transparence dipole loudspeaker

Why is a pair of point sources the most theoretically correct way to reproduce stereo sound ?

I want to know the exact details of this 'esoteric numerical calculation' which is stated on his website

How can you avoid the open baffle from intereacting with the room ?

Please provide me with your explanation on the above.

 

Johnny...what's the obsession with rooms?

I'm not sure what other people think of it in the forum, but I found that reading 'Complete Guide to High-End Audio' by Robert Harley gives a good basic understanding of different techniques employed in designing loudspeakers, amps, cables, etc. You should be able to get it fairly cheap on ebay (it comes up occasionally) otherwise it's about 20 quid from amazon (used).

 

Hi,

If you have to ask, you cannot afford the answer. Read Bluemelein, among others.

Sure you do. But allow me to say "Trade Secret".

You can't, the text in my white paper reads:

"An open baffle dipole speaker interacts with the listening room in ways that reduce the excitation of room modes which are the main cause of "boomy" and "ill defined" bass (1, 2).

and:

"A dipole speaker radiates nearly 5db less sound into the room overall than a normal speaker for an equal sound level directed at the listener, so the room reverb and reflected sound is also reduced by the nearly 5db, especially at frequencies in the fundamental and formant range of most musical notes."

References are partially given, for more please consult the JAES.

Why should I? Relevant references are given, which in turn include further reference sections with all relevant information except that which I consider proprietary.

L8er T

 

Johnny - before starting new threads what about the questions you havnt answered in your other threads? Your etiquette is the height of ignorance and it seems to me and I think others that your "debates" is nothing more than partially disguised trolling. If this isnt the case you would bother trying to respond more openly.

 

Why should anyone go to the trouble of providing anything for you? Let's discuss.

 

Come on Johnny, answer the questions we've asked !

 

Well he did at least say 'please'

The web page in question appears to be here and is worth a read:

http://www.realhi-fi.com/products/transparenceinfo.html

 

As in "please give me the moon on a stick whilst wiping my ar5e for me".

 

Hi,

I hope I can be forgiven for writing that blatant marketing blurb, but the issues are complex and "dumbing them down" so they can be used in a short whitepaper is difficult.

A better coverage of the subject is here:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Thunderstone_technical/files/TL Circuits/Ultracurve/PADEQUSE.HTML

In this Yahoo Group you will find a lot of material on acoustics, psychoacoustics and electronics and some possibly interresting discussions too. The Document linked above actually deals with using a (ProAudio) Digital Equaliser for room EQ, but in order to do so effectively needs to touch on room mode excitement, directivity et al....

Finally, Yahoo requires you to sign up for a Yahoo account before they let anyone access the material, sorry, nothing I can do....

Ciao T

 

digital room eq introduces phase distortion.

 

The non "dumbed down" version can be found here:

http://www.linkwitzlab.com/

 

Merlin, have you had the other frontal lobe removed? Because this really is getting old

 

Hi,

Only if you where to use "zero phase" (FIR) Filters, but as digital Equalisation of room and other frequency aberations is done using "minimum phase" (IIR) filters the situation that we find is the reverse, namely room/speaker EQ removes all phasedistortion attendent to frequency response variations introduced by room or speakers.

L8er T

 

Theoretically speaking , there is no difference between theory and practise,practically speaking,there is.

there are alot of miraculous things which can be done in theory in the digital domain, like turning 16 bit into 24 , but the real question is, what is it actually doing in practise

 

Hi,

I was speaking strictly in practical terms. If the speaker behaves as minimum phase system (not all do, high order crossovers and non-timealigned drivers are bugbearers) than frequency response and phase response deviations are linked, room effects are invariably minimum phase, as is the equaliser. So in practice you reduce the overall phase-error together with that of the frequency domain for the overall system, of course only for a specific location.

Unless of course you are listening to recordings mastered in any way (that is practically ALL recordings) in which the phase and frequency response are probably bent beyond hope in more cases than not.

But of course, we where not talking about music and recordings here, but about systems....

L8er T

 

you said yourself that your system exists for the mere purpose of providing you pleasure.
so what good would a perfect system be if the recording itself doesn't conform to the
same criteria which the system was designed be it minimum phase or true stereo etc.

all hi end speakers have to be designed with time alignment as an important factor, but the trouble is, some designers think its okay to reverse the polarity and get away with it, for higher order rossovers, in order to smooth the frequency response around the crossover.

This is ineviteably a theoretical issue since, theoretically you would argue there is no difference between altering the room in order to change the phase response, with respect to frequency and changing the signal itself .
but of course in practise, there is no doubt in my mind that there is a vast difference.

 

Hi,

Exactly. MY SYSTEM. And it does that without any corrections.

Past that, I mentioned a guide wrote on how to use generic Digital Equaliser best to corrects for the faults of speaker and room, to which you dropped the line: "digital room eq introduces phase distortion" which is patently, obviously and demonstrable wrong.

Now you wish to move the goal posts.

Please either defend your contention with any resonable data or retract it.

I may or may not agree with that (I prefer the term "impulse coherent"), however, you again make an ex-cathedra statement that because of it's blanket approach is false.

I would not argue this. What I will argue is that if you have a roominduced frequency deviation than equalising it will correct both frequency and phase. However frequency and phase are static parameters and do not account for other phenomenae. Hence I do not argue that changing the room or the signal are the same, merely that in a SPECIFIC and NARROW sense the same results can be attained in a number of ways.

I must say that your general of argumentation, that is your dramatic and obviously false contentions followed by your constant shifting of goalposts to avoid admitting that stating them as you did was devoid of relevance and factually wrong is getting on my nerves and I consider it in the highest degree antisocial. I do not respond well to such.

If you wish to discuss a subject, discuss, else please hold your monologue somewhere where others are not forced to endure it.

L8er T

 

well ive never heard the term impulse coherent nor do I have the slightest idea what it means.

so explain this to me. No it is not a trade secret. That excuse will not work this time.

 

:newbie:

 

Johnny, throughout the threads I have seen you writing on, all you seem to do is answer questions from other people with other questions going off at a tangent in the process. I feel you are wasting people's time and input.