It's design purpose is to eliminate spiders that color the sound when there stiff enough or just don't have the stiffness to offer proper dampening..Another neat benifit of it is I could alter it's stifness to accominate different box sizes and tunes( by lowering/raising fs).. Adversely it's going to affect impedance and qe..
Im not nit picking. I am correcting. I have no beef. Im just stating corrections. That is what I do here, help. My intentions are not to hurt anyone. I even said some pretty positive things to you as well. I even mentioned that this thread is a great topic, because I believe it to be. It is important that you mention what you did. I appreciate that you started this thread, but there were corrections to be made, and I corrected them. No personal stuff here for me, it's all business.
Frequency changes already affect impedance
Now, don't get me wrong though. I am not saying this is not a great idea. Please note that before you judge my comments as being negative. I think its amazing to think about. Your goals are why audio has become so popular and great, in my opinion. SO, great job on expanding the ideas I say.
Which is directly related to the electrical input, not just mechanical compliance.
Thanks but this i know..
Are you referring to the XBL motor?
Ok, here is the thing. With acoustics in a space that has limitations.....driver parameters are merely a starting point. Changing or controlling them would inherently alter the design all together as the enclosure does most of this already using resonances and propagation, phase control, impedance matching, coupling, etc. Too many variables exist to create a constant in sound type for a single driver. This would likely, one be very costly, and two, have a considerable difference in reproduction itself. Take the fan blade model by eminence that changes pitch to accompany frequency in the HT world, and how much that thing costs. I think that is what you may be talking about in general. It, to me , is the ultimate loudspeaker, as the mechanics involved in much different than a conventional loudspeaker using spiders for cone control-its purely mechanical and electrical. This would be up your alley, but already exists. if you find a way to beat that technology, then there is no reason to advertise it here. You need to do much more than a forum to get that thing out there....which makes me wonder of the purpose of the thread anyhow.....publicity before fame?
It is also important to mention that it was once said to me, that "it is not the loudspeaker that is the issue, it is the room it is in." This means that even though this type of technology can be possible, that controlling resonances within a space can still only be accomplished by the dimensions and dampening of the room, and not the loudspeaker. To me, which is very important to note, the loudspeaker is never the issue in any kind of design, which is why the incorporation of the environment is considered with every one. Every loudspeaker, in a free-air environment can play phenomenally flat to an extend even though the mechanical changes occur, the acoustics due to the amount of limitations, such as in a dipole setup, are NOT limited as much. It's when you take the sound waves and give them a sense of direction and control, that things get messed up. This is why I do not recommend anything but dipole in a HT system, as from what I have designed and experience so far, it is much more natural and realistic than conventional. People are afraid of cancellation too much, I think.
