Triangular speaker cabinets.

We all start somewhere
Daniel Quinn
Old Hand
Posts: 858
Joined: Thu Jan 05, 2017 9:19 am

#46 Re: Triangular speaker cabinets.

Post by Daniel Quinn »

pre65 wrote: Thu Apr 20, 2017 2:08 pm ISome form of "theory" (my definition not Daniels) would establish parameters for the cabinet size, and things like the "golden ratio" might help to get the panel dimensions right.
If you are doing it with second hand pairs then of course these issues will have been worked out .

but once again I personally would question the importance of driver /enclosure compatibility measurements and would just say try it and see.
User avatar
Nick
Site Admin
Posts: 15694
Joined: Sun May 06, 2007 10:20 am
Location: West Yorkshire

#47 Re: Triangular speaker cabinets.

Post by Nick »

what measurements show the effect
The science here is clear, its covered by O level Physics, Its application to loudspeaker design is where it gets more complex.
Whenever an honest man discovers that he's mistaken, he will either cease to be mistaken or he will cease to be honest.
User avatar
Nick
Site Admin
Posts: 15694
Joined: Sun May 06, 2007 10:20 am
Location: West Yorkshire

#48 Re: Triangular speaker cabinets.

Post by Nick »

I asked Richard for advice on this project, and he had not a clue,
Look, Phil, we all get it, you don’t like the owner of NVA.

But assuming that because he wont do something means he cant is a bit of a stretch.

I could send you the circuit diagram for the P6 mosfets, but I wont (not sure they would do you any good in that case anyhow).
Whenever an honest man discovers that he's mistaken, he will either cease to be mistaken or he will cease to be honest.
User avatar
Scottmoose
Needs to get out more
Posts: 1802
Joined: Sat Sep 08, 2007 11:03 am
Contact:

#49 Re: Triangular speaker cabinets.

Post by Scottmoose »

Frequency response, impedance, phase, impulse, group delay, CSD... All can and do show the effects of any standing waves present. And listening tests, naturally. This is very basic, as you say Nick.

So much for what measurements show standing waves. Which are useful, but not the be-all-end-all. For what you will hear? As I clearly stated Daniel, this varies upon the specific circumstances. If you are looking for a single answer, there isn't one.
'"That'll do," comes the cry of the perfectionist down the ages.' (James May The Reassembler)
Website www.wodendesign.com
Community sites www.frugal-horn.com & www.frugal-phile.com
User avatar
pre65
Amstrad Tower of Power
Posts: 21367
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2007 11:13 pm
Location: North Essex/Suffolk border.

#50 Re: Triangular speaker cabinets.

Post by pre65 »

Nick wrote: Thu Apr 20, 2017 2:25 pm
I asked Richard for advice on this project, and he had not a clue,
Look, Phil, we all get it, you don’t like the owner of NVA.
Not true Nick.

I may dislike the way he (Richard) presents his information though, as seemingly do some others on here.
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.

Edmund Burke

G-Popz THE easy listening connoisseur. (Philip)
User avatar
Dr Bunsen Honeydew
Old Hand
Posts: 1358
Joined: Mon Sep 21, 2009 10:50 am
Location: Muppet Labs

#51 Re: Triangular speaker cabinets.

Post by Dr Bunsen Honeydew »

You will note that Doc Mods state any holes in the cabinet either accidental or deliberate i.e. ports lines whatever should be sealed. In other words an acoustic suspension is created (as long as the surround is compliant enough), So how does that make a difference to what is achieved with a cone vibration. I would refer you to Ed Villchur and Roy Allison and their separate work. If you still don't understand I may be able to give you more help. A clue - what is the difference between a free sound wave and a sound wave in a pressure situation, or what is the difference between an air pressure wave and a sound wave.

A little lateral thought will explain both the no wadding and the steel plate in a sealed enclosure. But the proof is in the eating and Nick can comment soon as he is getting some. Delay I had to order new stronger shipping boxes.

So little understanding of basics it is frightening.
User avatar
Dr Bunsen Honeydew
Old Hand
Posts: 1358
Joined: Mon Sep 21, 2009 10:50 am
Location: Muppet Labs

#52 Re: Triangular speaker cabinets.

Post by Dr Bunsen Honeydew »

Addition - that was the design, but subsequently others have taken wadding from ported and line loudspeaker, the latest being Cressy Snr here and reported it better. So even without the theory it seems to work.

EDIT - because of eeediots inability to read and understand. I have not said ALL. I have said I have up until now known no one who says it made it worse. The comment about basic knowledge applies to lack of understanding about acoustic suspension and pressure waves.
Last edited by Dr Bunsen Honeydew on Thu Apr 20, 2017 3:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
pre65
Amstrad Tower of Power
Posts: 21367
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2007 11:13 pm
Location: North Essex/Suffolk border.

#53 Re: Triangular speaker cabinets.

Post by pre65 »

I'm genuinely looking forward to hearing Richards and our DTBs modified speakers at Owston, along with everything else there.
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.

Edmund Burke

G-Popz THE easy listening connoisseur. (Philip)
User avatar
ed
retired
Posts: 5384
Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2007 4:01 pm
Location: yorkshire
Contact:

#54 Re: Triangular speaker cabinets.

Post by ed »

Dr Bunsen Honeydew wrote: Thu Apr 20, 2017 2:39 pm Addition - that was the design, but subsequently others have taken wadding from ported and line loudspeaker, the latest being Cressy Snr here and reported it better. So even without the theory it seems to work.
facts? understanding of?

I have two personal designs that I have tried many iterations of, with and without wadding.

I have folded quarter wave which has quite a bit of wadding at the terminus...I have tried many iterations with less and no wadding....to my ears and many others it doesn't work without the wadding....

I also have varied designs based on Olney labyrinths and standard transmission lines....I doubt that anybody would advocate removing the wadding from these....I have tried in the pursuit of full empirical research...

All this illustrates is that the removal of wadding is not the answer to universal improvement, and certainly doesn't warrant the statement
'so little understanding of basics it's frightening'
There's nowhere you can be that isn't where you're meant to be
User avatar
Dr Bunsen Honeydew
Old Hand
Posts: 1358
Joined: Mon Sep 21, 2009 10:50 am
Location: Muppet Labs

#55 Re: Triangular speaker cabinets.

Post by Dr Bunsen Honeydew »

Then you haven't understood a word I have said and put your own interpretation on it. To the point this post of yours is so much fantasy in terms of what I have said I will not be replying beyond this to you.
Daniel Quinn
Old Hand
Posts: 858
Joined: Thu Jan 05, 2017 9:19 am

#56 Re: Triangular speaker cabinets.

Post by Daniel Quinn »

Nobody said it was a universal panacea for all designs .

the doc will be along any minute to argue - any design but acoustic suspension is fundamentally flawed and the wadding you report benefitting is merely masking the flaw inherent in the design :mrgreen: :mrgreen:

I see he beat me to it . :D
Cressy Snr
Amstrad Tower of Power
Posts: 10547
Joined: Wed May 30, 2007 12:25 am
Location: South Yorks.

#57 Re: Triangular speaker cabinets.

Post by Cressy Snr »

Well to be fair, I didn't remove all the wadding from my transmission lines. I only adjusted the amount,by removing some of it. There is still wadding in there, just not as much as there was.
The thing with transmission lines is that they do need a certain amount of wadding to work properly.

Indeed what we glibly call transmission lines are nothing of the sort as they allow the lowest frequencies of the back wave to escape in order to reinforce the bottom end. They are justifiably famous for their deep and uncoloured low end response, that when done right is not in the least bit slow or flabby.
Leak, with their 2075 in the mid 70s had a more accurate description when they termed their speaker a "transmission absorber"
Last edited by Cressy Snr on Thu Apr 20, 2017 3:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Sgt. Baker started talkin’ with a Bullhorn in his hand.
Cressy Snr
Amstrad Tower of Power
Posts: 10547
Joined: Wed May 30, 2007 12:25 am
Location: South Yorks.

#58 Re: Triangular speaker cabinets.

Post by Cressy Snr »

Stating that any speaker design other than acoustic suspension is fundamentally flawed is nonsense. The Doc may have taken that design to its ultmate conclusion but to infer it is superior to everything else on the planet is going a bit far. Even the Doc would probably agree. It is perfectly true that although I have never yet heard a ported speaker (reflex) worth listening to, you still can't dismiss out of hand other kinds of speaker with holes in them that are not reflex loaded.

It's the same as the magazines saying in the 80s, that anything other than a Sondek/Ittok/Asak was fundamentally flawed and therefore the Sondek was the only turntable worth having.
Some of us willingly call bullshit on that statement now, without any disagreement from anyone.
Sgt. Baker started talkin’ with a Bullhorn in his hand.
Daniel Quinn
Old Hand
Posts: 858
Joined: Thu Jan 05, 2017 9:19 am

#59 Re: Triangular speaker cabinets.

Post by Daniel Quinn »

Firstly I was putting words in RD's mouth , I may have been paraphrasing but it is unfair to critique him based on what I said . But you have taken it out of context .

RD manufactures speakers which he believes are the best .This is refreshingly honest and a good thing , it means there is an honesty to his designs that he believes in and he is not just making them for the money . Last night I was reading an Audiophile magazine from the middle 90's I think , and there is test between an NVA amp and Creek amp and the NVA amp won for sound quality . In this mag they gave the manufactures a right of reply , lets just say RD as not changed in 20 odd years . But he does say , the reason NVA did not make a tuner is because they cannot make one better than creeks for the money creek charge .

In my opinion if you make hifi that is reflection of your passion and your ideas it is incumbent upon you to believe it is best { for the money } and that they necessarily means you must believe that other ways of doing things are flawed .Otherwise you would be a charlatan and/or stupid .

It does not however mean you believe your way is the best for everyone and that others ways are not as valid , it may mean however you believe they do not sound as good . :wink:

but if you make something with honesty , pride and passion to sell to someone else and yet you believe there is a better way ,then you are in effect an arse .

I have no problem with RD claiming acoustic suspension is the best way and all other ways are flawed { if he does } , you pay your money you takes your pick , I would expect other manufacturers to believe the same of their designs , alas , I only believe the majority would bullshit me.
Last edited by Daniel Quinn on Thu Apr 20, 2017 4:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Cressy Snr
Amstrad Tower of Power
Posts: 10547
Joined: Wed May 30, 2007 12:25 am
Location: South Yorks.

#60 Re: Triangular speaker cabinets.

Post by Cressy Snr »

Daniel Quinn wrote: Thu Apr 20, 2017 4:07 pm Firstly I was putting words in RD mouth , I may have been paraphrasing but it is unfair to critique him based on what I said . But you have taken it out of context .

RD manufactures speakers which he believes are the best .This is refreshingly honest and a good thing , it means there is an honesty to his designs that he believes in and he is not just making them for the money . Last night I was reading an Audiophile magazine from the middle 90's I think , and there is test between an NVA amp and Creek amp and the NVA amp won for sound quality . In this mag they gave the manufactures a right of reply , lets just say RD as not changed in 20 odd years . But he does say , the reason NVA did not make a tuner is because they cannot make one better than creeks for the money creek charge .

In my opinion if you make hifi that is reflection of your passion and your ideas it is incumbent upon you to believe it is best and that they necessarily means you must believe that other ways of doing things are flawed .Otherwise you would be a charlatan .

It does not however mean you believe your way is the best for everyone and that others ways are not as valid , it may mean however you believe they do not sound as good .

but if you make something with honesty , pride and passion and yet you believe there is a better way ,then you are in effect an arse .

I have no problem with RD claiming acoustic suspension is the best way and all other ways are flawed { if he does } , you pay your money you takes your pick , I would expect other manufacturers to believe the same of their designs , alas , I only believe the majority would bullshit me.
I'm not critiquing him, just making an observation.
I'm passionate about my own speaker designs in fact I don't know how I deal with the talent I have, such is the immensity of it.
I don't however think my designs are the best. There's always someone who will better you. There may be better ways of using the drivers I chose, so just having that awareness makes me an arse?
Nope, all it means is that I don't have the monpoly on good ideas.
Last edited by Cressy Snr on Thu Apr 20, 2017 4:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Sgt. Baker started talkin’ with a Bullhorn in his hand.
Post Reply