He had invited various DIY'ers to bring their speaker creations to be
measured at a facility using test equipment in an ancheoic chamber.
Now that was 10 years ago and at that time it was a Celestion that
bested them on the bench. Available software has gotten better and so
hopefully has the ability of the individual to properly measure the
performance of their speaker creations.
Has a scenario such as Tom described been repeated recently? Are
present day DIY speaker creations getting better to the point where if
we ignore the amount of time a person spends (we all need something to
do) that they can produce a very competently performing loudspeaker
that measures well and doesn't suffer from the very convenient
'builder's ear' when it comes to giving a pass to what would
rightfully be considered undesireable characteristics?

Chu Gai wrote:
He had invited various DIY'ers to bring their speaker creations to be
measured at a facility using test equipment in an ancheoic chamber.
Now that was 10 years ago and at that time it was a Celestion that
bested them on the bench. Available software has gotten better and so
hopefully has the ability of the individual to properly measure the
performance of their speaker creations.
Has a scenario such as Tom described been repeated recently? Are
present day DIY speaker creations getting better to the point where if
we ignore the amount of time a person spends (we all need something to
do) that they can produce a very competently performing loudspeaker
that measures well and doesn't suffer from the very convenient
'builder's ear' when it comes to giving a pass to what would
rightfully be considered undesireable characteristics?

This gets discussed with Tom from time to time. . I think that the current
consensus is that enough amateurs are using relatively sophisticated speaker
design and analysis tools, courtesy of the PC revolution, that the gap is at
least narrowing.

Chu Gai wrote:
He had invited various DIY'ers to bring their speaker creations to be
measured at a facility using test equipment in an ancheoic chamber.
Now that was 10 years ago and at that time it was a Celestion that
bested them on the bench. Available software has gotten better and so
hopefully has the ability of the individual to properly measure the
performance of their speaker creations.
Has a scenario such as Tom described been repeated recently? Are
present day DIY speaker creations getting better to the point where if
we ignore the amount of time a person spends (we all need something to
do) that they can produce a very competently performing loudspeaker
that measures well and doesn't suffer from the very convenient
'builder's ear' when it comes to giving a pass to what would
rightfully be considered undesireable characteristics?

This gets discussed with Tom from time to time. . I think that the current
consensus is that enough amateurs are using relatively sophisticated speaker
design and analysis tools, courtesy of the PC revolution, that the gap is at
least narrowing.

Chu Gai wrote:
He had invited various DIY'ers to bring their speaker creations to be
measured at a facility using test equipment in an ancheoic chamber.
Now that was 10 years ago and at that time it was a Celestion that
bested them on the bench. Available software has gotten better and so
hopefully has the ability of the individual to properly measure the
performance of their speaker creations.
Has a scenario such as Tom described been repeated recently? Are
present day DIY speaker creations getting better to the point where if
we ignore the amount of time a person spends (we all need something to
do) that they can produce a very competently performing loudspeaker
that measures well and doesn't suffer from the very convenient
'builder's ear' when it comes to giving a pass to what would
rightfully be considered undesireable characteristics?

This gets discussed with Tom from time to time. . I think that the current
consensus is that enough amateurs are using relatively sophisticated speaker
design and analysis tools, courtesy of the PC revolution, that the gap is at
least narrowing.

"Arny Krueger" wrote:



Chu Gai wrote:
He had invited various DIY'ers to bring their speaker creations to be
measured at a facility using test equipment in an ancheoic chamber.
Now that was 10 years ago and at that time it was a Celestion that
bested them on the bench. Available software has gotten better and so
hopefully has the ability of the individual to properly measure the
performance of their speaker creations.
Has a scenario such as Tom described been repeated recently? Are
present day DIY speaker creations getting better to the point where if
we ignore the amount of time a person spends (we all need something to
do) that they can produce a very competently performing loudspeaker
that measures well and doesn't suffer from the very convenient
'builder's ear' when it comes to giving a pass to what would
rightfully be considered undesireable characteristics?

This gets discussed with Tom from time to time. . I think that the current
consensus is that enough amateurs are using relatively sophisticated speaker
design and analysis tools, courtesy of the PC revolution, that the gap is at
least narrowing.

That much may be true, especially with the newer Berhinger pieces available,
but on the whole and in the particular its much harder to best commercial
designs when cost is considered. (with the exception of subwoofers.)

With good system tuning it is much more likely today as long as you have an
acoustical merasurement system..... which are more widely available and much
less expensive ....... which includes a measurement microphone.... to gauge how
you are proceeding. That's what the PSACS test was .... a way for amatuers to
get access to test equipment they couldn't afford to own.

If you consider the acquisition of the equipment to make a good set of speakers
you still can't beat the better $300 2 way 6.5-inch systems on the market
today.

OTOH if you're going all out (ready to adjust things to the drivers available
in quantities of 2.... which may be a completely different issue) and want to
"better" $10K commercial speakers I'd say that's often possible (but only
because there are so many pretty poor $10K systems) but you have to be willing
to spend a large amount of time and effort.

For most people ..... make a system with a few $.... then compare it to your
neighbors $300 speakers and decide for yourself.

But I'm not downgrading DIY speakers. I love the "format"; god knows that I
spent years wallowing in it, and I don't mean to discourage it, but frankly
engineers at Paradigm, PSB and more lately JBL and Infinity have discovered
all the "secrets" of making good sounding speaker systems for cheap.

"Arny Krueger" wrote:



Chu Gai wrote:
He had invited various DIY'ers to bring their speaker creations to be
measured at a facility using test equipment in an ancheoic chamber.
Now that was 10 years ago and at that time it was a Celestion that
bested them on the bench. Available software has gotten better and so
hopefully has the ability of the individual to properly measure the
performance of their speaker creations.
Has a scenario such as Tom described been repeated recently? Are
present day DIY speaker creations getting better to the point where if
we ignore the amount of time a person spends (we all need something to
do) that they can produce a very competently performing loudspeaker
that measures well and doesn't suffer from the very convenient
'builder's ear' when it comes to giving a pass to what would
rightfully be considered undesireable characteristics?

This gets discussed with Tom from time to time. . I think that the current
consensus is that enough amateurs are using relatively sophisticated speaker
design and analysis tools, courtesy of the PC revolution, that the gap is at
least narrowing.

That much may be true, especially with the newer Berhinger pieces available,
but on the whole and in the particular its much harder to best commercial
designs when cost is considered. (with the exception of subwoofers.)

With good system tuning it is much more likely today as long as you have an
acoustical merasurement system..... which are more widely available and much
less expensive ....... which includes a measurement microphone.... to gauge how
you are proceeding. That's what the PSACS test was .... a way for amatuers to
get access to test equipment they couldn't afford to own.

If you consider the acquisition of the equipment to make a good set of speakers
you still can't beat the better $300 2 way 6.5-inch systems on the market
today.

OTOH if you're going all out (ready to adjust things to the drivers available
in quantities of 2.... which may be a completely different issue) and want to
"better" $10K commercial speakers I'd say that's often possible (but only
because there are so many pretty poor $10K systems) but you have to be willing
to spend a large amount of time and effort.

For most people ..... make a system with a few $.... then compare it to your
neighbors $300 speakers and decide for yourself.

But I'm not downgrading DIY speakers. I love the "format"; god knows that I
spent years wallowing in it, and I don't mean to discourage it, but frankly
engineers at Paradigm, PSB and more lately JBL and Infinity have discovered
all the "secrets" of making good sounding speaker systems for cheap.

"Arny Krueger" wrote:



Chu Gai wrote:
He had invited various DIY'ers to bring their speaker creations to be
measured at a facility using test equipment in an ancheoic chamber.
Now that was 10 years ago and at that time it was a Celestion that
bested them on the bench. Available software has gotten better and so
hopefully has the ability of the individual to properly measure the
performance of their speaker creations.
Has a scenario such as Tom described been repeated recently? Are
present day DIY speaker creations getting better to the point where if
we ignore the amount of time a person spends (we all need something to
do) that they can produce a very competently performing loudspeaker
that measures well and doesn't suffer from the very convenient
'builder's ear' when it comes to giving a pass to what would
rightfully be considered undesireable characteristics?

This gets discussed with Tom from time to time. . I think that the current
consensus is that enough amateurs are using relatively sophisticated speaker
design and analysis tools, courtesy of the PC revolution, that the gap is at
least narrowing.

That much may be true, especially with the newer Berhinger pieces available,
but on the whole and in the particular its much harder to best commercial
designs when cost is considered. (with the exception of subwoofers.)

With good system tuning it is much more likely today as long as you have an
acoustical merasurement system..... which are more widely available and much
less expensive ....... which includes a measurement microphone.... to gauge how
you are proceeding. That's what the PSACS test was .... a way for amatuers to
get access to test equipment they couldn't afford to own.

If you consider the acquisition of the equipment to make a good set of speakers
you still can't beat the better $300 2 way 6.5-inch systems on the market
today.

OTOH if you're going all out (ready to adjust things to the drivers available
in quantities of 2.... which may be a completely different issue) and want to
"better" $10K commercial speakers I'd say that's often possible (but only
because there are so many pretty poor $10K systems) but you have to be willing
to spend a large amount of time and effort.

For most people ..... make a system with a few $.... then compare it to your
neighbors $300 speakers and decide for yourself.

But I'm not downgrading DIY speakers. I love the "format"; god knows that I
spent years wallowing in it, and I don't mean to discourage it, but frankly
engineers at Paradigm, PSB and more lately JBL and Infinity have discovered
all the "secrets" of making good sounding speaker systems for cheap.

(Nousaine) wrote in message
snip...

Thanks for your insights Arny & Tom. Along the lines of what you
posted, are you aware of any scenarios where DIY'ers have had their
speakers measured more critically and compared to some other
competently performing commercial speaker, say PSB? It's not unusual
at DIY gatherings for awards to be given to 'best speaker' that have
more to do with appearance and uniqueness as opposed to sound quality.
But I'm not downgrading DIY speakers. I love the "format"; god knows that I
spent years wallowing in it, and I don't mean to discourage it, but frankly
engineers at Paradigm, PSB and more lately JBL and Infinity have discovered
all the "secrets" of making good sounding speaker systems for cheap.

(Nousaine) wrote in message
snip...

Thanks for your insights Arny & Tom. Along the lines of what you
posted, are you aware of any scenarios where DIY'ers have had their
speakers measured more critically and compared to some other
competently performing commercial speaker, say PSB? It's not unusual
at DIY gatherings for awards to be given to 'best speaker' that have
more to do with appearance and uniqueness as opposed to sound quality.
But I'm not downgrading DIY speakers. I love the "format"; god knows that I
spent years wallowing in it, and I don't mean to discourage it, but frankly
engineers at Paradigm, PSB and more lately JBL and Infinity have discovered
all the "secrets" of making good sounding speaker systems for cheap.

(Nousaine) wrote in message
snip...

Thanks for your insights Arny & Tom. Along the lines of what you
posted, are you aware of any scenarios where DIY'ers have had their
speakers measured more critically and compared to some other
competently performing commercial speaker, say PSB? It's not unusual
at DIY gatherings for awards to be given to 'best speaker' that have
more to do with appearance and uniqueness as opposed to sound quality.
But I'm not downgrading DIY speakers. I love the "format"; god knows that I
spent years wallowing in it, and I don't mean to discourage it, but frankly
engineers at Paradigm, PSB and more lately JBL and Infinity have discovered
all the "secrets" of making good sounding speaker systems for cheap.

Nousaine wrote:

That much may be true, especially with the newer Berhinger pieces
available, but on the whole and in the particular its much harder to
best commercial designs when cost is considered. (with the exception
of subwoofers.)

If there is a Behringer piece available, presumably the original design that
it was copied off is also available, and will slightly better built.

geoff

Nousaine wrote:

That much may be true, especially with the newer Berhinger pieces
available, but on the whole and in the particular its much harder to
best commercial designs when cost is considered. (with the exception
of subwoofers.)

If there is a Behringer piece available, presumably the original design that
it was copied off is also available, and will slightly better built.

geoff

Nousaine wrote:

That much may be true, especially with the newer Berhinger pieces
available, but on the whole and in the particular its much harder to
best commercial designs when cost is considered. (with the exception
of subwoofers.)

If there is a Behringer piece available, presumably the original design that
it was copied off is also available, and will slightly better built.

geoff

Geoff Wood wrote:
Nousaine wrote:

That much may be true, especially with the newer Berhinger pieces
available, but on the whole and in the particular its much harder to
best commercial designs when cost is considered. (with the exception
of subwoofers.)

If there is a Behringer piece available, presumably the original
design that it was copied off is also available, and will slightly
better built.

The Behringer piece in question is the ECM-8000 measurement microphone which
Behringer seems to buy from an outside supplier (apparently Superlux) . The
original design seems to be have been done by the supplier of the
microphone.

Geoff Wood wrote:
Nousaine wrote:

That much may be true, especially with the newer Berhinger pieces
available, but on the whole and in the particular its much harder to
best commercial designs when cost is considered. (with the exception
of subwoofers.)

If there is a Behringer piece available, presumably the original
design that it was copied off is also available, and will slightly
better built.

The Behringer piece in question is the ECM-8000 measurement microphone which
Behringer seems to buy from an outside supplier (apparently Superlux) . The
original design seems to be have been done by the supplier of the
microphone.

Geoff Wood wrote:
Nousaine wrote:

That much may be true, especially with the newer Berhinger pieces
available, but on the whole and in the particular its much harder to
best commercial designs when cost is considered. (with the exception
of subwoofers.)

If there is a Behringer piece available, presumably the original
design that it was copied off is also available, and will slightly
better built.

The Behringer piece in question is the ECM-8000 measurement microphone which
Behringer seems to buy from an outside supplier (apparently Superlux) . The
original design seems to be have been done by the supplier of the
microphone.

"Arny Krueger" wrote:



Geoff Wood wrote:
Nousaine wrote:

That much may be true, especially with the newer Berhinger pieces
available, but on the whole and in the particular its much harder to
best commercial designs when cost is considered. (with the exception
of subwoofers.)

If there is a Behringer piece available, presumably the original
design that it was copied off is also available, and will slightly
better built.

The Behringer piece in question is the ECM-8000 measurement microphone which
Behringer seems to buy from an outside supplier (apparently Superlux) . The
original design seems to be have been done by the supplier of the
microphone.

When measuring the same speaker .tThe ECM-800 is within a pubic hair of my
Earthworks M30 The microphone supplies with the Velodyne DD series of
subwoofers appears to the same model.

"Arny Krueger" wrote:



Geoff Wood wrote:
Nousaine wrote:

That much may be true, especially with the newer Berhinger pieces
available, but on the whole and in the particular its much harder to
best commercial designs when cost is considered. (with the exception
of subwoofers.)

If there is a Behringer piece available, presumably the original
design that it was copied off is also available, and will slightly
better built.

The Behringer piece in question is the ECM-8000 measurement microphone which
Behringer seems to buy from an outside supplier (apparently Superlux) . The
original design seems to be have been done by the supplier of the
microphone.

When measuring the same speaker .tThe ECM-800 is within a pubic hair of my
Earthworks M30 The microphone supplies with the Velodyne DD series of
subwoofers appears to the same model.

"Arny Krueger" wrote:



Geoff Wood wrote:
Nousaine wrote:

That much may be true, especially with the newer Berhinger pieces
available, but on the whole and in the particular its much harder to
best commercial designs when cost is considered. (with the exception
of subwoofers.)

If there is a Behringer piece available, presumably the original
design that it was copied off is also available, and will slightly
better built.

The Behringer piece in question is the ECM-8000 measurement microphone which
Behringer seems to buy from an outside supplier (apparently Superlux) . The
original design seems to be have been done by the supplier of the
microphone.

When measuring the same speaker .tThe ECM-800 is within a pubic hair of my
Earthworks M30 The microphone supplies with the Velodyne DD series of
subwoofers appears to the same model.

(Chu Gai) wrote:



(Nousaine) wrote in message
snip...

Thanks for your insights Arny & Tom. Along the lines of what you
posted, are you aware of any scenarios where DIY'ers have had their
speakers measured more critically and compared to some other
competently performing commercial speaker, say PSB? It's not unusual
at DIY gatherings for awards to be given to 'best speaker' that have
more to do with appearance and uniqueness as opposed to sound quality.

That has been my observation as well. No I haven't seen anybody do that. There
was supposed to be a DIY Shootout in Iowa a couple years ago where I suggested
that the 'scoring' be done relative to a commerical model on a one-at-a-time
basis but I don't know if this was ever pulled off.

For the scope of what I consider an example of a high-drive DIY project you
might consider looking up Tom Parazella's system as described in The Audio
Amateur (or Audio Express or whatever it was called at the time). There are two
parts subwoofer and then large ribbon systems.

But as long as you mention it one of the real good reasons for DIY is to make
speakers that are unusually styled and finely finished. Like Randy Parker's
which have appeared in Speaker Builder in the past.



But I'm not downgrading DIY speakers. I love the "format"; god knows that I
spent years wallowing in it, and I don't mean to discourage it, but frankly
engineers at Paradigm, PSB and more lately JBL and Infinity have
discovered
all the "secrets" of making good sounding speaker systems for cheap.

(Chu Gai) wrote:



(Nousaine) wrote in message
snip...

Thanks for your insights Arny & Tom. Along the lines of what you
posted, are you aware of any scenarios where DIY'ers have had their
speakers measured more critically and compared to some other
competently performing commercial speaker, say PSB? It's not unusual
at DIY gatherings for awards to be given to 'best speaker' that have
more to do with appearance and uniqueness as opposed to sound quality.

That has been my observation as well. No I haven't seen anybody do that. There
was supposed to be a DIY Shootout in Iowa a couple years ago where I suggested
that the 'scoring' be done relative to a commerical model on a one-at-a-time
basis but I don't know if this was ever pulled off.

For the scope of what I consider an example of a high-drive DIY project you
might consider looking up Tom Parazella's system as described in The Audio
Amateur (or Audio Express or whatever it was called at the time). There are two
parts subwoofer and then large ribbon systems.

But as long as you mention it one of the real good reasons for DIY is to make
speakers that are unusually styled and finely finished. Like Randy Parker's
which have appeared in Speaker Builder in the past.



But I'm not downgrading DIY speakers. I love the "format"; god knows that I
spent years wallowing in it, and I don't mean to discourage it, but frankly
engineers at Paradigm, PSB and more lately JBL and Infinity have
discovered
all the "secrets" of making good sounding speaker systems for cheap.

(Chu Gai) wrote:



(Nousaine) wrote in message
snip...

Thanks for your insights Arny & Tom. Along the lines of what you
posted, are you aware of any scenarios where DIY'ers have had their
speakers measured more critically and compared to some other
competently performing commercial speaker, say PSB? It's not unusual
at DIY gatherings for awards to be given to 'best speaker' that have
more to do with appearance and uniqueness as opposed to sound quality.

That has been my observation as well. No I haven't seen anybody do that. There
was supposed to be a DIY Shootout in Iowa a couple years ago where I suggested
that the 'scoring' be done relative to a commerical model on a one-at-a-time
basis but I don't know if this was ever pulled off.

For the scope of what I consider an example of a high-drive DIY project you
might consider looking up Tom Parazella's system as described in The Audio
Amateur (or Audio Express or whatever it was called at the time). There are two
parts subwoofer and then large ribbon systems.

But as long as you mention it one of the real good reasons for DIY is to make
speakers that are unusually styled and finely finished. Like Randy Parker's
which have appeared in Speaker Builder in the past.



But I'm not downgrading DIY speakers. I love the "format"; god knows that I
spent years wallowing in it, and I don't mean to discourage it, but frankly
engineers at Paradigm, PSB and more lately JBL and Infinity have
discovered
all the "secrets" of making good sounding speaker systems for cheap.

(Nousaine) wrote in :

(Chu Gai) wrote:



(Nousaine) wrote in message
snip...

Thanks for your insights Arny & Tom. Along the lines of what you
posted, are you aware of any scenarios where DIY'ers have had their
speakers measured more critically and compared to some other
competently performing commercial speaker, say PSB? It's not unusual
at DIY gatherings for awards to be given to 'best speaker' that have
more to do with appearance and uniqueness as opposed to sound quality.

That has been my observation as well. No I haven't seen anybody do that. There
was supposed to be a DIY Shootout in Iowa a couple years ago where I suggested
that the 'scoring' be done relative to a commerical model on a one-at-a-time
basis but I don't know if this was ever pulled off.

For the scope of what I consider an example of a high-drive DIY project you
might consider looking up Tom Parazella's system as described in The Audio
Amateur (or Audio Express or whatever it was called at the time). There are two
parts subwoofer and then large ribbon systems.

But as long as you mention it one of the real good reasons for DIY is to make
speakers that are unusually styled and finely finished. Like Randy Parker's
which have appeared in Speaker Builder in the past.



But I'm not downgrading DIY speakers. I love the "format"; god knows that I
spent years wallowing in it, and I don't mean to discourage it, but frankly
engineers at Paradigm, PSB and more lately JBL and Infinity have
discovered
all the "secrets" of making good sounding speaker systems for cheap.


The DIY speakers that intrigigue me the most are Jim Griffin's.

http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showt...hlight=griffin

Dr. Griffins paper is at
http://www.audiodiycentral.com/resource/pdf/nflawp.pdf

There is another paper by Jim Griffin at Georgia Tech.
http://www.prism.gatech.edu/~gte929u/LinusWP.pdf

A google search for 'griffin line array' will turn up many sites.

r

--
Nothing beats the bandwidth of a station wagon filled with DLT tapes.

(Nousaine) wrote in :

(Chu Gai) wrote:



(Nousaine) wrote in message
snip...

Thanks for your insights Arny & Tom. Along the lines of what you
posted, are you aware of any scenarios where DIY'ers have had their
speakers measured more critically and compared to some other
competently performing commercial speaker, say PSB? It's not unusual
at DIY gatherings for awards to be given to 'best speaker' that have
more to do with appearance and uniqueness as opposed to sound quality.

That has been my observation as well. No I haven't seen anybody do that. There
was supposed to be a DIY Shootout in Iowa a couple years ago where I suggested
that the 'scoring' be done relative to a commerical model on a one-at-a-time
basis but I don't know if this was ever pulled off.

For the scope of what I consider an example of a high-drive DIY project you
might consider looking up Tom Parazella's system as described in The Audio
Amateur (or Audio Express or whatever it was called at the time). There are two
parts subwoofer and then large ribbon systems.

But as long as you mention it one of the real good reasons for DIY is to make
speakers that are unusually styled and finely finished. Like Randy Parker's
which have appeared in Speaker Builder in the past.



But I'm not downgrading DIY speakers. I love the "format"; god knows that I
spent years wallowing in it, and I don't mean to discourage it, but frankly
engineers at Paradigm, PSB and more lately JBL and Infinity have
discovered
all the "secrets" of making good sounding speaker systems for cheap.


The DIY speakers that intrigigue me the most are Jim Griffin's.

http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showt...hlight=griffin

Dr. Griffins paper is at
http://www.audiodiycentral.com/resource/pdf/nflawp.pdf

There is another paper by Jim Griffin at Georgia Tech.
http://www.prism.gatech.edu/~gte929u/LinusWP.pdf

A google search for 'griffin line array' will turn up many sites.

r

--
Nothing beats the bandwidth of a station wagon filled with DLT tapes.

(Nousaine) wrote in :

(Chu Gai) wrote:



(Nousaine) wrote in message
snip...

Thanks for your insights Arny & Tom. Along the lines of what you
posted, are you aware of any scenarios where DIY'ers have had their
speakers measured more critically and compared to some other
competently performing commercial speaker, say PSB? It's not unusual
at DIY gatherings for awards to be given to 'best speaker' that have
more to do with appearance and uniqueness as opposed to sound quality.

That has been my observation as well. No I haven't seen anybody do that. There
was supposed to be a DIY Shootout in Iowa a couple years ago where I suggested
that the 'scoring' be done relative to a commerical model on a one-at-a-time
basis but I don't know if this was ever pulled off.

For the scope of what I consider an example of a high-drive DIY project you
might consider looking up Tom Parazella's system as described in The Audio
Amateur (or Audio Express or whatever it was called at the time). There are two
parts subwoofer and then large ribbon systems.

But as long as you mention it one of the real good reasons for DIY is to make
speakers that are unusually styled and finely finished. Like Randy Parker's
which have appeared in Speaker Builder in the past.



But I'm not downgrading DIY speakers. I love the "format"; god knows that I
spent years wallowing in it, and I don't mean to discourage it, but frankly
engineers at Paradigm, PSB and more lately JBL and Infinity have
discovered
all the "secrets" of making good sounding speaker systems for cheap.


The DIY speakers that intrigigue me the most are Jim Griffin's.

http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showt...hlight=griffin

Dr. Griffins paper is at
http://www.audiodiycentral.com/resource/pdf/nflawp.pdf

There is another paper by Jim Griffin at Georgia Tech.
http://www.prism.gatech.edu/~gte929u/LinusWP.pdf

A google search for 'griffin line array' will turn up many sites.

r

--
Nothing beats the bandwidth of a station wagon filled with DLT tapes.

Rich.Andrews wrote:

The DIY speakers that intrigigue me the most are Jim Griffin's.


http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showt...hlight=griffin

Dr. Griffins paper is at
http://www.audiodiycentral.com/resource/pdf/nflawp.pdf

There is another paper by Jim Griffin at Georgia Tech.
http://www.prism.gatech.edu/~gte929u/LinusWP.pdf

A google search for 'griffin line array' will turn up many sites.

Ironcially, Griffen seems to be totally ignorant of Bessel arrays.

That's something like claiming to be a car expert, and not knowing about
Chevies, no?

Griffin's paper does a pretty good job of explaining why line arrays are a
bad idea in the near field, sorta cutting himself at the legs, no?

Rich.Andrews wrote:

The DIY speakers that intrigigue me the most are Jim Griffin's.


http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showt...hlight=griffin

Dr. Griffins paper is at
http://www.audiodiycentral.com/resource/pdf/nflawp.pdf

There is another paper by Jim Griffin at Georgia Tech.
http://www.prism.gatech.edu/~gte929u/LinusWP.pdf

A google search for 'griffin line array' will turn up many sites.

Ironcially, Griffen seems to be totally ignorant of Bessel arrays.

That's something like claiming to be a car expert, and not knowing about
Chevies, no?

Griffin's paper does a pretty good job of explaining why line arrays are a
bad idea in the near field, sorta cutting himself at the legs, no?

Rich.Andrews wrote:

The DIY speakers that intrigigue me the most are Jim Griffin's.


http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showt...hlight=griffin

Dr. Griffins paper is at
http://www.audiodiycentral.com/resource/pdf/nflawp.pdf

There is another paper by Jim Griffin at Georgia Tech.
http://www.prism.gatech.edu/~gte929u/LinusWP.pdf

A google search for 'griffin line array' will turn up many sites.

Ironcially, Griffen seems to be totally ignorant of Bessel arrays.

That's something like claiming to be a car expert, and not knowing about
Chevies, no?

Griffin's paper does a pretty good job of explaining why line arrays are a
bad idea in the near field, sorta cutting himself at the legs, no?