Home High Efficiency Speaker Asylum

Need speakers that can rock with just one watt? You found da place.

[ Follow Ups ] Thread: [ Display  All  Email ] [ High Efficiency Speaker Asylum ]
[ Alert Moderator ]

Re: Tom Danley - vs- Bozo The Clown

> OK, Tom, so let me see if I get this straight:

By gosh, that would be a refreshing and long over due but I will be surprised if you can pull it off.

> You say the letter from John Hancock that was forwarded to you, and my reply that was also copied to you, were misunderstood by you and everyone else in your shop. Copies of the exchange between John and I are here. You say you believed they were written to you, even though one was addressed to "Wayne" and the other to "John."

Wayne, I received ONE e-mail, the one I posted, then my isp was down and I could not receive any e-mail here.
You sent e-mails to the shop (probably because I didn’t respond to yours I would guess) , e-mails which so far I have not seen.
Pat at the office read them and called me about you.
Pat also gave Brad the e-mails and it was decided that “to be safe” the lawyer should see them and I should be absent from here until he makes a call on it.
I have explained this a number of times, get it yet? Probably not.

> That's what you're saying? I mean, that is really pretty stupid. Then again, I suppose it might be better than to admit that you intentionally misled the public.

Mislead them about what?
What I described is what happened and while it is true I could have just signed off without explanation, I was angry that you would be the cause of it and did post “why” I was leaving.
Perhaps that made you feel uncomfortable, perhaps people thought you were responsible (as you were) but that is what happened.
Going back and reading the post you sent me, I again ask you to find examples of the bashing of your products you claimed I was doing at the time, you know, the reason you sent me the e-mail in the first place.

So far as what I see, misleading the public is what you tried to do by suggesting that you didn’t write the e-mails or that the incident was made up by me.


> Now let's see; What other nonsense have you written for me to dissect?

Yes Wayne dissect away, that way you never have to deal with the context or big picture, things that lead to understanding...

You wrote:

> > I describe the spring-controlled region as well as touch on the
> > other effects which come into play well above low cutoff.

> You didn't mention that for several posts. In fact, you argued against this when I described the behavior of the system in regions of resonance and below-resonance, and the transition from being acoustically small to being acoustically large. That's just a few posts up, and it's all here in black and white, showing your tendency to be combative and invent arguments where none should exist.

Wayne, you see the combative side because your approach brings that out in me, it is hard to deal with some one like you who, if you could only do some measurements on the real thing would see what I was talking about.
Also, if the discussion was just starting here, I could understand your not being “up to speed” technically but there have been many many past discussion with you about the Unity horn and how the phase of everything matters etc. While you have stopped your “it can’t work” campaign on the Unity, I doubt that you have forgotten all the posts.

Acknowledging this argument or that phase / time matters would also make you have to consider the acoustic phase of your designs as well, something you have seemed reluctant to do in the past. I guess this is a “window” that you can’t afford to open psychologically.

> Your first posts suggested that the system creates purely a 90 degree lagging phase shift. And frankly, you were quite rude in your demeanor, which gave me the inclination to treat you in kind. Especially since you took the tone of disagreement when I mentioned regions where this was not true. So it was obvious to me that you just wanted to be argumentative.

Wayne, again your dissecting approach prevents you from seeing the big picture.
For example, when I say nominal 90 degree shift, that is not the same as you saying purely a 90 degree shift. So you understand better, “nominal” in this use means approximate or “averages around” and not “is exactly” or “is purely”.

I “Want you to be argumentative”, that’s funny, I wonder, can you even “turn it off” when someone disagrees with you? Actually quite the opposite was true, it was nice when you were gone.

> This is a common strategy that I've seen from you. You will equivocate, using only the part of the truth that you think justifies your position. It's like telling half-truths and choosing which half suits you best. I've even watched you change sides in order to make a different point. But when you buttress an argument with equivocation, the omission makes your statement false.

Fine Wayne, normally when I explain something technical to someone, I assume I do not have to explain every thing. Normally I deal with technical people who want to understand something new, not one whose mind has been made up and is unwilling to even consider something different.

> And speaking of equivocation, lets talk about your usual description of the impedance of horns. They act to increase radiating resistance, but they do have a reactive component. You have minimized this in your discussions of them - just as you did in the link above - and you consistently characterize them as being purely resistive. But even the best horns are nowhere near this ideal.

Wayne, the fact is I have measured a number of horns who’s acoustic phase WAS around zero degrees through out a considerable bw.
I have also dealt with systems that HAD TO preserve waveshape so I do have a grasp of what is going on.
Clearly I am unable to put these points into words (that you understand) and without the common ground of measurement, I don’t know how else to fill you in.
I guess if anything I would say that you seem to have a good grasp of the elements in involved but do not have much of an idea where or how much various things come into play.
Your approach reminds me of some one who has read a lot, knows the terms but has never actually built drivers or measured them first hand, that would be my guess anyway.

> So how about you commit to something here, and make a definite statement. Tell us how you would describe the real and imaginary impedance of a horn. Tell us how near or how far from cutoff they can be expected to become resistive rather than partially reactive.
> Something like this would be acceptable. This shows the acoustic impedance of the horn, with reactive and resistive components clearly visible. Notice that this horn is intended to be used from 40Hz-400Hz, and pay attention to the resistive/reactive impedance in this region:

> Horn response and acoustic impedance

> Clearly, there is significant reactance in the passband.

-and-

> This means that acoustic phase cannot be zero.

Yes Wayne, you are right in the strictest sense, no horn I have seen will have say
a + - .0001 degree acoustic phase around zero.
I have seen horns which were say + - 5 degrees and more that were say + - 10 degrees around zero.
However, to put this in your dreaded concept “context”, in all the discussions so far we have been talking about the difference between direct radiators and horns, direct radiators generally have an acoustic phase which goes from +90 well below cutoff to ~ –90 mid band to ~ +90 well into inductive roll off, with the possibility of hundreds more degrees if operated into cone breakup or non piston behavior. While I didn’t explicitly say so, this also means they traverse zero degrees.

One thing you perhaps don’t realize is that by matching the impedance of the acoustic source to the horn’s average Z, the effect of the acoustic impedance variations is minimized so far its effect on acoustic output. This is because when the impedance’s are matched, one has maximum power transfer and shifting one of the two to one side or the other has little impact, one is siting on the top of a curve here..
This is the principal on which antenna power transfer is based and is different than the case when a low impedance voltage source is driving a changing impedance load.
For example in the Bdeap’s (measurements will be on the web site shortly), there is no visible low end ripple in the acoustic output and so, no ripple in the acoustic phase.

> Pressure and velocity are not in phase and are instead periodically changing like a series of resonances. That's also why the amplitude response has slight ripples, just like the phase response does.

> You might prefer to see this demonstrated with data provided by an unbiased source, perhaps using a real-world horn that can be duplicated. Measurements can be made with the two-microphone method or models can be used instead, I don't care. But there is no denying this fact - No matter what horn is used, this is their very nature so they will all show this type of response.
> Or maybe you will show the impedance chart for some of your horn products, to demonstrate their impedance curve and indicate their acoustic phase. It would not be acceptable to see data that was generalized or "doctored." So be careful now, because just about anyone can find this out for themselves.

Just as nothing I say to you will ever persuade you of anything (so far as the technical argument) , no measurements YOU come up with would convince me that the measurements I have taken and the stuff I have built based on them are based on fiction.

You caution about “being careful”, is humorously ironic both coming from one who doesn’t measure and as the measurement savvy part of the sound industry has embraced us most readily.
I am counting on the fact that real acoustic measurements ARE the language that our customers deal with. Some have the same measuring equipment I do.
Soon there will be a button on the web site where customers with a tef can download the actual measurement files on our products so they can compare with our products they have if they wish or other people’s products they measured.

Further, Heyser’s view of acoustic phase is not a “LAW”, companies that sell MLS based systems often claim their technique shows “true acoustic phase” so there can be a difference in measured results on the same speaker in the same conditions.
Personally, I believe TDS is the way to go and agree with the manual for LSP cad which explains why the MLS systems do not show true acoustic phase ( page 117).
That explanation includes the Hilbert transform, which was in the thread you jumped into.
Such systems would show a horn and direct radiator with identical frequency response as also having identical phase response, which they do not normally have.
This was also part of the thread you inserted yourself into btw.


> > What the heck do you think I am promoting here?

Yourself.

Sorry, I’m not for sale

> > Why accuse me of bashing you and your products anyway?

> Because you are, and have been for a long time.

Lets see some examples of me bashing your products, put up or shut up!!.

> That's what this thread is about, and that's what the nature of our relationship has been about from the start. You are so arrogant and self-righteous that you believe you can attack everyone and that they should not argue their points in response.
I see where Mark Seaton got his example, and the things he said in the past were heavily influenced by you. You are the one that drives this thing, and you are solely responsible for the public image of your company.

Attack everyone?????, no Wayne, just responding to you..
You say “You are the one that drives this thing, and you are solely responsible for the public image of your company.”
In a way this is true, I do design everything we sell and the performance of our stuff is what we are known for.


> > I would say spin was you trying to make it sound like you didn't
> > send the e-mails that caused my absence from here. When you sent
> > your e-mail to me at home, you were sending it to me. My DIY
> > involvement is not an official part of my job understand, nor do
> > I work at the shop, when you sent them to Tom@servodrive.com,
> > instead, that is at the shop.

> So you don't read your own E-mail's? Try having someone write your E-Mail's then too. Someone who has taken a little bit of remedial English perhaps. Your grammer makes me feel like I'm reading something written with a crayon.

I didn’t read my e-mails when they couldn’t be forwarded to me at least this sliver of what you said IS true.

Gee Wayne, I am hurt, your slander and insults make such a powerful argument, such a powerful intellect at work here, clearly, I am out of my league with you (Thank God)..


> > Name calling, calling me a Charlatan, teasing about spelling and
> > grammar, real nice, it highlights what a "very special" person you
> > are. Makes me feel like cutting you some slack, you know what I
> > mean?.

That's right, Tom. You've always been so kind that it saddens me to see our relationship sour this way.
I noticed that you called yourself a Charletan with a capital "C". I didn't capitalize the word, but your use is fitting and appropriate. I've grown to recognize you as the "P.T. Barnum of the industry."

You caught that, huh, I figured that was too subtle for you to notice.
I used caps because you misspelled charlatan in your post and I thought it was funny that you would harp on spelling and grammar as if it meant anything relevant to the discussion.

You say . I've grown to recognize you as the "P.T. Barnum of the industry."

So... that would make you what, either Bozo the Clown or John Wayne Gacey, I suppose..

Cheers,

Tom,


This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
  Schiit Audio  

Follow Ups Full Thread
Follow Ups
You can not post to an archived thread.

[ Top Top of Page ] [ Contact Us ] [ Support/Wish List ] [ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
[ General ] [ Speakers ] [ Tubes ] [ Vinyl ] [ Digital ] [ Hi-Rez ] [ Video Asylum ] [ Cables ] [ Tweaks/DIY ] [ Music ] [ Films ]