On Wed, 27 Aug 2014 11:34:59 +0100, RJH wrote:

On 27/08/2014 11:09, Bob Latham wrote:
In article ,
Don Pearce wrote:

Or that there are much better ways to load speakers than transmission
lines.

I would be interested to hear what these are and in what way they are
better other than box size.


I suppose there's many ways to skin a cat. My preference (shaped by
price and space too) over the years has come down to sealed box or
transmission line. Wonder what Don has in mind.

From his subsequent postings, the only alternative is horn loading.
This suits short throw drive units but a 30 foot horn, even when
folded, is a rather large beast to shoehorn into the typical domestic
auditorium (living/ entertainment room) of your 'average semi'.
--
J B Good

In article ,
Johny B Good wrote:
On Wed, 27 Aug 2014 11:34:59 +0100, RJH wrote:

On 27/08/2014 11:09, Bob Latham wrote:
In article ,
Don Pearce wrote:

Or that there are much better ways to load speakers than transmission
lines.

I would be interested to hear what these are and in what way they are
better other than box size.


I suppose there's many ways to skin a cat. My preference (shaped by
price and space too) over the years has come down to sealed box or
transmission line. Wonder what Don has in mind.

From his subsequent postings, the only alternative is horn loading.
This suits short throw drive units but a 30 foot horn, even when
folded, is a rather large beast to shoehorn into the typical domestic
auditorium (living/ entertainment room) of your 'average semi'.

The Tannoy Autograph. Floor standing and about 5 ft high by 3ft wide.
Snag with horn loading is it sounds like it. ;-)

--
*TEAMWORK...means never having to take all the blame yourself *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 8/27/14, 7:53 AM, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Bob Latham wrote:
I suppose there's many ways to skin a cat. My preference (shaped by
price and space too) over the years has come down to sealed box or
transmission line. Wonder what Don has in mind.

Yes, those are the two I've found best of all. The one tends to be
enormous and the other very inefficient. I've yet to hear bass from a
ported reflex enclosure that I actually like.

Strange I can't think of any pro speaker maker who used TL?

PMC.

Stephen

On Wed, 27 Aug 2014 11:43:37 +0100, Bob Latham
wrote:

In article ,
RJH wrote:
On 27/08/2014 11:09, Bob Latham wrote:
In article ,
Don Pearce wrote:

Or that there are much better ways to load speakers than transmission
lines.

I would be interested to hear what these are and in what way they are
better other than box size.

I suppose there's many ways to skin a cat. My preference (shaped by
price and space too) over the years has come down to sealed box or
transmission line. Wonder what Don has in mind.

Yes, those are the two I've found best of all. The one tends to be
enormous and the other very inefficient. I've yet to hear bass from a
ported reflex enclosure that I actually like.


Ported can be very good. It all depends on how you set the Q. Most
speaker makers try to take advantage of the resonance curve to prop up
the bottom end. The result is peaky, one-note-type response with a
very poor phase response. If you de-Q the whole thing and sacrifice
some of the bass boost, you get a response very like that of a
transmission line, but without the huge size.

And of course transmission lines can be tuned exactly t The purist
method is to load the line sufficiently with Dr. Bailey's long fibre
wool that very little sound emerges from the port at resonance. The
line behaves something like an infinite baffle. But reduce the packing
density, and you can invoke a very similar boost curve to the reflex
speaker, and with a very similar sound.

d

On 27/08/2014 13:53, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Bob Latham wrote:
I suppose there's many ways to skin a cat. My preference (shaped by
price and space too) over the years has come down to sealed box or
transmission line. Wonder what Don has in mind.

Yes, those are the two I've found best of all. The one tends to be
enormous and the other very inefficient. I've yet to hear bass from a
ported reflex enclosure that I actually like.

Strange I can't think of any pro speaker maker who used TL?


PMC?

But overall I'd guess in part because the bass tends to be unnaturally
extended. Something of an acoustic trick, which I happen to like, and is
a good compromise for domestic use? I'd guess ;-)

--
Cheers, Rob

On Wed, 27 Aug 2014 19:58:40 +0100, Bob Latham
wrote:

In article ,
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Bob Latham wrote:
I suppose there's many ways to skin a cat. My preference (shaped by
price and space too) over the years has come down to sealed box or
transmission line. Wonder what Don has in mind.

Yes, those are the two I've found best of all. The one tends to be
enormous and the other very inefficient. I've yet to hear bass from a
ported reflex enclosure that I actually like.

Strange I can't think of any pro speaker maker who used TL?

I came very close to buying a pair of IMF TLS 80s. Perhaps you don't
consider them "Pro".

At the time, IMHO their bass performance was second to none and could
shake the house with very tight deep bass.

Then I fell in love with imaging which they didn't do so well and I bought
something else.


Bob.

They were superb at making sure your house didn't blow away in a high
wind.

d

"MiNe109" wrote in message
...
On 8/27/14, 7:53 AM, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Bob Latham wrote:
I suppose there's many ways to skin a cat. My
preference (shaped by
price and space too) over the years has come down to
sealed box or
transmission line. Wonder what Don has in mind.

Yes, those are the two I've found best of all. The one
tends to be
enormous and the other very inefficient. I've yet to
hear bass from a
ported reflex enclosure that I actually like.

Strange I can't think of any pro speaker maker who used
TL?

PMC.


B&W, Paradigm, Cambridge, Imhoff?

Any more?


--
Woody

harrogate three at ntlworld dot com

"Johny B Good" wrote in
message ...
On Wed, 27 Aug 2014 11:34:59 +0100, RJH
wrote:

On 27/08/2014 11:09, Bob Latham wrote:
In article
,
Don Pearce wrote:

Or that there are much better ways to load speakers
than transmission
lines.

I would be interested to hear what these are and in what
way they are
better other than box size.


I suppose there's many ways to skin a cat. My preference
(shaped by
price and space too) over the years has come down to
sealed box or
transmission line. Wonder what Don has in mind.

From his subsequent postings, the only alternative is horn
loading.
This suits short throw drive units but a 30 foot horn,
even when
folded, is a rather large beast to shoehorn into the
typical domestic
auditorium (living/ entertainment room) of your 'average
semi'.


Well not if you put the driver and throat under the floor
and just vent the mouth - remember at those frequencies the
sound has little or no directionality.


--
Woody

harrogate three at ntlworld dot com

On 27/08/2014 19:59, Bob Latham wrote:
In article ,
RJH wrote:
On 27/08/2014 13:53, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Bob Latham wrote:
I suppose there's many ways to skin a cat. My preference (shaped by
price and space too) over the years has come down to sealed box or
transmission line. Wonder what Don has in mind.

Yes, those are the two I've found best of all. The one tends to be
enormous and the other very inefficient. I've yet to hear bass from a
ported reflex enclosure that I actually like.

Strange I can't think of any pro speaker maker who used TL?


PMC?

But overall I'd guess in part because the bass tends to be unnaturally
extended. Something of an acoustic trick, which I happen to like, and is
a good compromise for domestic use? I'd guess ;-)

Unnatural?


Well, perhaps not unnatural as such, more extended. I'd add my
experience of TLs is quite limited, but what I've heard (LNB and a
couple of KEF kits) I've liked . . .


--
Cheers, Rob

"Woody" wrote in message
...
"Johny B Good" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 27 Aug 2014 11:34:59 +0100, RJH wrote:

On 27/08/2014 11:09, Bob Latham wrote:
In article ,
Don Pearce wrote:

Or that there are much better ways to load speakers than transmission
lines.

I would be interested to hear what these are and in what way they are
better other than box size.


I suppose there's many ways to skin a cat. My preference (shaped by
price and space too) over the years has come down to sealed box or
transmission line. Wonder what Don has in mind.

From his subsequent postings, the only alternative is horn loading.
This suits short throw drive units but a 30 foot horn, even when
folded, is a rather large beast to shoehorn into the typical domestic
auditorium (living/ entertainment room) of your 'average semi'.


Well not if you put the driver and throat under the floor and just vent
the mouth - remember at those frequencies the sound has little or no
directionality.


Something like this?
http://www.royaldevice.com/useless.htm

--
David