Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Ivan Beaver]

The fundamental difference is the use of a rotary servo motor and the belt linear motion transformer.

Pistonic transducers, in and of themselves, are not unique.

I made a "similar" speaker back in the 70s.  It was a moving magnet driver.

I took the coal dump mechanism (solenoid) from my train set, attached a construction paper cone to it with a cloth surround on a coat hanger frame.

I drove it from a Korean war era amplifier.

It made sound, but not very loud.  So I guess I was far ahead in my thinking  .

[radulescu_paul_mircea]

It seems simple if one is looking at the driver and amplifier as independent units. The real thing is in fact the use of both as a complete system. Yes, the driver is a moving magnet fixed coil transducer with certain particularities, like the magnetic centering which allows it to work very with a centering suspension with the most important job of keeping the diaphragm from rocking and not to dictate the spring behavior.
The most important thing this system and the IPal system have is the possibility to change the parameters from a system with too much motor force in a virtual way and to modify the real behavior to a mathematical model without adding resistive losses and keeping the overall efficiency intact . So it's not just a motor. The evolution is not there in fact , because one could get the same results from normal driver if active cooling is used in some way. The evolution is in making this driver so efficient that it would not normally work in a reasonable enclosure and to be able to alter it as you want without loosing the efficiency advantage.

Sent from my TA-1053 using Tapatalk

[Jim McKeveny]

I took the coal dump mechanism (solenoid) from my train set, attached a construction paper cone to it with a cloth surround on a coat hanger frame.

I drove it from a Korean war era amplifier.

I'm sad I am late to view this thread.

This style of curiousity is what drives great minds. You sound like a young Henry Kloss.

[Ted Christensen]

Pk audio is loved by edm because it's cheap. Really it's garbage even with Dolby lake. I have heard bands and edm and never impressed.

[Tim McCulloch]

Pk audio is loved by edm because it's cheap. Really it's garbage even with Dolby lake. I have heard bands and edm and never impressed.

I thought it was popular for EDM because it got REALLY F'ING LOUD.

[Ivan Beaver]

I thought it was popular for EDM because it got REALLY F'ING LOUD.

I used to think that EDM was only about really loud.

It is loud, HOWEVER, after dealing with it a good bit, doing various shows etc, I have come to the realization that (in many cases), if you can give them nice deep response and have good clear sound, they (many anyway) don't tend to run it as loud.

I think the "loudness" comes from the fact that often systems are used that do not provide the depth they are looking for or the clarity.

So all they know is "turn it up" until they get the impact/feeling they are looking for.

Actually, I have been surprised at some shows that they are not as loud as I had thought they would have been.

People still want to communicate, and if it is stupid loud you can't do that.

BUT, if your body is shaking from the deep low freq, then you can still talk over it.

But I will admit, that some people just want it "painful" or to be loud for the sake of being loud.

But many/most of the experienced pros in the field are more about the sound quality, rather than the actual SPL.

I have worked with some who have very good ears and know exactly what they are looking for.  Those are the easy ones to work with.

[Ted Christensen]

I thought it was popular for EDM because it got REALLY F'ING LOUD.

It didn't even get that loud.  Maybe 98db A at most. I managed to hear the big silver powered boxes, not sure the model numbers and don't really care but they were a bigger line array

[Don T. Williams]

This may be begging the question, and it really isn't about how the subs sound, but how do you know what an electronically synthesized signal really should sound like?  With an acoustic guitar or piano or flute or vocal you have a ready reference.  Usually you want these to be louder without changing their sound characteristics.  EMD is a different animal.  I'm glad to hear from Ivan and Ted that there are shows that aren't just about level.  Just a comment.

[Ivan Beaver]

This may be begging the question, and it really isn't about how the subs sound, but how do you know what an electronically synthesized signal really should sound like?  With an acoustic guitar or piano or flute or vocal you have a ready reference.  Usually you want these to be louder without changing their sound characteristics.  EMD is a different animal.  I'm glad to hear from Ivan and Ted that there are shows that aren't just about level.  Just a comment.

As with any signal, if you weren't there when it was recorded, how DO you know?

I have had some sounds come out during these shows that had me running for the amps.  People ask why, and then tell me "That is the way it is supposed to sound".

OK, sounded like shreaded cones to me or HF diaphragms bottoming out.

[Jeremy Young]

Building on your thought Don.  I'd say the intended sound would be up to the artist's vision. 

I read somewhere once upon a time that when Tom Morello first started tracking the guitar solos for Rage Against the Machine's debut album, the engineers just looked at him blankly like "when does the guitar solo start, and why did you unplug your guitar?".  That might be lost on you if you're not familiar with his (now infamous) "style".

I'm sure any electric guitar player (who doesn't have ears on his knees) runs into this issue the first time he hears his amp close-mic'd.  It's not the "sound" you're used to (at head level 4' in front of a 4x12" cab off-axis from the very beamy drivers) but it's the sound everyone else has been hearing this whole time. 

It sure opened my eyes in my musician years, and once I started to care about it, I worked backwards to dial in my tone so it sounded (when mic'd) the way I intended originally. 

To get back to point, if the original EDM producer isn't at the gig, it's all just a guessing game, but if the source is electronic (that is, not a mic'd instrument), wouldn't a dual-channel FFT be a reasonable method to verify the source signal is accurately represented in the acoustic space?