In Reply to: Re: From Wayne Parham - Re: Patentable claim posted by Wayne Parham on July 5, 2002 at 11:38:48:
"There was performance data on the Lambda site for months which showed tell-tale frequency anomalies from the Unity horn. It was the sort of spiked dip that is evidence of diffraction interference caused by a phase reversal. Tom and Mark have tried to distance themselves from this by all means possible because it clearly shows what I say to be true."Wayne,
This narrow dip you are referring to was at ~4kHz and was found to be a result of relfections off the outer edge of the horn. This has nothing to do with the integration of the drivers. The dip you are referring to does not change AT ALL when the midrange is disconnected and only the compression driver is tested, so clearly this is not a result of deconstructive interference with the midrange, as it occured in the Lambda Unity horn when the midrange was not operating. Take a look at the polar plots on the TD-1 and the frequency response of the Unity VFL loudspeaker. These problems you claim are not evident on these two other examples.
You also stated:
"About this business of having the distance between drivers limited to less than a 1/4 wavelength - that's smaller than the diameter of each diaphragm. A 1/4 wavelength of 1Khz is only 3.38"."The 8 entry holes for the midrange drivers are spaced at less than 3" appart. The beauty of this is that the driver diameter does not matter in this loading method so long as the R/L high frequency corner of the driver is high enough, and the drivers can be loaded into these holes. Seeing the solutions to the obstacles you are stuck on is exactly how Tom came up with the design!
Mark Seaton
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 - Mark Seaton 07/5/0213:39:56 07/5/02 (5)
- Re: From Wayne Parham - Re: Patentable claim - hancock 14:07:08 07/5/02 (4)
- Re: From Wayne Parham - Re: Patentable claim - Mark Seaton 14:19:15 07/5/02 (3)
- Re: From Wayne Parham - Re: Patentable claim - Wayne Parham 17:47:03 07/5/02 (2)
- Re: From Wayne Parham - Re: Patentable claim - Mark Seaton 13:28:59 07/6/02 (1)
- Re: From Wayne Parham - Re: Patentable claim - Wayne Parham 14:09:45 07/6/02 (0)