|
Post by MartinT on Mar 24, 2015 15:59:11 GMT
Now you're giving me a haddock.
|
|
|
Post by pre65 on Mar 24, 2015 16:04:18 GMT
Now you're giving me a haddock. As my teacher used to say, cod do batter. Have you got a fish pun? Or do you need more time to mullet over?
|
|
|
Post by danielquinn on Mar 24, 2015 16:11:42 GMT
My favorite quote using fish seems appropriate by analogy .
"Sometimes you wonder, do they understand the game of football?" he splutters. "We're 1-0 up, then there are one or two stray passes and they're getting on players' backs. It's just not on. At the end of the day they need to get behind the team. Away from home our fans are fantastic, I'd call them the hardcore fans. But at home they have a few drinks and probably the prawn sandwiches, and they don't realise what's going on out on the pitch. I don't think some of the people who come to Old Trafford can spell 'football', never mind understand it."
|
|
|
Post by chukka on Mar 24, 2015 16:29:06 GMT
If you make a point on a forum and you are expecting people to take it seriously it is for you to elucidate your point or dont expect people to take it seriously . i have read a lot of bollocks about CLD , it just seems to be a fancy name for a filter or attenuation . hifi is awash with bastardised science propping up cod explanations . I was enjoying this thread, until.... zzzzzzzz
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 24, 2015 16:32:28 GMT
Constrained layer damping is taking two sheets of material as outer skins (steel, carbon fibre, fiberglass sheet, aluminium sheet, wood etc) and laminating them with a mechanically lossy material between them. The constrained (ie constrained between the skins) layer prevents high Q resonances - which are pretty much accepted in the loudspeaker industry as giving rise to colouration.
When you think about it, it is fairly clear. The enclosure has a much greater surface area than the cone of the drive unit - and high Q resonances give rise to colouration of the sound - the collection of high Q resonances gives a "honk" that is very audible. Constrained layer damping reduces the Q of the resonances, and hence reduces cabinet induced colouration.
The other common resonance control technique is to use cross bracing. The stiffness of a panel depends on the size of the panel to the power of four, divided by the thickness cubed, for a panel subjected to an internal air pressure. Cross bracing correctly done can divide each panel up into four (ie each sub-panel half the size of the original), so the stiffness goes up by 16, and hence the resonant frequency by a factor of 4. Actually a lot more effective than gluing steel in there. Coupled with constrained layer damping produces and exceptionally stiff and non-resonant structure.
|
|
|
Post by danielquinn on Mar 24, 2015 16:44:33 GMT
if q is "one of those dimensionless numbers that causes no small amount of consternation amongst those who don't understand what it means, as well as among those that THINK they do! However, the principle behind Q, when used in the context of loudspeakers, is VERY simple. It is simply the ratio between energy storing and energy dissipative mechanisms at resonance. In electrical terms, it is the ratio of the reactance to the resistance. "
then once again i dont understand your point .
you do not need CLD to lower Q . Indeed it would seem to complicate matters and probably increase it consequent to the mixture of materials . Additionally the mechanical lossy material between say layers of steel would seem to negate the stiffness and mass effect .
|
|
|
Post by gazjam on Mar 24, 2015 17:06:01 GMT
Prove it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 24, 2015 17:15:07 GMT
if q is "one of those dimensionless numbers that causes no small amount of consternation amongst those who don't understand what it means, as well as among those that THINK they do! However, the principle behind Q, when used in the context of loudspeakers, is VERY simple. It is simply the ratio between energy storing and energy dissipative mechanisms at resonance. In electrical terms, it is the ratio of the reactance to the resistance. " then once again i dont understand your point . you do not need CLD to lower Q . Indeed it would seem to complicate matters and probably increase it consequent to the mixture of materials . Additionally the mechanical lossy material between say layers of steel would seem to negate the stiffness and mass effect . Your call Daniel.
|
|
steve
Rank: Trio
Posts: 206
|
Post by steve on Mar 24, 2015 17:34:32 GMT
I have a few myths: Two ways are better than three ways. Single full range drivers have to be better because they don't need a crossover.
And a question: What the hell is fast bass when it's at home? I mean bass is slower than treble, otherwise it wouldn't sound lower.
|
|
|
Post by pre65 on Mar 24, 2015 17:43:46 GMT
if q is "one of those dimensionless numbers that causes no small amount of consternation amongst those who don't understand what it means, as well as among those that THINK they do! However, the principle behind Q, when used in the context of loudspeakers, is VERY simple. It is simply the ratio between energy storing and energy dissipative mechanisms at resonance. In electrical terms, it is the ratio of the reactance to the resistance. " then once again i dont understand your point . you do not need CLD to lower Q . Indeed it would seem to complicate matters and probably increase it consequent to the mixture of materials . Additionally the mechanical lossy material between say layers of steel would seem to negate the stiffness and mass effect . Your call Daniel. Quote Daniel Q (referring to the above post) "He is a typical cut and paste theorist. Spouts what he as learned without properly understanding it and therefore not able to adapt it or actually question the accepted orthodoxy. Much like rfc or the measurement mafia. They anticipate that people will just read an accept. Alas my ego is to be big to be upset by being made to look like I don't understand what Iam talking about in matters of hifi. But it is funny that my questioning usually ends in the same way not by explaining why i am wrong but by simply implying I am an idiot when strangely enough they have forsaken an opportunity prove that I am. "
|
|
|
Post by danielquinn on Mar 24, 2015 17:44:01 GMT
Re fast bass. I once had a go a jerry for the use of fast bass. But when I was comparing a kevlar driver to a paper one . The word that sprung to mind was faster bass. So i apologised.
|
|
|
Post by MartinT on Mar 24, 2015 17:49:14 GMT
I understand fast bass. Tuneful, impactful, leading edge detail and not 'leaden'. Of course there is no change in speed, it's a psychoacoustic effect.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 24, 2015 17:57:54 GMT
Quote Daniel Q (referring to the above post) "He is a typical cut and paste theorist. Spouts what he as learned without properly understanding it and therefore not able to adapt it or actually question the accepted orthodoxy. Much like rfc or the measurement mafia. They anticipate that people will just read an accept. Alas my ego is to be big to be upset by being made to look like I don't understand what Iam talking about in matters of hifi. But it is funny that my questioning usually ends in the same way not by explaining why i am wrong but by simply implying I am an idiot when strangely enough they have forsaken an opportunity prove that I am. " Can I suggest you have a look at my Linkedin profile before calling me a "cut and paste theorist"? You'll save yourself a bit of embarrassment.
|
|
|
Post by MartinT on Mar 24, 2015 17:58:52 GMT
Indeed, DQ, try not to be hoist by your own petard.
|
|
|
Post by ChrisB on Mar 24, 2015 18:03:10 GMT
QUOTE pre65: Philip, why exactly did you quote that comment from elsewhere?
|
|
|
Post by gazjam on Mar 24, 2015 18:11:42 GMT
Quote Daniel Q (referring to the above post) "He is a typical cut and paste theorist. Spouts what he as learned without properly understanding it and therefore not able to adapt it or actually question the accepted orthodoxy. Much like rfc or the measurement mafia. They anticipate that people will just read an accept. Alas my ego is to be big to be upset by being made to look like I don't understand what Iam talking about in matters of hifi. But it is funny that my questioning usually ends in the same way not by explaining why i am wrong but by simply implying I am an idiot when strangely enough they have forsaken an opportunity prove that I am. " Can I suggest you have a look at my Linkedin profile before calling me a "cut and paste theorist"? You'll save yourself a bit of embarrassment.
|
|
|
Post by jandl100 on Mar 24, 2015 18:44:09 GMT
|
|
|
Post by jandl100 on Mar 24, 2015 18:47:56 GMT
Re fast bass. I once had a go a jerry for the use of fast bass. But when I was comparing a kevlar driver to a paper one . The word that sprung to mind was faster bass. So i apologised. All of my prose makes sense once you have sufficient experience to understand it.
|
|
|
Post by gazjam on Mar 24, 2015 18:54:08 GMT
Think we need to keep a sense of humour about this Guys...hence the above. Life's too short...know what I mean?
|
|
|
Post by MartinT on Mar 24, 2015 18:56:31 GMT
QUOTE pre65: Philip, why exactly did you quote that comment from elsewhere? Hadn't realised that. Definitely against the ethos of TAS, Philip. Please don't do it again.
|
|