In Reply to: Re: From Wayne Parham - Re: Patentable claim posted by tomservo on July 5, 2002 at 10:45:57:
Tom -You go throug a long diatribe that still misses the fundamental point. Phase is moving as frequency changes; The position of your drivers is fixed. Therefore, no "fix" of phase is possible.
The delay within the driver itself wasn't the point of the crossover document. Nor was the delay caused by a fixed offset, for that matter. The phase angles are described, showing the angles where planes of diffraction anomalies are present.
And - Yes - I am discouraged that we both use a conical horn as a wideband device. One of us asserts that it is providing acoustical loading over part of a driver's bandwidth, and the other asserts it is providing acoustical loading over the entire loudspeaker system's bandwidth. One of us says that speakers can't be made phase accurate because they aren't point sources and the other claims that it is relatively easy to do with position offsets and low order crossovers.
Tell you what. How about you explain two things:
1. How does the Unity act as an acoustic transformer, i.e. provide horn loading over the bandwidth generated by three audio subsystems?
2. How does the Unity manage to correct the movement in time over the span of frequencies within the overlap band of drivers in the crossover region? You have said, "generally a first or second order crossover gives the best results" in this design. The difference in time generated by these two networks is a factor of two. So which is it?Wayne Parham
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Re: From Wayne Parham - Re: Patentable claim - Wayne Parham 11:10:52 07/05/02 (13)
- Re: From Wayne Parham - Re: Patentable claim - tomservo 14:49:43 07/05/02 (12)
- Re: From Wayne Parham - Re: Patentable claim - str8aro 19:49:25 07/05/02 (1)
- Re: From Wayne Parham - Re: Patentable claim - Wayne Parham 00:01:03 07/06/02 (0)
- Re: From Wayne Parham - Re: Patentable claim - Wayne Parham 16:28:43 07/05/02 (9)
- Re: From Wayne Parham - Re: Patentable claim - Mark Seaton 16:21:49 07/06/02 (1)
- Re: From Wayne Parham - Re: Patentable claim - Wayne Parham 02:08:32 07/07/02 (0)
- Re: From Wayne Parham - Re: Patentable claim - tomservo 09:00:14 07/06/02 (6)
- Re: From Wayne Parham - Re: Patentable claim - Wayne Parham 14:23:07 07/06/02 (4)
- Re: From Wayne Parham - Re: Patentable claim - Mark Seaton 18:26:34 07/06/02 (1)
- Re: From Wayne Parham - Re: Patentable claim - Wayne Parham 01:39:22 07/07/02 (0)
- Re: From Wayne Parham - Re: Patentable claim - tomservo 16:55:53 07/06/02 (1)
- Re: From Wayne Parham - Re: Patentable claim - Wayne Parham 02:46:26 07/07/02 (0)