For those here old enough: This is the Portnoy's Complaint...Now that you mention taste i wonder if it's a bass reflex design because unfortunately a rear view is missing. If so, I hope they got the port noise under control.
For those here old enough: This is the Portnoy's Complaint...Now that you mention taste i wonder if it's a bass reflex design because unfortunately a rear view is missing. If so, I hope they got the port noise under control.
Multiple entry horns (MEH) are the pinnacle of horn design, but those are badly implement...
Who ever thought of it first and then created it first gets the prize. So obvious to all, yet so taboo to some. I would buy up to the 'upgrade' driver size, even if it means surgery. And that is your allowed one-a-day joke about female anatomies.
I was thinking of the Hill Plasmatronics, which I'm sure was owned by Wendy O. Williams of Plasmatics fame.In a different sense of ridiculous the plasma speaker which was horribly inefficient and produced a harmful ion cloud in use.
Good point re: W.O.W.I was thinking of the Hill Plasmatronics, which I'm sure was owned by Wendy O. Williams of Plasmatics fame.
Hill Plasmatronics Type 1 loudspeaker
Dr. Alan Hill, president of Plasmatronics Inc., was previously employed by the US Government in laser research. His assignment: To increase the efficiency of lasers so that they could do something more impressive than produce holograms, mend leaky retinal blood vessels, and punch pinholes in...www.stereophile.com
Those were the days............1960's and 1970's. Designers just didn't understand interference effects. I remember when Acoustic Research would publish graphs of the individual driver outputs with the crossovers in place, and match them up to produce an almost perfectly flat line. The actual response of the speaker was usually a mess. I owned a pair of KLH 5's for many years and actually liked them relative to the AR's of the day, but it had two midrange units next to each other that created some pretty horrrfic nulls in the upper midrange, lower treble. There was an upscale version of the 5 called the 12 that had a much larger cabinet and was out of my price range. I always assumed it would be a step up from the 5 but Stereophile recently republished a vintage review of the 12 with a picture of the driver complement, and look at where they placed the mids:The VMPS 'towers' were, in general, pretty ridiculous, I'd suggest.
Rectilinear (among others) had a bit of a habit of sort of sprinkling drivers of various sizes kind of randomly across their loudspeaker baffles.
Many, but fortunately not all, there were even in those days some loudspeakers with good directivities, same as today there is still a scaringly lot of "high end" mess.Those were the days............1960's and 1970's. Designers just didn't understand interference effects.
Who ever thought of it first and then created it first gets the prize. So obvious to all, yet so taboo to some. I would buy up to the 'upgrade' driver size, even if it means surgery. And that is your allowed one-a-day joke about female anatomies.
Yeppers.Those were the days............1960's and 1970's. Designers just didn't understand interference effects. I remember when Acoustic Research would publish graphs of the individual driver outputs with the crossovers in place, and match them up to produce an almost perfectly flat line. The actual response of the speaker was usually a mess. I owned a pair of KLH 5's for many years and actually liked them relative to the AR's of the day, but it had two midrange units next to each other that created some pretty horrrfic nulls in the upper midrange, lower treble. There was an upscale version of the 5 called the 12 that had a much larger cabinet and was out of my price range. I always assumed it would be a step up from the 5 but Stereophile recently republished a vintage review of the 12 with a picture of the driver complement, and look at where they placed the mids: