Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
Electronics Repair (sci.electronics.repair) Discussion of repairing electronic equipment. Topics include requests for assistance, where to obtain servicing information and parts, techniques for diagnosis and repair, and annecdotes about success, failures and problems. |
Reply |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
speaker phasing
I'm making some additions to my stereo system and I'll try to explain this as concise as possible. I have two additional speakers which I'd like to connect to the receiver in the living room. The room is about 15 X 22 feet. The existing two speakers are situated against an inside wall facing the windows. They are properly phased and sound very good. One of these existing speakers (left side speaker A system), is very slightly caddy corner so that it projects into the room. I would like to connect the additional left side counterpart on the opposite window wall so that it's speaker, (proposed speaker B system) is doing the same thing from the corner it's in. The new right speaker from proposed system B will essentially facing it's counterpart from speaker A system,separated by about 15 feet. What I'm trying to accomplish is more sound filling the room from more directions and hopefully simulating a sort of pseudo "surround" type of effect. But I'm not sure about how this is going to work out. Perhaps this is a mistake, so I thought I'd ask.
If all four speakers are facing one another and are in phase, and by this I mean before connecting to the receiver confirming that a small battery makes all four cones move in the same direction, connected like this what happens when the two lefts for instance are outputting the same signal. With the cones facing each other, will the projected sound buck and effectively try to cancel? Or should both cones in proposed B system be in phase as a pair but out of phase with respect to A system? Or should I forget the whole thing and just stick with my two existing A speakers? I hope I've explained this well. Thanks for any advice. Lenny |
#2
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
speaker phasing
|
#3
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
speaker phasing
This is a common source of confusion. "Same direction" means "outward or
inward", /not/ same direction viewed from overhead. The same signal should produce compression or rarefaction from all speakers. Other than a sore back from moving your speakers, it costs nothing to experiment. As dave says, start with them in phase, then play around. |
#4
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
speaker phasing
"William Sommerwerck" This is a common source of confusion. "Same direction" means "outward or inward", /not/ same direction viewed from overhead. The same signal should produce compression or rarefaction from all speakers. ** Correct. Phasing similar speakers is all about making the low frequency output from each *reinforce* the others rather than cancel. Compared to the wavelengths of low frequency sound, woofers are a point ( hence omnidirectional ) source of sound pressure - so it is irrelevant which way the cone faces. Ideally, a listener should be seated at the same distance from each speaker so all time ( of arrival ) delays are identical and do NOT create phase changes. .... Phil |
#5
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
speaker phasing
On 11/29/2013 12:00 PM, Phil Allison wrote:
"William Sommerwerck" This is a common source of confusion. "Same direction" means "outward or inward", /not/ same direction viewed from overhead. The same signal should produce compression or rarefaction from all speakers. ** Correct. Phasing similar speakers is all about making the low frequency output from each *reinforce* the others rather than cancel. Compared to the wavelengths of low frequency sound, woofers are a point ( hence omnidirectional ) source of sound pressure - so it is irrelevant which way the cone faces. Ideally, a listener should be seated at the same distance from each speaker so all time ( of arrival ) delays are identical and do NOT create phase changes. ... Phil There is no such thing as correct time of arrival type of phase coherence in modern electronic media. Everything is close-miked and smeared together with "pan pots" and any spatial sensation is created with DSP. In real life, the stereo "sweet spot" has room for one person at a time. Put your speakers where they make sense to you. The floor reinforces the bass. The wall reinforces the bass. Too much bass get spkr off floor and away from wall, for more bass put speaker in corner. Usually you want the tweets at ear level, unless they are harsh. |
#6
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
speaker phasing
"dave the dickhead" Phil Allison wrote: "William Sommerwerck" This is a common source of confusion. "Same direction" means "outward or inward", /not/ same direction viewed from overhead. The same signal should produce compression or rarefaction from all speakers. ** Correct. Phasing similar speakers is all about making the low frequency output from each *reinforce* the others rather than cancel. Compared to the wavelengths of low frequency sound, woofers are a point ( hence omnidirectional ) source of sound pressure - so it is irrelevant which way the cone faces. Ideally, a listener should be seated at the same distance from each speaker so all time ( of arrival ) delays are identical and do NOT create phase changes. ... Phil There is no such thing as correct time of arrival type of phase coherence in modern electronic media. ** WTF is meant by "modern electronic media " ?? Got nothing to do with my comments, what ever this idiot says. Everything is close-miked and smeared together with "pan pots" ** Pan pots do not "smear" . and any spatial sensation is created with DSP. ** Laughably stupid and wrong. In real life, the stereo "sweet spot" has room for one person at a time. ** Correct. Due to the criteria I just mentioned. " Ideally, a listener should be seated at the same distance from each speaker so all time ( of arrival ) delays are identical and do NOT create phase changes." .... Phil |
#7
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
speaker phasing
On 11/29/2013 01:21 PM, Phil Allison wrote:
"dave the dickhead" Phil Allison wrote: "William Sommerwerck" This is a common source of confusion. "Same direction" means "outward or inward", /not/ same direction viewed from overhead. The same signal should produce compression or rarefaction from all speakers. ** Correct. Phasing similar speakers is all about making the low frequency output from each *reinforce* the others rather than cancel. Compared to the wavelengths of low frequency sound, woofers are a point ( hence omnidirectional ) source of sound pressure - so it is irrelevant which way the cone faces. Ideally, a listener should be seated at the same distance from each speaker so all time ( of arrival ) delays are identical and do NOT create phase changes. ... Phil There is no such thing as correct time of arrival type of phase coherence in modern electronic media. ** WTF is meant by "modern electronic media " ?? Got nothing to do with my comments, what ever this idiot says. Everything is close-miked and smeared together with "pan pots" ** Pan pots do not "smear" . and any spatial sensation is created with DSP. ** Laughably stupid and wrong. In real life, the stereo "sweet spot" has room for one person at a time. ** Correct. Due to the criteria I just mentioned. " Ideally, a listener should be seated at the same distance from each speaker so all time ( of arrival ) delays are identical and do NOT create phase changes." ... Phil Do you work with roustabouts or what? Modern electronic media like Pop Tunes and Rock tracks. I don't want to say CDs or downloads or whatever. I have worked behind the scenes and if you bring up time alignment outside the context of an electronic crossover for loudspeakers you get blank stares. Yes Pan Pots suck, almost as bad as graphic equalizers. The sound stage can only be preserved by recording live with no more than 1 directional microphone per channel, and both microphones as close to each other as possible. Then the sound stage is accurately preserved. Any other approach will degrade phase, time or whatever you like to call it. I learned this in the rigging at Jones Hall, recording the Symphony on Nagras. |
#8
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
speaker phasing
"dave" Phil Allison wrote: "dave the dickhead" Phil Allison wrote: "William Sommerwerck" This is a common source of confusion. "Same direction" means "outward or inward", /not/ same direction viewed from overhead. The same signal should produce compression or rarefaction from all speakers. ** Correct. Phasing similar speakers is all about making the low frequency output from each *reinforce* the others rather than cancel. Compared to the wavelengths of low frequency sound, woofers are a point ( hence omnidirectional ) source of sound pressure - so it is irrelevant which way the cone faces. Ideally, a listener should be seated at the same distance from each speaker so all time ( of arrival ) delays are identical and do NOT create phase changes. There is no such thing as correct time of arrival type of phase coherence in modern electronic media. ** WTF is meant by "modern electronic media " ?? Got nothing to do with my comments, what ever this idiot says. Everything is close-miked and smeared together with "pan pots" ** Pan pots do not "smear" . and any spatial sensation is created with DSP. ** Laughably stupid and wrong. In real life, the stereo "sweet spot" has room for one person at a time. ** Correct. Due to the criteria I just mentioned. " Ideally, a listener should be seated at the same distance from each speaker so all time ( of arrival ) delays are identical and do NOT create phase changes." Do you work with roustabouts or what? Modern electronic media like Pop Tunes and Rock tracks. ** So any popular music recording made in the last 50 years. Yes Pan Pots suck, almost as bad as graphic equalizers. ** But do not smear - you ****ing nutter. The sound stage can only be preserved by recording live .. ** Your hobby horse - not mine. ..... Phil |
#9
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
speaker phasing
In article ,
wrote: I'm making some additions to my stereo system and I'll try to explain this as concise as possible. I have two additional speakers which I'd like to connect to the receiver in the living room. The room is about 15 X 22 feet. The existing two speakers are situated against an inside wall facing the windows. They are properly phased and sound very good. One of these existing speakers (left side speaker A system), is very slightly caddy corner so that it projects into the room. I would like to connect the additional left side counterpart on the opposite window wall so that it's speaker, (proposed speaker B system) is doing the same thing from the corner it's in. The new right speaker from proposed system B will essentially facing it's counterpart from speaker A system,separated by about 15 feet. What I'm trying to accomplish is more sound filling the room from more directions and hopefully simulating a sort of pseudo "surround" type of effect. But I'm not sure about how this is going to work out. Perhaps this is a mistake, so I thought I'd ask. If all four speakers are facing one another and are in phase, and by this I mean before connecting to the receiver confirming that a small battery makes all four cones move in the same direction, connected like this what happens when the two lefts for instance are outputting the same signal. With the cones facing each other, will the projected sound buck and effectively try to cancel? Or should both cones in proposed B system be in phase as a pair but out of phase with respect to A system? Or should I forget the whole thing and just stick with my two existing A speakers? I hope I've explained this well. Thanks for any advice. In the situation you've suggested - if the two left-channel speakers are in phase, then their outputs will reinforce. You'll be doing something like moving the location of the left output to a point located half-way between the two left-channel speakers. Ditto on the right side. This may or may not give you an effect you like... it may "open up" the sound, but at the cost of creating a less-realistic "sound stage" stereo image between the left front and right front speakers. You might want to experiment with a "phase difference" approach for your rear speakers... something akin to the old Dynaquad system. The simplest way to do this, is to wire the "-" inputs of the two rear-channel speakers together (and not back to the amp). Run the "+" inputs of the left rear and right rear speakers to the "+" terminals of the left and right amplifer outputs, respectively. You may wish to include a rheostat or pad somewhere in this wiring, so you can reduce the (relative) sound level from the rear speakers. In this setup, the parts of the musical signal which are in phase and at the same volume, will be played only from the front speakers, and will appear to be "dead center". As an instrument or singer moves to the left or right, and the amplitude or phase of their music is different between the two channels, the rear speakers will begin to play it (in addition to one or both of the front speakers). Sounds which are very different in phase between the two channels (e.g. reflected "hall ambience" sounds) will be played most strongly from the rear speakers. This is a simple and inexpensive setup to create, and it can sound surprisingly good. Compared to the "two left and two right" layout you suggested, it tends to leave you with a more realistic left/right stereo image. If I recall correctly, the original Dynaquad setup works a bit differently. It requires four identical speakers (the above system works OK with two pairs that can be different from one another)... left, right, rear, and center... and the wiring is a bit more complex. Similar idea, though. |
#10
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
speaker phasing
On 11/29/2013 03:41 PM, Phil Allison wrote:
"dave" Yes Pan Pots suck, almost as bad as graphic equalizers. ** But do not smear - you ****ing nutter. I appear to have trod upon sacred ground of some sorts. So sorry. |
#11
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
speaker phasing
"dave dickhead" "dave" Yes Pan Pots suck, almost as bad as graphic equalizers. ** But do not smear - you ****ing nutter. I appear to have trod upon sacred ground of some sorts. So sorry. ** Your the one preaching strange religion - ****wit. |
#12
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
speaker phasing
wrote in message ... I'm making some additions to my stereo system and I'll try to explain this as concise as possible. I have two additional speakers which I'd like to connect to the receiver in the living room. The room is about 15 X 22 feet. The existing two speakers are situated against an inside wall facing the windows. They are properly phased and sound very good. One of these existing speakers (left side speaker A system), is very slightly caddy corner so that it projects into the room. I would like to connect the additional left side counterpart on the opposite window wall so that it's speaker, (proposed speaker B system) is doing the same thing from the corner it's in. The new right speaker from proposed system B will essentially facing it's counterpart from speaker A system,separated by about 15 feet. What I'm trying to accomplish is more sound filling the room from more directions and hopefully simulating a sort of pseudo "surround" type of effect. But I'm not sure about how this is going to work out. Perhaps this is a mistake, so I thought I'd ask. If all four speakers are facing one another and are in phase, and by this I mean before connecting to the receiver confirming that a small battery makes all four cones move in the same direction, connected like this what happens when the two lefts for instance are outputting the same signal. With the cones facing each other, will the projected sound buck and effectively try to cancel? Or should both cones in proposed B system be in phase as a pair but out of phase with respect to A system? Or should I forget the whole thing and just stick with my two existing A speakers? I hope I've explained this well. Thanks for any advice. Lenny Back in the early 90's I was Sound Engineer in the Ministry of Sound Club, London. The main system was 6 stacks of a large PA system, all facing towards the centre of the oblong dance floor. One stack in each corner, and a stack half way down both long sides of the oblong. I spent a long time trying all combinations of phase, assigning left and right to various stacks, and soon came to the conclusion that running 6 stacks this way in a large room pretty much produced such a chaotic/random sound, and that almost nothing I did produced an overall improvement, if you walked around the room and thus got an "average" assessment of the sound of the PA & room combined. It all sounded really good, actually, especially when the club was full and hot. If you have a single preferred listening position, e.g. a comfy chair, then this might not apply so much to your situation, but even if it did, i would guess that moving your head a few centimetres would drastically alter the sound you observed, as the results from your 4 speakers are so random and dependent on listening position. Here's an old photo - you can see 2 of the corner stacks either side of the podium, and one centre stack down one side of the long oblong. http://www.ibiza-spotlight.com/image...und_london.jpg (Stacks were 2 x 18" Y bins subs, 2 x 15" bass, 2 x 12" flared mids, 1 x huge horn compression driver, 1 array of bullet tweeters) It sounded awesome, and any phase cancellations were totally ignored by a brain if it was pretty much constantly moving through the space covered by the speakers, as yours might when moving around your home. Gareth. |
#13
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
speaker phasing
On 11/30/2013 12:55 PM, Phil Allison wrote:
"dave dickhead" "dave" Yes Pan Pots suck, almost as bad as graphic equalizers. ** But do not smear - you ****ing nutter. I appear to have trod upon sacred ground of some sorts. So sorry. ** Your the one preaching strange religion - ****wit. https://www.soundonsound.com/sos/199...reomiking.html |
#14
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
speaker phasing
On Friday, November 29, 2013 8:51:32 AM UTC-5, wrote:
I'm making some additions to my stereo system and I'll try to explain this as concise as possible. I have two additional speakers which I'd like to connect to the receiver in the living room. The room is about 15 X 22 feet. The existing two speakers are situated against an inside wall facing the windows. They are properly phased and sound very good. One of these existing speakers (left side speaker A system), is very slightly caddy corner so that it projects into the room. I would like to connect the additional left side counterpart on the opposite window wall so that it's speaker, (proposed speaker B system) is doing the same thing from the corner it's in. The new right speaker from proposed system B will essentially facing it's counterpart from speaker A system,separated by about 15 feet. What I'm trying to accomplish is more sound filling the room from more directions and hopefully simulating a sort of pseudo "surround" type of effect. But I'm not sure about how this is going to work out. Perhaps this is a mistake, so I thought I'd ask. If all four speakers are facing one another and are in phase, and by this I mean before connecting to the receiver confirming that a small battery makes all four cones move in the same direction, connected like this what happens when the two lefts for instance are outputting the same signal. With the cones facing each other, will the projected sound buck and effectively try to cancel? Or should both cones in proposed B system be in phase as a pair but out of phase with respect to A system? Or should I forget the whole thing and just stick with my two existing A speakers? I hope I've explained this well. Thanks for any advice. Lenny Well I tried a few different scenarios and eventually I ended up with all four speakers in phase connected to both A and B front outputs. It would have been really nice if I could have used the rear speaker circuit of the receiver as it was intended, but unfortunately that was not possible. I never mentioned that the receiver is an old Sansui QRX5500. That was a top of the line 4 channel SQ unit circa 1975. Sadly neither the four channel or the SQ circuit no longer is functioning, and after spending a gret deal of time trying to repair this several years ago I finally abandoned the project. This unit, although a quality piece of equipment was built like your typical brick **** house, with circuit boards, harnesses, switch banks, etc. "layered" on top of one another. It makes signal tracing, not to mention parts replacement an absolute nightmare. But it does work well on two channel mode so that's how I use it. I have to say the sound quality assessment of this project was really difficult. As was mentioned by others in the discussion, depending upon where you stand in the room certainly influences the way this sounds. The fact is that every arrangement seemed to sound fairly good. However lacking the proper equipment to scientifically do this, (and if I had wanted to get that technical anyway), the final decision was at best a good guess. I did notice that with the final setup, that is everything in phase, left and right rears facing fronts from across the room the bass seemed especially strong. In fact standing in the kitchen, two rooms away, I could feel Iron butterfly pounding in my chest. I've never heard sound like this from my system before so I must have done something right. In fact I was thinking about how good some of my old records were actually sounding. I haven't listened to many of these in quite some time and I noticed that I could hardly hear any scratches. Wow, ttis Stanton cartridge with the elliptical stylus tracking at 1.25 grams must be really something. Then I remembered the results of my last hearing test, which pretty much showed that essentially everything is down almost 40DB above eight KHZ, which essentially translates to "deaf as a doorknob", and I realized that yes they're still scratched. The difference is, I just can't hear it anymore. Now if I could only upgrade that, so that music could once again sound like I remember it....Thanks to everyone for your advice and suggestions. Lenny |
#15
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
speaker phasing
On Sat, 30 Nov 2013 07:00:29 +1100, "Phil Allison"
wrote: Phasing similar speakers is all about making the low frequency output from each *reinforce* the others rather than cancel. Compared to the wavelengths of low frequency sound, woofers are a point ( hence omnidirectional ) source of sound pressure - so it is irrelevant which way the cone faces. ... Phil Hi Phil, I was away for a while, so this thread is new to me today. Your comments above make sense, but bring up a question I have had for many years. I own a pair of ESS AMT Monitor speakers that I purchased new back in the 80's. Each has a pair of 12" woofers - one active (ie, a normal speaker) and the other passive. I would think that when the active one is compressing the air in the cabinet, the passive one would be pushed out thereby appearing to be out of phase to a listener. That doesn't appear to be the case because these speaker have a great low end sound. Can you explain why they work? (I am just picking you because you seem to know something about the subject, but others are welcome to explain my misunderstanding as well.) Thanks, Pat |
#16
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
speaker phasing
"Pat" wrote in message ...
I was away for a while, so this thread is new to me today. Your comments above make sense, but bring up a question I have had for many years. I own a pair of ESS AMT Monitor speakers that I purchased new back in the 80's. Each has a pair of 12" woofers - one active (ie, a normal speaker) and the other passive. I would think that when the active one is compressing the air in the cabinet, the passive one would be pushed out thereby appearing to be out of phase to a listener. That doesn't appear to be the case because these speaker have a great low end sound. Can you explain why they work? (I am just picking you because you seem to know something about the subject, but others are welcome to explain my misunderstanding as well.) The passive radiator is not a radiator in the conventional. It "looks like" a a volume of air with the same mass. In other words, it's used to create a ducted-port speaker without the tube. (I think this is the correct explanation.) |
#17
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
speaker phasing
In article ,
Pat wrote: I was away for a while, so this thread is new to me today. Your comments above make sense, but bring up a question I have had for many years. I own a pair of ESS AMT Monitor speakers that I purchased new back in the 80's. Each has a pair of 12" woofers - one active (ie, a normal speaker) and the other passive. I would think that when the active one is compressing the air in the cabinet, the passive one would be pushed out thereby appearing to be out of phase to a listener. That doesn't appear to be the case because these speaker have a great low end sound. Can you explain why they work? (I am just picking you because you seem to know something about the subject, but others are welcome to explain my misunderstanding as well.) You have to analyze these "passive radiator" systems as resonant systems to see how they work. At very low frequencies (below their cutoff) they do work in the way you think... the driver and passive-radiator outputs are out of phase (by angles approaching 180 degrees as you approach DC) and cancel out, and the acoustic output of the system drops off sharply. At higher frequencies, the phase offset between the two diaphragms is different. The driver moves, and compresses the air inside the cabinet; the air presses on the passive radiator and accelerates it, and the passive radiator moves. Each of these "presses on" and "accelerates" steps takes time, and introduces some time delay and thus some phase delay... and this phase delay adds up, and has the effect of cancelling out part or all of the 180 degrees of phase shift between the two drivers. So, at higher frequencies (above cutoff, but still down in the bass), the acoustic output of the driver and passive radiator are either in phase, or close to it... and their outputs reinforce. The same thing occurs in a common "bass reflex" or "ported" speaker cabinet. At very low frequencies, the output of the port/vent is out of phase with that of the driver and there's no useful output from the system, while at higher frequencies, phase delay in the "back of the driver, through the air in the cabinet and port, to the port output" brings the driver and port outputs into phase, and they reinforce and you get stronger bass. Both ported, and passive-radiator systems (and sealed "acoustic suspension" as well) can be modeled as electrical circuits. The compliance / springiness of the air and the driver surrounds "looks like" a capacitor, the mass/momentum of the driver and radiator and air "looks like" an inductor, and frictional and other losses "look like" a resistor. A speaker system ends up "looking like" an LCR high-pass filter, and the math for designing and tuning such filters can be applied to the physics of the speaker driver(s) and enclosure. The development of this sort of electrical-equivalent modeling some decades ago was quite an innovation, and it's what enabled the development of predictable commercial ported speaker enclosures (as opposed to those which were worked out by trial and error, "by guess and by God", and tuned through listening tests until they sounded good to their creators). |
#18
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
speaker phasing
|
#19
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
speaker phasing
"Pat" "Phil Allison" Phasing similar speakers is all about making the low frequency output from each *reinforce* the others rather than cancel. Compared to the wavelengths of low frequency sound, woofers are a point ( hence omnidirectional ) source of sound pressure - so it is irrelevant which way the cone faces. I was away for a while, so this thread is new to me today. Your comments above make sense, but bring up a question I have had for many years. I own a pair of ESS AMT Monitor speakers that I purchased new back in the 80's. Each has a pair of 12" woofers - one active (ie, a normal speaker) and the other passive. I would think that when the active one is compressing the air in the cabinet, the passive one would be pushed out thereby appearing to be out of phase to a listener. That doesn't appear to be the case because these speaker have a great low end sound. Can you explain why they work? (I am just picking you because you seem to know something about the subject, but others are welcome to explain my misunderstanding as well.) ** Using a "passive radiator" is just a variation of the ported enclosure - it allows a small box to be tuned to a lower frequency and with a larger radiating surface area than is possible with a conventional port. Drawbacks are increased cost and non-linearity in the radiator's suspension. The radiator and the driven cone operate essentially in phase over the octave above radiator resonance. ..... Phil |
#20
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
speaker phasing
On Fri, 6 Dec 2013 09:16:21 +1100, "Phil Allison"
wrote: "Pat" "Phil Allison" Phasing similar speakers is all about making the low frequency output from each *reinforce* the others rather than cancel. Compared to the wavelengths of low frequency sound, woofers are a point ( hence omnidirectional ) source of sound pressure - so it is irrelevant which way the cone faces. I was away for a while, so this thread is new to me today. Your comments above make sense, but bring up a question I have had for many years. I own a pair of ESS AMT Monitor speakers that I purchased new back in the 80's. Each has a pair of 12" woofers - one active (ie, a normal speaker) and the other passive. I would think that when the active one is compressing the air in the cabinet, the passive one would be pushed out thereby appearing to be out of phase to a listener. That doesn't appear to be the case because these speaker have a great low end sound. Can you explain why they work? (I am just picking you because you seem to know something about the subject, but others are welcome to explain my misunderstanding as well.) ** Using a "passive radiator" is just a variation of the ported enclosure - it allows a small box to be tuned to a lower frequency and with a larger radiating surface area than is possible with a conventional port. Drawbacks are increased cost and non-linearity in the radiator's suspension. The radiator and the driven cone operate essentially in phase over the octave above radiator resonance. .... Phil ESS also had a version where the passive radiator was on the rear. (I think it was AMT 1's vs. my AMT Monitors). I had previously wondered how the rear facing passive in the AMT 1 and the front facing passive in the ATM Monitors both could work well. Now, I think I understand. Thanks, Pat |
#21
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
speaker phasing
On 12/06/2013 07:32 AM, Pat wrote:
On Fri, 6 Dec 2013 09:16:21 +1100, "Phil Allison" ESS also had a version where the passive radiator was on the rear. (I think it was AMT 1's vs. my AMT Monitors). I had previously wondered how the rear facing passive in the AMT 1 and the front facing passive in the ATM Monitors both could work well. Now, I think I understand. Thanks, Pat Why not just put balloons inside a sealed box? Or maybe a hydraulic shock absorber.,.., |
#22
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
speaker phasing
"dave" wrote in message
m... Why not just put balloons inside a sealed box? Or maybe a hydraulic shock absorber... It's been done. William Michael Watson Dayton-Wright built conventional dynamic speakers with bags of SF6 in the woofer box. He got clean bass to below 16Hz from a small cabinet. |
#23
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
speaker phasing
On 12/06/2013 11:18 AM, William Sommerwerck wrote:
"dave" wrote in message m... Why not just put balloons inside a sealed box? Or maybe a hydraulic shock absorber... It's been done. William Michael Watson Dayton-Wright built conventional dynamic speakers with bags of SF6 in the woofer box. He got clean bass to below 16Hz from a small cabinet. We learned 16 Hz is perceived more as a train of pulses and less like a sinusoidal tone; it is right on the border of flatulence. These are the jokes, folks. No tirades if you can suppress the urge. |
#24
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
speaker phasing
"dave" wrote in message
m... We learned 16 Hz is perceived more as a train of pulses and less like a sinusoidal tone; it is right on the border of flatulence. When I put 16Hz through the Watson woofers in my concrete-slab apartment... //nothing// audible came out of the woofers. But everything in the room rattled. |
#25
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
speaker phasing
On 12/06/2013 12:02 PM, William Sommerwerck wrote:
"dave" wrote in message m... We learned 16 Hz is perceived more as a train of pulses and less like a sinusoidal tone; it is right on the border of flatulence. When I put 16Hz through the Watson woofers in my concrete-slab apartment... //nothing// audible came out of the woofers. But everything in the room rattled. Like when we have mild earthquakes. |
#26
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
speaker phasing
"William Sommerwerck" It's been done. William Michael Watson Dayton-Wright built conventional dynamic speakers with bags of SF6 in the woofer box. ** For what advantage ? The speed of sound is about half in SF6 but that is no help in a sealed box where resonance depends only on the stiffness of the volume of gas trapped behind the woofer. The smaller the volume or the larger the woofer, the stiffer it becomes. He got clean bass to below 16Hz from a small cabinet. ** Really ? ..... Phi |
#27
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
speaker phasing
"Phil Allison" wrote in message ...
"William Sommerwerck" It's been done. William Michael Watson Dayton-Wright built conventional dynamic speakers with bags of SF6 in the woofer box. ** For what advantage ? The speed of sound is about half in SF6 but that is no help in a sealed box where resonance depends only on the stiffness of the volume of gas trapped behind the woofer. The smaller the volume or the larger the woofer, the stiffer it becomes. The lower speed of sound makes the bag appear to have a larger acoustic volume than the air it replaces. He got clean bass to below 16Hz from a small cabinet. ** Really? Really. The bass cabinet was about 20" by 20" by 12". At 16Hz, there was no /audible/ output from the speaker, but everything loose in the room was rattling. The spec sheet for these speakers included a harmonic distortion curve. If I recall correctly, the speaker had something like 5% harmonic distortion at 20Hz at 90dB output. (Don't hold me to the exact numbers, but the distortion was very low.) He also claimed that aluminum wool was a better damping material than Fibreglas, fiberfill, or foam. He said the linearity of the driver's movement depended in part on the thermal linearity of the damping material, and that aluminum wool did a better job. I didn't fully understand this, so don't jump on me. Ever heard his SF6-filled electrostatics? We sold a pair to a man with a large, dead basement. With each speaker powered by bridged Crown M300 amps, the system could play at ear-splitting levels with no strain. |
#28
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
speaker phasing
Pat wrote:
On Sat, 30 Nov 2013 07:00:29 +1100, "Phil Allison" wrote: Phasing similar speakers is all about making the low frequency output from each *reinforce* the others rather than cancel. Compared to the wavelengths of low frequency sound, woofers are a point ( hence omnidirectional ) source of sound pressure - so it is irrelevant which way the cone faces. ... Phil Hi Phil, I was away for a while, so this thread is new to me today. Your comments above make sense, but bring up a question I have had for many years. I own a pair of ESS AMT Monitor speakers that I purchased new back in the 80's. Each has a pair of 12" woofers - one active (ie, a normal speaker) and the other passive. I would think that when the active one is compressing the air in the cabinet, the passive one would be pushed out thereby appearing to be out of phase to a listener. That doesn't appear to be the case because these speaker have a great low end sound. Can you explain why they work? (I am just picking you because you seem to know something about the subject, but others are welcome to explain my misunderstanding as well.) Thanks, Pat I heard the ess once, in a Vegas disco, of all places. Just a fill in speaker. On a port or passive, most of the output is from the port or passive, so they don't cancel. This is around th tuned frequency. Woofer movement becomes minimal. If you drove it with an oscillator you could probably find this out. Greg |
#29
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
speaker phasing
"William Sommerwerck" wrote:
"dave" wrote in message m... We learned 16 Hz is perceived more as a train of pulses and less like a sinusoidal tone; it is right on the border of flatulence. When I put 16Hz through the Watson woofers in my concrete-slab apartment... //nothing// audible came out of the woofers. But everything in the room rattled. I used to rattle things in my old basement. It resonated around 30 hz, but 16 hz will shake things. With 30 hz in the basement, you had to be in the right spots to hear or not hear 30 hz. Greg |
#30
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
speaker phasing
"William Sommer******" "Phil Allison" It's been done. William Michael Watson Dayton-Wright built conventional dynamic speakers with bags of SF6 in the woofer box. ** For what advantage ? The speed of sound is about half in SF6 but that is no help in a sealed box where resonance depends only on the stiffness of the volume of gas trapped behind the woofer. The smaller the volume or the larger the woofer, the stiffer it becomes. The lower speed of sound makes the bag appear to have a larger acoustic volume than the air it replaces. ** You have simply ignored question, which is the stiffness of a fixed volume of gas. Take a look at Boyle's Law ( PV = k ) Really. The bass cabinet was about 20" by 20" by 12". ** That is not a "small cabinet" at circa 50 litres internal volume. Had an 15 inch woofer fitted - did it ? At 16Hz, there was no /audible/ output from the speaker, but everything loose in the room was rattling. ** Standing waves are a real bitch........ Ever heard his SF6-filled electrostatics? ** Now that was done for an entirely different reason. ..... Phil |
#31
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
speaker phasing
I'm giving a respectful response, despite being called Sommer******. Shall I
start calling you Anuson? It's been done. William Michael Watson Dayton-Wright built conventional dynamic speakers with bags of SF6 in the woofer box. ** For what advantage ? The speed of sound is about half in SF6 but that is no help in a sealed box where resonance depends only on the stiffness of the volume of gas trapped behind the woofer. The smaller the volume or the larger the woofer, the stiffer it becomes. The lower speed of sound makes the bag appear to have a larger acoustic volume than the air it replaces. ** You have simply ignored the question, which is the stiffness of a fixed volume of gas. Take a look at Boyle's Law (PV = k) As Michael Flanders put it... "The greater the pressure, the larger the volume of hot air." I found the spec sheet. He describes the SF6 as performing a linearizing function. He says nothing about increasing the cabinet's "apparent" volume. I'll call a friend who designs speakers and have him put me right -- if such needs be done. http://www.dayton-wright.com/WATSON-10_.html Really. The bass cabinet was about 20" by 20" by 12". ** That is not a "small cabinet" at circa 50 litres internal volume. I consider it "small", as it was the bottom structure of a floor-standing speaker. That's not a large enclosure for a speaker that gets to 20Hz and lower with low distortion. Had an 15 inch woofer fitted -- did it ? Nope. Two oddball 10" drivers -- with pie plates glued to them! See the photo. At 16Hz, there was no /audible/ output from the speaker, but everything loose in the room was rattling. ** Standing waves are a real bitch... Oh, I walked around to see if I could hear any subsonic output. There was none. Assuming you believe the spec sheet, note the ridiculously low LF distortion. Ever heard his SF6-filled electrostatics? ** Now that was done for an entirely different reason. |
#32
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
speaker phasing
I just found the following quote:
"Only the woofer/subwoofer were not bipolar. These relied in the use of SF6 (sulfur hexafluoride) gas (which is inert), to increase the virtual volume of the enclosure. As SF6 is an 'ideal gas', it operates as an 'isothermal' spring, thus avoiding the problems with 'acoustic-suspension' loudspeakers that operated partially as an isothermal and partially as an adiabatic system. Some designers seemed to lave little knowledge of Boyles Law or the Laws of Thermodynamics. "In effect, the use of SF6, increases the virtual volume of the enclosure by a factor of 27! As can be appreciated, this both lowers the distortion as well as permitting a lower resonant frequency of the woofer." It's here... http://www.dayton-wright.com/WATSONLABS_.html I should point out that the bass cabinet is not completely filled with SF6. If I recall correctly, the gas bags were separated with foam sheets. |
#33
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
speaker phasing
"William Sommerwerck" It's been done. William Michael Watson Dayton-Wright built conventional dynamic speakers with bags of SF6 in the woofer box. ** For what advantage ? The speed of sound is about half in SF6 but that is no help in a sealed box where resonance depends only on the stiffness of the volume of gas trapped behind the woofer. The smaller the volume or the larger the woofer, the stiffer it becomes. The lower speed of sound makes the bag appear to have a larger acoustic volume than the air it replaces. ** You have simply ignored the question, which is the stiffness of a fixed volume of gas. Take a look at Boyle's Law (PV = k) As Michael Flanders put it... ** You have ignored the question AGAIN !!!!! I found the spec sheet. He describes the SF6 as performing a linearizing function. ** Pure marketing hype. Really. The bass cabinet was about 20" by 20" by 12". ** That is not a "small cabinet" at circa 50 litres internal volume. I consider it "small", ** Yawnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn.... It is not small - a 10 litre box is small. And Boyle's law makes all the claims re SF6 all wrong. ..... Phil |
#34
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
speaker phasing
"William Sommerwerck" I just found the following quote: ** I found it two days ago and roared laughing. It is the greatest pile of * bull**** * I have ever seen about woofers. "Only the woofer/subwoofer were not bipolar. These relied in the use of SF6 (sulfur hexafluoride) gas (which is inert), to increase the virtual volume of the enclosure. As SF6 is an 'ideal gas', it operates as an 'isothermal' spring, thus avoiding the problems with 'acoustic-suspension' loudspeakers that operated partially as an isothermal and partially as an adiabatic system. Some designers seemed to lave little knowledge of Boyles Law or the Laws of Thermodynamics. "In effect, the use of SF6, increases the virtual volume of the enclosure by a factor of 27! As can be appreciated, this both lowers the distortion as well as permitting a lower resonant frequency of the woofer." It's here... http://www.dayton-wright.com/WATSONLABS_.html ** Marketing hype - not engineering fact. The very next line is soooo telling: " But to use this, a larger cone mass is needed and the suspension has to be much more compliant." Cos it contradicts the rest of the hype. If SF6 worked as claimed, standard woofers would be all that was needed. It doesn't. ..... Phil |
#35
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
speaker phasing
Unfortunately, Mr Anuson, I owned these speakers and can vouch for their
performance. Mr Anuson, name a brand and model of woofer, of the volume given, that can get down to 16Hz with such low distortion. I'm waiting... It's impossible to have any kind of a discussion -- you know everything. You're polite when people agree with you, and a vicious -- I can't think of anything bad enough -- when they don't. |
#36
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
speaker phasing
Here's the answer to your question about Boyle's Law (which you will ignore,
of course)... PV = k assumes a constant temperature. If the temperature changes, then PV changes. The relationship is no longer linear, and as the air trapped in the cabinet is supposedly providing a significant part of the restoring force, the cone's displacement will not be as linear. (Duh... Get it?) This is what WDW is talking about when he says "As SF6 is an 'ideal gas', it operates as an 'isothermal' spring, thus avoiding the problems with 'acoustic-suspension' loudspeakers that operated partially as an isothermal and partially as an adiabatic system. Some designers seemed to lave little knowledge of Boyles Law or the Laws of Thermodynamics." There is no such thing as an ideal gas, so WDW is wrong on this particular point. However, if SF6 is significantly closer to being an isothermal gas than air is, * then what he says makes sense. QED. Gotcha! Finally got ya! You may now jump up and down, Rumplestiltskin, until you break through the floor. * I can't find anything on this at the moment. But I'm looking. |
#37
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
speaker phasing
|
#38
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
speaker phasing
"Maynard A. Philbrook Jr." wrote in message
... In article , says... Gotcha! Finally got ya! But But But but!!!!! Indeed. Hoist with his own petard. The best part is that the point was reasonable, so I had to do some research. In the process, I learned something. |
#39
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
speaker phasing
"William Sommer******" Here's the answer to your question about Boyle's Law (which you will ignore, of course)... PV = k assumes a constant temperature. ** PV= k shows that it does not matter what the gas is - the same volume changes produce the same pressure changes. So the stiffness of an enclosed volume of gas is the same for all gasses. The resonance frequency of a woofer will be unaffected by it. If the temperature changes, ** Yawnnnnnnnnnnnn..... Dunno who is the bigger LIAR. You or the ****wit you are mindlessly quoting. ..... Phil |
#40
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
speaker phasing
"Phil Allison" wrote in message ...
"William Sommer******" Here's the answer to your question about Boyle's Law (which you will ignore, of course)... PV = k assumes a constant temperature. ** PV= k shows that it does not matter what the gas is - the same volume changes produce the same pressure changes. Uh... No it doesn't. k is temperature-dependent. Sorry about that,. but all you have to do is look it up. If a gas isn't perfect, then compressing (or rarefying it) changes its temperature. This causes the pressure to change more than that caused by the volume change. The result is a non-linear restoring force. So the stiffness of an enclosed volume of gas is the same for all gasses. The resonance frequency of a woofer will be unaffected by it. That's not what we're talking about, Mr Anuson. Dunno who is the bigger LIAR. You or the ****wit you are mindlessly quoting. I'm quoting physics books. |
Reply |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
California phasing out light bulbs... | Electronics Repair | |||
A speaker for tv. | Electronics Repair | |||
Armstrong Tools phasing in and out? | Metalworking | |||
Cheapie 2.1 Speaker Set with static in left speaker | Electronics Repair | |||
"single phasing of three phase induction motor" | Woodworking |