or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by Ricci

Hey guys...I saw there were some questions about the measurements at DB. The Know How section lays out a brief overview of the equipment used and each measurement and how to interpret the results. We migrated the site to a new server a whole back and apparently the notes in this section reverted back to the original ones which were not as complete. They are updated now. There are some typos in there still but hopefully that will get fixed soon. Long story short...ANY...
I already asked David about it and he said nay and it really matters little as no one publishes the data required anyway. Anyway my point is simply that with a lot of the high inductance bass drivers the real world resembles the simplified simulation very little. The worse the inductive performance of a bass driver the more important those parameters become in order to get a simulation that matches reality. The funny part is that those are exactly the drivers that often...
My comments have nothing to do with the SI24" driver specifically but instead focus on the bench racing that often goes on around here and the comments that WinISD and small signal TSP's are accurate for simulation of the very large signals and the types of drivers often used in these bench races which they are not.Again...The measurements of the FI Q18d2 are at Data-Bass. I could not make WinISD simulate a curve that matches the real world behavior of this driver even...
Sorry Bill but it doesn't work. The response still will be nothing like the real response of the FI driver or any number of others. It cannot do it. I have tried it. Hornresp while a great program also cannot accurately model that type of driver. The FR shape is way off as is the sensitivity and resultant impedance curve, applied current, excursion, etc. Manufacturer SD, power handling and Xmax specs are all over the map as well.
WinISD and many other programs cannot accurately model many of the modern high inductance long stroke bass drivers. If interested go ahead and attempt to make a model match the actual measured response of the FI Q18 at Data-Bass. It requires complex inductance effects to be considered and very few programs do and then there is the problem that you are very unlikely to have this data to input in the first place unless you measure it yourself. TSP's can be very accurate if...
Looks like you have room for 4 more up there.
John, What I am saying is that sometimes combining several different EQ filters on top of each other can create real artifacts (spikes in response or dips, or other irregularities) that do not show up in a simulation of how the filters combine together. I have seen this real world with numerous digital EQ's when stacking multiple EQ bands near to each other and did with the DCX doing just these filters we are talking about here. That is what I mean about checking through...
I would suggest this. Use my settings for the GH high pass from the other thread. They are verified and measured to work. It gets the maximum useful extension from the GH while allowing safety at full power. If you use different settings to fake a high pass I strongly recommend that you do a loop back measurement to confirm that it performs as expected. Also you can do all of this from the front panel of the dcx. I never use the serial cable. On the eq screen there are...
Correct...I do not measure xmax. I don't have a Klippel which is really the only way I trust any xmax spec and that is assuming the Klippel test was done right. Otherwise the coil overhang is a good estimate if a bit conservative many times. When I mention excursion specs they are usually just a best guess from looking at the excursion with the driver in free air and listening for mechanical distress and offsets in the cone movement which can be seen with a piece of white...
What for?
New Posts  All Forums: