Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The quest for the best

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • skatz
    replied
    Originally posted by TheManFromDenver View Post
    Seeing a picture like that one can only conclude that they build much larger houses in the Midwest. That is bonkers.
    Either that or it fell off a 50 ft. woman!

    Steve

    Leave a comment:


  • TheManFromDenver
    replied
    Seeing a picture like that one can only conclude that they build much larger houses in the Midwest. That is bonkers.

    Leave a comment:


  • ernperkins
    replied
    Not too shabby for a 1950's design! I think Pete once said that there's very little that's truly new in loudspeaker design, it's more a matter of execution.

    Leave a comment:


  • dlr
    replied
    Originally posted by skatz View Post
    One more try.

    Click image for larger version  Name:	IMG_0446.JPG Views:	1 Size:	71.0 KB ID:	1422697
    Looks like something from outer space. Best implementation of diffraction control I've ever seen. Considering the driver size. Can't really see the coaxial tweeter element, but the unusual woofer cone geometry and shapes added for what I would guess is control of woofer resonances will also greatly randomize tweeter diffraction influence and likely greatly reduce its impact. All in all impressive from what I can see in the picture.

    dlr

    Leave a comment:


  • skatz
    replied
    Each to his own.

    Leave a comment:


  • badman
    replied
    That's not a doughnut it's a piece of corn dog.

    Leave a comment:


  • skatz
    replied
    I'm not sure if it was Olson, or one of the other pioneers, but someone published diffraction data on different enclosure shapes. The sphere was the least diffractive; this would approach that.
    Harder to see in the photo, but the surface of the 15" cone was studded with pyramidal shaped projections; I'm sure that would mess up the diffraction from the tweeter considerably. I am not sure what the function of those was supposed to be.
    Never claimed it to be a panacea, just of historical interest.

    Steve

    Leave a comment:


  • fpitas
    replied
    Originally posted by skatz View Post
    Bagel, schmagel!
    Of course there is still diffraction, but ameliorated quite a bit by the enclosure.

    Steve
    I doubt the enclosure does much above a few hundred hertz. That's still useful, but not a panacea.

    Leave a comment:


  • skatz
    replied
    Bagel, schmagel!
    Of course there is still diffraction, but ameliorated quite a bit by the enclosure.

    Steve

    Leave a comment:


  • Wolf
    replied
    Can't you see it's a bagel, not a doughtnut!?
    How about some cream-cheese?
    Wolf

    Leave a comment:


  • fpitas
    replied
    Is that available with maple frosting?

    Leave a comment:


  • Pete Schumacher
    replied
    Originally posted by skatz View Post
    PE seems to have solved the problem posting photos. This is the Harry Olson enclosure I mentioned in an earlier post, a 15" coaxial in a donut enclosure, which should eliminate most edge refractions.
    Edge diffraction is still there. Its just that the baffle step transition is now greatly smoothed. However, because the tweeter is not presented with the same smooth wall transition, there will probably be quite a bit of diffraction ripple in the upper octaves.

    Leave a comment:


  • dst
    replied
    The "Big Brother" speaker, as it has it's eye on you!

    Leave a comment:


  • craigk
    replied

    Leave a comment:


  • skatz
    replied
    PE seems to have solved the problem posting photos. This is the Harry Olson enclosure I mentioned in an earlier post, a 15" coaxial in a donut enclosure, which should eliminate most edge refractions.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X