Ive only quoted the bit that is not meaningless .
I have no idea . The theory says , my speakers will have standing waves , yet they are the best I have heard : Go figure .
Good for you.Daniel Quinn wrote: ↑Thu Apr 20, 2017 1:20 pm
I have no idea . The theory says , my speakers will have standing waves , yet they are the best I have heard : Go figure .
I don't, but there may be ways.Daniel Quinn wrote: ↑Thu Apr 20, 2017 1:38 pm How do I know , I don't believe the theory and listen with my ears .
you know a way to measure it
Yes, but preventing standing waves forming can be achieved by avoiding a single (or harmonic sequence of) frequencie(s) at which the space in the speaker can resonate.Diffusing standing waves the theory says in box shaped enclosures is achieved by internal wadding .
Does that everything include non parallel sided enclosures?I am 100% certain anybody who listened to them would prefer then without wadding and I have tried everything available .
I agree with all this totally , it is the reason why quoting theory to answer questions is silly and largely meaningless and is the reason why just doing is best . Because by definition if you use theory to justify your speaker construction choice , you are necessarily abstracting to a point were it becomes useless .Nick wrote: ↑Thu Apr 20, 2017 1:41 pm Look, its very simple. The world is not simple, making things are not simple, things are complex.
To attempt to understand the complex world, we have to abstract. By abstracting we reduce the size of the problem to the point where we can start to derive hypothesises as to the actions that are happening in reality (which cares not a jot about what we think about it). This process of abstraction and subdivision leads to the possibility of understanding and prediction, and we can then synthesize these individual abstract models together and produce a thing, which hopefully will perform in the way we expect. If it does, it lends strength to the hypotheses that were used in its design, if not, it causes us to question them further. In the case of a loudspeaker, there are many things taking place at once, we can't hope to understand them as a gestalt, so we (as described) abstract. We know, that changing the shape of a flat surface will alter how that surface will vibrate when a exciting force is applied, and we can make predictions about that, and that’s what Scott did, he made a observation based on the expected behaviour of a small part of the entirety of a loudspeaker.
But to then ask "what does that abstraction" sound like, has little or no meaning, as its its only when its combined with all the other models each of which will have its own set of choices giving rise to causality towards the final object, that we arrive at a object that can "make sound".
The real world is complex.
I would be interested to know what other organ you might listen with.How do I know , I don't believe the theory and listen with my ears .
Assuming thats a question, yes, there is a way to measure it, but it wont in itself tell you what you want to know.you know a way to measure it
Right. The total amount of energy in the enclosure is the same, but it's spread over a wider range of frequencies. Hence the use of Golden or another acoustic ratio in many enclosures (and rooms, a la Cardas's room setup / proportion guide, which is quite effective), or diffusers.Nick wrote: ↑Thu Apr 20, 2017 1:47 pmYes, but preventing standing waves forming can be achieved by avoiding a single (or harmonic sequence of) frequencie(s) at which the space in the speaker can resonate.Diffusing standing waves the theory says in box shaped enclosures is achieved by internal wadding .