, what I said
was the truth for all things the company I worked for went with, and
they are still in business so they must of known something about what
the hell they were doing.



Again, since you fail to mention WHO this company is, your reference
to them has zero credibility. And, it should be noted, there are a
number of companies that suffer from longevity undeserved given their
"expertise." Note, for example, General Motors, about to introduce
a hyprid gas-electric SUV that gets a whopping 15 miles per gallon.
What idiot dreamt THAT up?


The rolled speakers spiders were not very
rigid in the begining of their use compared to the rigid surrounds



And precisely what does this mean?


This is not to start a flame, but if I'm missing something???



Yes, you're missing the entire physical foundational background
to direct radiator loudspeaker system behavior. Note the citations
above as a starting point to correct said deficiency.


Tuned ports worked best with rigid speakers, which now seem to be rare
in use anymore because larger amps allow for more inefficent speakers
than when I started.



Sorry, my friend, but this is yet more nonsense. You're making
assertions with absolutely no physical foundation to support
them. The efficiency of a driver is NOT dependent upon the suspension
stiffness, as shown by Thiele, Small and even going as far back as
MacClachlin (1938). The efficiency, expressed in terms of fundamental
electro-mechanical parameters, is:

p0 B^2 l^2
n = ------ * ----------
2 pi c Re Mms^2

where p0 is the density of air (~ 1.18 kg/m^3) c is the velocity of
sound (~ 342 m/s), B is the flux density in the gap (in Tesla), l
is the length of the voice coil conductor in the gap (meters), Re
is the DC resistance of the voice coil, and Mms is the effective
moving mass of the driver. Please note the complete absence of a
stiffness or a compliance term in this realtion. Should you feel
this equation is in error, it is equation 11 in the second citation
above, and I might suggest you take it up with Mr. Small, the author.


All I did was comment on all the different things we tried with speakers
and which did the best RTA tests we did with them.



Well, you in fact, made specific testable technical assertions, which
when tested were shown to be wrong. And some of what you asserted was
self-contradictory.

Further, you alluded to transient behavior of speakers. RTA, by
which I assume you mean "real-time analyzers," are generally
represented by parallel-narrow-band bandpass filter analyzers.
Such devices are utterly incapable of evaluating the transient
response of systems.

Now, when I talk about "transient response," I'm speaking from the
viewpoint of using impulse or MLS stimulus driven FFT systems which,
by their very nature measure transient response. As I have several
different versions here, along with the sufficently wide bandwidth
ancillary equipment to support them, I would humbly venture to
suggest that the several thousands of measurements I have conducted
over the last quarter century or so fail completely to provde ANY
data that supports your assertions. I would point you, again, to
the above citations and, should you need them, I'd be happy to
provide several dozen more that also not only fail to support your
assertions, but contradict them rather unambiguously.

So, in the meantime, who ARE these teachers that mislead you?
Perhaps you could apply for at least a partial tuition refund.
What is this company that seemingly has not studied the rather
vast technical literature base on direct-radiator loudspeaker
physics? Perhaps they could use some consulting? :-)


  #62   Report Post  
Sanders
 
Posts: n/a
Default Old speaker boxes

I bow out from the group as my knowledge learned is useless.

Good luck all !!!

John

Dick Pierce wrote:

Sanders wrote in message ...

Fine, tell my teachers that they didn't know what they were
talking about.



First, since you failed to tell us who your teacher were, that's
kind of difficult, isn't it.

Second, we do not know if what you are telling us is their
misinterpretations of the physics of loudspeakers, or yours.
You're the one that made the statements, thus we criticize
those words.

If you would be so kind as to supply their course notes and
texts, I would be more than happy to tell them they are wrong,
but for time being, the best I can do is tell you that you are
wrong.

Third, since you're into "well tell THEM they're wrong," I suggest
you get yourself a copy of the following articles:

Thiele, A. N., "Loudspeakers in Vented Boxes," Part I, JAES 1971
May, Part II, 1971 June (Reprint from Proc. IRE Aus 1961 Aug)

Small, R. H., "Direct-Radiator Loudspeaker System Analysis,"
JAES, 1972 June

Small, R. H., "Closed-Box Loudspeaker Systems," "Part I -
Analysis" JAES, 1972 Dec, "Part II - Synthesis," JAES 173 Jan-Feb

Small, R. H., "Vented-Box Loudspeaker Systems," Part I -
Small-Signal Analysis" JAES, 1973 June, "Part II - Large
Signal Analysis," JAES 1973 Jul/Aug, "Part III - Synthesis,"
JAES 1973 Sep, "Part IV - Appendices," JAES 1973 Oct.

Now, Show us, with the same level of mathematical rigor that they
employed in their work that they are wrong, and you have a shot at
the title. Note the two authors, two of many, that I cited, Messrs.
Thiele and Small, and perhaps you might ask yourself why THE dominant
model and design basis for all direct-radiator system designed is
designated the "Thiele-Small" model.

Once you have knocked them off, then I'll be happy to supply further
citations.


I must admit that rolled suspension speakers have probably improved
since I started dealing with sound,



"Rolled suspension" drivers were invented in the late 1950's and
became commonplace in the early 1960's. Are you suggesting that your
last involvement in sound was 40 years ago, and that you have
missed the entire development since then. That might explain the
fact that you seem to be unaware of the work of Messr's Thiele,
Small, Benson and others.


but back when I started, what I said
was the truth for all things the company I worked for went with, and
they are still in business so they must of known something about what
the hell they were doing.



Again, since you fail to mention WHO this company is, your reference
to them has zero credibility. And, it should be noted, there are a
number of companies that suffer from longevity undeserved given their
"expertise." Note, for example, General Motors, about to introduce
a hyprid gas-electric SUV that gets a whopping 15 miles per gallon.
What idiot dreamt THAT up?


The rolled speakers spiders were not very
rigid in the begining of their use compared to the rigid surrounds



And precisely what does this mean?


This is not to start a flame, but if I'm missing something???



Yes, you're missing the entire physical foundational background
to direct radiator loudspeaker system behavior. Note the citations
above as a starting point to correct said deficiency.


Tuned ports worked best with rigid speakers, which now seem to be rare
in use anymore because larger amps allow for more inefficent speakers
than when I started.



Sorry, my friend, but this is yet more nonsense. You're making
assertions with absolutely no physical foundation to support
them. The efficiency of a driver is NOT dependent upon the suspension
stiffness, as shown by Thiele, Small and even going as far back as
MacClachlin (1938). The efficiency, expressed in terms of fundamental
electro-mechanical parameters, is:

p0 B^2 l^2
n = ------ * ----------
2 pi c Re Mms^2

where p0 is the density of air (~ 1.18 kg/m^3) c is the velocity of
sound (~ 342 m/s), B is the flux density in the gap (in Tesla), l
is the length of the voice coil conductor in the gap (meters), Re
is the DC resistance of the voice coil, and Mms is the effective
moving mass of the driver. Please note the complete absence of a
stiffness or a compliance term in this realtion. Should you feel
this equation is in error, it is equation 11 in the second citation
above, and I might suggest you take it up with Mr. Small, the author.


All I did was comment on all the different things we tried with speakers
and which did the best RTA tests we did with them.



Well, you in fact, made specific testable technical assertions, which
when tested were shown to be wrong. And some of what you asserted was
self-contradictory.

Further, you alluded to transient behavior of speakers. RTA, by
which I assume you mean "real-time analyzers," are generally
represented by parallel-narrow-band bandpass filter analyzers.
Such devices are utterly incapable of evaluating the transient
response of systems.

Now, when I talk about "transient response," I'm speaking from the
viewpoint of using impulse or MLS stimulus driven FFT systems which,
by their very nature measure transient response. As I have several
different versions here, along with the sufficently wide bandwidth
ancillary equipment to support them, I would humbly venture to
suggest that the several thousands of measurements I have conducted
over the last quarter century or so fail completely to provde ANY
data that supports your assertions. I would point you, again, to
the above citations and, should you need them, I'd be happy to
provide several dozen more that also not only fail to support your
assertions, but contradict them rather unambiguously.

So, in the meantime, who ARE these teachers that mislead you?
Perhaps you could apply for at least a partial tuition refund.
What is this company that seemingly has not studied the rather
vast technical literature base on direct-radiator loudspeaker
physics? Perhaps they could use some consulting? :-)


  #63   Report Post  
Peter Larsen
 
Posts: n/a
Default Old speaker boxes

Sanders topposted:

Foam surrounds and ports will never ....


Dick already commented. I can't seem to locate the beginning of this,
but a long tail of old stuff was appended and there never did seen to be
a proper follow up to the original question because the box working
principle may be different from the simple bass reflex that is assumed
by the guy that did follow up.

Hello. I currently have 2 old (about 30 years old), but very
nice (made out of 2 in. thick wood). However, as many woofers
are made today, they have the cone in the back for air to come out.
Well these tanks have something like that, but in the front.
However, isteand of anything plastic, there's a piece of fabric
covering the hole (almost like a small grill).


It would have been very helpful if simple, plain facts, such as
manufacturer and model of speaker had been included. Usually when a
layer of fabric was added to a bass reflex port it was as an intentional
flow resistance.

Over time from all the use of the speakers, this cloth has become
stretched and causes unwanted vibrations/sound in the bass parts
especially.


Hmm ...

Is it safe to remove this or should i replace the cloth?


There is not sufficient information for a reply to be given. The
simplest solution is to close the port, it will cost a bit of fullness
in the bass but probably allow deeper bass and more precise bass. Try
it, you may or may not like it, it is the "safe bet" solution on your
skill level and with the information provided.

There is the equally simple solution of removing t he remainder of the
cloth, it may have been intended to be a flow resistance, but it
obviously doesn't work like that anymore anyway. So removing it doesn't
change the current situation, and it probably remedies some of the
problems.

or should i just replace it with another part?


Assuming that I understood this right and that this is about a bass
reflex port with a flow resistance, yes, replacing with similar cloth is
an excellent idea. The original selection of cloth and/or number of
layers of cloth was made by listening, and listening is the way to do
it. Compare with the sound with the port closed and with the port
without the flow resistance, and aim for a compromise a bit nearer to
"closed" than to "open".

would adding more of these holes produce better sound?


As asked: NO!

It may be that the choice of using a flow resistance was made instead of
the choice of adding a length of tube to the port or instead of using a
longer tube. This then enters the "advanced, not for beginners" stuff.
Make an extensible tube, from two tubes that can slide inside one
another, reasonably tight, and fitting the hole that is already in the
box or make several tubes of differing lenghts, say 3,5,7,9 inches, and
listen. If the tube is too short, then the bass gets sloppy, the longer
it is the deeper it goes, but at the price of fullness. With some length
it will be "just right" and you could end up having a real improvement
of the cabinet. It may also be that you end up preferring the tightness
of having the cabinet closed instead of ported. The room is a part of
this too, and you supply zero real information, so this is about as much
reply as can possibly be given, and then some.

I would say, by all means cut it away, especially if it is causing a
vibration with bass rumble as this is very annoying. It may be
possible to fit/add a modern fitting to enhance your bass reflex as 30
years ago, not many speakers really had inverted port fittings like
many bass boxes nowadays do.. They simply had holes as ports which
still helped but because of better speaker travel in modern bass
cones, it is better to have inverted ports to suck out the best of the
bass echo... I suppose there is an art to getting the best post size
per the box size but the fact that your boxes already have a port,
this would be a guide to the needed size...


The above kinda agrees with this. If it is indeed an "acoustic vent"
design then adding a lenght of tube to the port instead may be "good for
it". Kinda agrees only, I don't want to get into the technical detail,
it is not really relevant in the context anyway.


Kind regards

Peter Larsen

--
*******************************************
* My site is at: http://www.muyiovatki.dk *
*******************************************
  #64   Report Post  
Peter Larsen
 
Posts: n/a
Default Old speaker boxes

Sanders topposted:

Foam surrounds and ports will never ....


Dick already commented. I can't seem to locate the beginning of this,
but a long tail of old stuff was appended and there never did seen to be
a proper follow up to the original question because the box working
principle may be different from the simple bass reflex that is assumed
by the guy that did follow up.

Hello. I currently have 2 old (about 30 years old), but very
nice (made out of 2 in. thick wood). However, as many woofers
are made today, they have the cone in the back for air to come out.
Well these tanks have something like that, but in the front.
However, isteand of anything plastic, there's a piece of fabric
covering the hole (almost like a small grill).


It would have been very helpful if simple, plain facts, such as
manufacturer and model of speaker had been included. Usually when a
layer of fabric was added to a bass reflex port it was as an intentional
flow resistance.

Over time from all the use of the speakers, this cloth has become
stretched and causes unwanted vibrations/sound in the bass parts
especially.


Hmm ...

Is it safe to remove this or should i replace the cloth?


There is not sufficient information for a reply to be given. The
simplest solution is to close the port, it will cost a bit of fullness
in the bass but probably allow deeper bass and more precise bass. Try
it, you may or may not like it, it is the "safe bet" solution on your
skill level and with the information provided.

There is the equally simple solution of removing t he remainder of the
cloth, it may have been intended to be a flow resistance, but it
obviously doesn't work like that anymore anyway. So removing it doesn't
change the current situation, and it probably remedies some of the
problems.

or should i just replace it with another part?


Assuming that I understood this right and that this is about a bass
reflex port with a flow resistance, yes, replacing with similar cloth is
an excellent idea. The original selection of cloth and/or number of
layers of cloth was made by listening, and listening is the way to do
it. Compare with the sound with the port closed and with the port
without the flow resistance, and aim for a compromise a bit nearer to
"closed" than to "open".

would adding more of these holes produce better sound?


As asked: NO!

It may be that the choice of using a flow resistance was made instead of
the choice of adding a length of tube to the port or instead of using a
longer tube. This then enters the "advanced, not for beginners" stuff.
Make an extensible tube, from two tubes that can slide inside one
another, reasonably tight, and fitting the hole that is already in the
box or make several tubes of differing lenghts, say 3,5,7,9 inches, and
listen. If the tube is too short, then the bass gets sloppy, the longer
it is the deeper it goes, but at the price of fullness. With some length
it will be "just right" and you could end up having a real improvement
of the cabinet. It may also be that you end up preferring the tightness
of having the cabinet closed instead of ported. The room is a part of
this too, and you supply zero real information, so this is about as much
reply as can possibly be given, and then some.

I would say, by all means cut it away, especially if it is causing a
vibration with bass rumble as this is very annoying. It may be
possible to fit/add a modern fitting to enhance your bass reflex as 30
years ago, not many speakers really had inverted port fittings like
many bass boxes nowadays do.. They simply had holes as ports which
still helped but because of better speaker travel in modern bass
cones, it is better to have inverted ports to suck out the best of the
bass echo... I suppose there is an art to getting the best post size
per the box size but the fact that your boxes already have a port,
this would be a guide to the needed size...


The above kinda agrees with this. If it is indeed an "acoustic vent"
design then adding a lenght of tube to the port instead may be "good for
it". Kinda agrees only, I don't want to get into the technical detail,
it is not really relevant in the context anyway.


Kind regards

Peter Larsen

--
*******************************************
* My site is at: http://www.muyiovatki.dk *
*******************************************
  #65   Report Post  
Peter Larsen
 
Posts: n/a
Default Old speaker boxes

Sanders topposted:

Foam surrounds and ports will never ....


Dick already commented. I can't seem to locate the beginning of this,
but a long tail of old stuff was appended and there never did seen to be
a proper follow up to the original question because the box working
principle may be different from the simple bass reflex that is assumed
by the guy that did follow up.

Hello. I currently have 2 old (about 30 years old), but very
nice (made out of 2 in. thick wood). However, as many woofers
are made today, they have the cone in the back for air to come out.
Well these tanks have something like that, but in the front.
However, isteand of anything plastic, there's a piece of fabric
covering the hole (almost like a small grill).


It would have been very helpful if simple, plain facts, such as
manufacturer and model of speaker had been included. Usually when a
layer of fabric was added to a bass reflex port it was as an intentional
flow resistance.

Over time from all the use of the speakers, this cloth has become
stretched and causes unwanted vibrations/sound in the bass parts
especially.


Hmm ...

Is it safe to remove this or should i replace the cloth?


There is not sufficient information for a reply to be given. The
simplest solution is to close the port, it will cost a bit of fullness
in the bass but probably allow deeper bass and more precise bass. Try
it, you may or may not like it, it is the "safe bet" solution on your
skill level and with the information provided.

There is the equally simple solution of removing t he remainder of the
cloth, it may have been intended to be a flow resistance, but it
obviously doesn't work like that anymore anyway. So removing it doesn't
change the current situation, and it probably remedies some of the
problems.

or should i just replace it with another part?


Assuming that I understood this right and that this is about a bass
reflex port with a flow resistance, yes, replacing with similar cloth is
an excellent idea. The original selection of cloth and/or number of
layers of cloth was made by listening, and listening is the way to do
it. Compare with the sound with the port closed and with the port
without the flow resistance, and aim for a compromise a bit nearer to
"closed" than to "open".

would adding more of these holes produce better sound?


As asked: NO!

It may be that the choice of using a flow resistance was made instead of
the choice of adding a length of tube to the port or instead of using a
longer tube. This then enters the "advanced, not for beginners" stuff.
Make an extensible tube, from two tubes that can slide inside one
another, reasonably tight, and fitting the hole that is already in the
box or make several tubes of differing lenghts, say 3,5,7,9 inches, and
listen. If the tube is too short, then the bass gets sloppy, the longer
it is the deeper it goes, but at the price of fullness. With some length
it will be "just right" and you could end up having a real improvement
of the cabinet. It may also be that you end up preferring the tightness
of having the cabinet closed instead of ported. The room is a part of
this too, and you supply zero real information, so this is about as much
reply as can possibly be given, and then some.

I would say, by all means cut it away, especially if it is causing a
vibration with bass rumble as this is very annoying. It may be
possible to fit/add a modern fitting to enhance your bass reflex as 30
years ago, not many speakers really had inverted port fittings like
many bass boxes nowadays do.. They simply had holes as ports which
still helped but because of better speaker travel in modern bass
cones, it is better to have inverted ports to suck out the best of the
bass echo... I suppose there is an art to getting the best post size
per the box size but the fact that your boxes already have a port,
this would be a guide to the needed size...


The above kinda agrees with this. If it is indeed an "acoustic vent"
design then adding a lenght of tube to the port instead may be "good for
it". Kinda agrees only, I don't want to get into the technical detail,
it is not really relevant in the context anyway.


Kind regards

Peter Larsen

--
*******************************************
* My site is at: http://www.muyiovatki.dk *
*******************************************


  #66   Report Post  
Peter Larsen
 
Posts: n/a
Default Old speaker boxes

Sanders topposted:

Foam surrounds and ports will never ....


Dick already commented. I can't seem to locate the beginning of this,
but a long tail of old stuff was appended and there never did seen to be
a proper follow up to the original question because the box working
principle may be different from the simple bass reflex that is assumed
by the guy that did follow up.

Hello. I currently have 2 old (about 30 years old), but very
nice (made out of 2 in. thick wood). However, as many woofers
are made today, they have the cone in the back for air to come out.
Well these tanks have something like that, but in the front.
However, isteand of anything plastic, there's a piece of fabric
covering the hole (almost like a small grill).


It would have been very helpful if simple, plain facts, such as
manufacturer and model of speaker had been included. Usually when a
layer of fabric was added to a bass reflex port it was as an intentional
flow resistance.

Over time from all the use of the speakers, this cloth has become
stretched and causes unwanted vibrations/sound in the bass parts
especially.


Hmm ...

Is it safe to remove this or should i replace the cloth?


There is not sufficient information for a reply to be given. The
simplest solution is to close the port, it will cost a bit of fullness
in the bass but probably allow deeper bass and more precise bass. Try
it, you may or may not like it, it is the "safe bet" solution on your
skill level and with the information provided.

There is the equally simple solution of removing t he remainder of the
cloth, it may have been intended to be a flow resistance, but it
obviously doesn't work like that anymore anyway. So removing it doesn't
change the current situation, and it probably remedies some of the
problems.

or should i just replace it with another part?


Assuming that I understood this right and that this is about a bass
reflex port with a flow resistance, yes, replacing with similar cloth is
an excellent idea. The original selection of cloth and/or number of
layers of cloth was made by listening, and listening is the way to do
it. Compare with the sound with the port closed and with the port
without the flow resistance, and aim for a compromise a bit nearer to
"closed" than to "open".

would adding more of these holes produce better sound?


As asked: NO!

It may be that the choice of using a flow resistance was made instead of
the choice of adding a length of tube to the port or instead of using a
longer tube. This then enters the "advanced, not for beginners" stuff.
Make an extensible tube, from two tubes that can slide inside one
another, reasonably tight, and fitting the hole that is already in the
box or make several tubes of differing lenghts, say 3,5,7,9 inches, and
listen. If the tube is too short, then the bass gets sloppy, the longer
it is the deeper it goes, but at the price of fullness. With some length
it will be "just right" and you could end up having a real improvement
of the cabinet. It may also be that you end up preferring the tightness
of having the cabinet closed instead of ported. The room is a part of
this too, and you supply zero real information, so this is about as much
reply as can possibly be given, and then some.

I would say, by all means cut it away, especially if it is causing a
vibration with bass rumble as this is very annoying. It may be
possible to fit/add a modern fitting to enhance your bass reflex as 30
years ago, not many speakers really had inverted port fittings like
many bass boxes nowadays do.. They simply had holes as ports which
still helped but because of better speaker travel in modern bass
cones, it is better to have inverted ports to suck out the best of the
bass echo... I suppose there is an art to getting the best post size
per the box size but the fact that your boxes already have a port,
this would be a guide to the needed size...


The above kinda agrees with this. If it is indeed an "acoustic vent"
design then adding a lenght of tube to the port instead may be "good for
it". Kinda agrees only, I don't want to get into the technical detail,
it is not really relevant in the context anyway.


Kind regards

Peter Larsen

--
*******************************************
* My site is at: http://www.muyiovatki.dk *
*******************************************
  #67   Report Post  
Peter Larsen
 
Posts: n/a
Default Old speaker boxes

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

--
*******************************************
* My site is at: http://www.muyiovatki.dk *
*******************************************
  #68   Report Post  
Peter Larsen
 
Posts: n/a
Default Old speaker boxes

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

--
*******************************************
* My site is at: http://www.muyiovatki.dk *
*******************************************
  #69   Report Post  
Peter Larsen
 
Posts: n/a
Default Old speaker boxes

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

--
*******************************************
* My site is at: http://www.muyiovatki.dk *
*******************************************
  #70   Report Post  
Peter Larsen
 
Posts: n/a
Default Old speaker boxes

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

--
*******************************************
* My site is at: http://www.muyiovatki.dk *
*******************************************


  #71   Report Post  
Peter Larsen
 
Posts: n/a
Default Old speaker boxes

Sanders wrote:

I bow out from the group as my knowledge learned is useless.


Why? - all that happened was that you learned something, stay and learn.

John



Kind regards

Peter Larsen

--
*******************************************
* My site is at: http://www.muyiovatki.dk *
*******************************************
  #72   Report Post  
Peter Larsen
 
Posts: n/a
Default Old speaker boxes

Sanders wrote:

I bow out from the group as my knowledge learned is useless.


Why? - all that happened was that you learned something, stay and learn.

John



Kind regards

Peter Larsen

--
*******************************************
* My site is at: http://www.muyiovatki.dk *
*******************************************
  #73   Report Post  
Peter Larsen
 
Posts: n/a
Default Old speaker boxes

Sanders wrote:

I bow out from the group as my knowledge learned is useless.


Why? - all that happened was that you learned something, stay and learn.

John



Kind regards

Peter Larsen

--
*******************************************
* My site is at: http://www.muyiovatki.dk *
*******************************************
  #74   Report Post  
Peter Larsen
 
Posts: n/a
Default Old speaker boxes

Sanders wrote:

I bow out from the group as my knowledge learned is useless.


Why? - all that happened was that you learned something, stay and learn.

John



Kind regards

Peter Larsen

--
*******************************************
* My site is at: http://www.muyiovatki.dk *
*******************************************
  #75   Report Post  
Zipperhead
 
Posts: n/a
Default Old speaker boxes

In article ,
says...

I bow out from the group as my knowledge learned is useless.

Good luck all !!!

John


Why don't you stick around? You just might learn something.



Reply
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

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


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Bose 901 Review William Sommerwerck General 149 January 8th 05 05:49 PM
My equipment review of the Bose 901 TonyP Audio Opinions 65 February 13th 04 02:06 AM
Comments about Blind Testing watch king High End Audio 24 January 28th 04 05:03 PM
bulding speaker boxes and bass tubes chardie General 0 November 22nd 03 11:05 PM
Speaker Wiring affects phase relationships Bill Pallies Car Audio 6 November 13th 03 10:09 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:10 PM.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AudioBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Audio and hi-fi"