Just look up how they 'work'. Another thread, perhaps.Is there anything in their measurements that is sub par?
Is science in consensus on this technology being sub par?
Or is it your opinion?
Just look up how they 'work'. Another thread, perhaps.Is there anything in their measurements that is sub par?
Is science in consensus on this technology being sub par?
Or is it your opinion?
A good percentage of us here have been banned for doing the same at WBFIt seems he got banned from his own forum when he wrote calm well reasoned posts contradicting some of the more ridiculous excess it descended to.
I am most grateful he started this one.
Just look up how they 'work'. Another thread, perhaps.
Ah but that would be cheating. You need to know what he missed measuring ( the errors) to take advantage of it. tisk tiskI bet I could make some gear that measured well but sounded bad. I would just need to know what your tests were missing and exploit that; the implication being that although a normal designer wouldn't do it deliberately, they might do it inadvertently.
I would say that if someone's philosophy was "no compromise" they wouldn't tolerate the considerable disadvantages of a port. If the claim was that it allowed higher SPLs and a low THD 'bass effect' that their customers definitely needed, you could go one better and use sealed enclosures with motion feedback or maybe some other technology and get super-accurate bass with no disadvantages other than some complexity.Reflex loading is similar to a helmholtz resonator isn’t it?
Subjectively I prefer sealed enclosures are there and]y real disadvantages ?
Keith
True, but it would make a good subject to start a discussion thread on in the Speakers --- section.This isn't totally off-topic: someone's philosophy could be one of believing the measurements,
It uses a Helmholz resonator in the same way a crankshaft "damper" machine tool bed damper and any other device which changes mode shape by adding an extra degree of freedom to a system. In the case of a standard reflex speaker the helmholz resonator is tuned to the natural frequency of the bass unit on its suspension thereby changing the system mode shape such that the drive unit doesn't vibrate but the mass of air in the port does. In a crank damper the mass on the rubber spring goes bonkers instead of the crank itself, on machine tools a mass on a spring goes into resonance so the bedplate doesn't, improving the surface finish of the part being machined.Reflex loading is similar to a helmholtz resonator isn’t it?
Subjectively I prefer sealed enclosures are there and]y real disadvantages ?
Keith
I would say that if someone's philosophy was "no compromise" they wouldn't tolerate the considerable disadvantages of a port. If the claim was that it allowed higher SPLs and a low THD 'bass effect' that their customers definitely needed, you could go one better and use sealed enclosures with motion feedback or maybe some other technology and get super-accurate bass with no disadvantages other than some complexity.
This isn't totally off-topic: someone's philosophy could be one of believing the measurements, but another philosophy might be to 'believe the design'; to be aware that measurements don't tell the whole story and that, for example, ports look fine in a conventional frequency response measurement but this tells nothing like the whole story. Designing to get good, conventional measurements isn't the same as designing to create true hi-fi.
Are they... p o r t e d...?
I didn't realise that brand had such a fatal flaw....