Would you be interested in approx. 25lb 4x10 or 16lb 2x10 (sound in the vein of a Ber

[Downunderwonder]

It started as a testimonial from an endorser of some stupid light custom cabs ( which turned out to be twice as heavy but still quite light when the custom builder got A into G with a website ).

Eminence publish ported and sealed designs with their bass drivers. If the drivers used by Revsound were noted I missed it. Without actually knowing what drivers are used a bog standard design has no relevance. Could likely be OEM spec Eminence if he's big game hunting or any common driver for that matter. List prices are missing from the site so it's anyone's guess.

[basswave]

Originally Posted by Downunderwonder

It started as a testimonial from an endorser of some stupid light custom cabs ( which turned out to be twice as heavy but still quite light when the custom builder got A into G with a website ).
.

The OP started as a question NOT a testimonial.

"Would you be interested in approx. 25lb 4x10 or 16lb 2x10 (sound in the vein of a Bergantino & Epi)"

[Brad Johnson]

Welcome to Talkbass.

[fdeck]

Originally Posted by Tactician

Interesting, in all this dialogue, and discussion, and contrarian views - that people like Eminence and Celestion don't come on and state their views. Many years ago Eminence produced a book of suitable cabinets for their speakers - nothing outrageous, just cabs, folded horns, scoops etc. Is there anything in the current crop of manufacturers cab designs that is close to what is proposed here?

Eminence has multiple competing customers to juggle, and would want to each customer's confidentiality. I doubt they would comment on any particular maker's design.

Today, box modeling software is ubiquitous. It doesn't take a lot of details to enter a design, such as a typical 4x10, into a program and end up with a pretty accurate educated guess about how it performs. There are only five parameters that determine the low frequency performance of any ported bass speaker, some of which are pretty tightly constrained.

[MarthaSamira]

Seen many claims that this or that light speaker sounds like a ceramic loaded Berg, only to plug the thing in and... meh...

[basswave]

Originally Posted by MarthaSamira

Seen many claims that this or that light speaker sounds like a ceramic loaded Berg, only to plug the thing in and... meh...

Martha Have you tried the Revsound cabinets?

[basswave]

[Balog]

Originally Posted by dawind99

That it did Wasn't bashing Newton; just stating a fact on his classical mechanics aspect, don't know Mr Fitzmaurice, and I'm not selling anything....but entertaining it is.

You're the owner of a company, so by definition you are selling something. If you're going to lie to us, at least make the effort to be plausible.

And quantum physics has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with anything related to sound, except to scam people who don't know what the term means.

[Balog]

Originally Posted by basswave

The OP started as a question NOT a testimonial.

"Would you be interested in approx. 25lb 4x10 or 16lb 2x10 (sound in the vein of a Bergantino & Epi)"

Cabs which don't exist, I would note. It's pretty silly to say "Would you be interested in a 16lb 2x10? Well, here's a 24lb one!"

If you're going to shill, try picking a company where the owner doesn't embarrass himself so badly.

[Brad Johnson]

Originally Posted by Balog

You're the owner of a company, so by definition you are selling something. If you're going to lie to us, at least make the effort to be plausible.

And quantum physics has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with anything related to sound, except to scam people who don't know what the term means.

Originally Posted by Balog

Cabs which don't exist, I would note. It's pretty silly to say "Would you be interested in a 16lb 2x10? Well, here's a 24lb one!"

If you're going to shill, try picking a company where the owner doesn't embarrass himself so badly.

I know this is really important so thanks for what you're doing. He's a liar and a shill... got it.


Is the namecalling really necessary?

[Calaverasgrande]

I suppose if you wanted to stretch the definitions you could say that quantum physics do matter because, well sthe speakers use magnetism and coils to move air.
Not sure how the magnets or voice coils would be constructed to take advantage of quantum entanglement to generate more SPL per watt. But I do not doubt that as progress is made in quantum mechanics we will see some benefits in amplification eventually. Maybe something which does for the transistor what the transistor did for the tube.
Then we will be saying the vintage 5lb class D amps sound better than those newfangled 2lb warp core amps.

[dukeorock]

Originally Posted by Calaverasgrande

I suppose if you wanted to stretch the definitions you could say that quantum physics do matter because, well sthe speakers use magnetism and coils to move air.
Not sure how the magnets or voice coils would be constructed to take advantage of quantum entanglement to generate more SPL per watt. But I do not doubt that as progress is made in quantum mechanics we will see some benefits in amplification eventually. Maybe something which does for the transistor what the transistor did for the tube.
Then we will be saying the vintage 5lb class D amps sound better than those newfangled 2lb warp core amps.

Nice

[CL400Peavey]

Originally Posted by Calaverasgrande

Then we will be saying the vintage 5lb class D amps sound better than those newfangled 2lb warp core amps.

Man I need a warp core amp!

[fdeck]

Originally Posted by Calaverasgrande

I suppose if you wanted to stretch the definitions you could say that quantum physics do matter because, well sthe speakers use magnetism and coils to move air.

It's a matter of semantics. Of course everything obeys quantum mechanics, but the "correspondence principle" gives precise guidelines for when it is possible to use classical physics (including electrodynamics). In that case, a physicist would say that it's not a quantum mechanical system, with no confusion about what they mean.

One rule of thumb is that Planck's constant doesn't enter into the basic elecromechanical and acoustical models that describe the behavior of speakers quite accurately.

In that parlance, a speaker is a classical system.

If a speaker is purported to violate the laws of physics, it begs the question: Which laws?

If anybody is interested, here's a brief rundown on the basic model of sealed and ported speakers: http://personalpages.tds.net/~fdeck/bass/speaker.pdf. The equations in this article will get you to the same place as the graphs computed by WinISD.

[CL400Peavey]

Originally Posted by fdeck

It's a matter of semantics. Of course everything obeys quantum mechanics, but the "correspondence principle" gives precise guidelines for when it is possible to use classical physics (including electrodynamics). In that case, a physicist would say that it's not a quantum mechanical system, with no confusion about what they mean.

One rule of thumb is that Planck's constant doesn't enter into the basic elecromechanical and acoustical models that describe the behavior of speakers quite accurately.

In that parlance, a speaker is a classical system.

If a speaker is purported to violate the laws of physics, it begs the question: Which laws?

+1

I only got through Sakurai in QM, but what I do know as powerful as quantum theory is, there is a lot of approximation techniques to get the models to work. A speaker cab is pretty far away from a hydrogen atom.

[Rockin Mike]

I ain't never seen a hydrogen atom, so I'm purty sure they ain't no sech thang.

[dukeorock]

Originally Posted by Rockin Mike

I ain't never seen a hydrogen atom, so I'm purty sure they ain't no sech thang.

Yeehaw!

[will33]

Originally Posted by fdeck

It's a matter of semantics. Of course everything obeys quantum mechanics, but the "correspondence principle" gives precise guidelines for when it is possible to use classical physics (including electrodynamics). In that case, a physicist would say that it's not a quantum mechanical system, with no confusion about what they mean.

One rule of thumb is that Planck's constant doesn't enter into the basic elecromechanical and acoustical models that describe the behavior of speakers quite accurately.

In that parlance, a speaker is a classical system.

If a speaker is purported to violate the laws of physics, it begs the question: Which laws?

If anybody is interested, here's a brief rundown on the basic model of sealed and ported speakers: http://personalpages.tds.net/~fdeck/bass/speaker.pdf. The equations in this article will get you to the same place as the graphs computed by WinISD.

My issue with the whole thing is what I think Duke was eluding to so eloquently, and that is, low frequency output/capability, is a direct function of the driver acting as a true piston. The greater volume of air displaced, the bigger the pressure wave, the more output. I don't believe there are any new materials or processes that allow one to displace a greater volume of air using a piston with less displacement. I also know enough to know I don't know everything and am not about to try to argue physics with a real life physicist.. If there is something I'm missing there, I'd like to learn what it is.


You guys getting into quantum theory are just plain over my head.

[MarthaSamira]

Originally Posted by basswave

Martha Have you tried the Revsound cabinets?

No

[Rockin Mike]

According to quantum co-location a particle can be in two places at the same time, so if there were a way to synchronize the co-location of all the trillions of particles that make up a speaker cone, analogous to the way a laser synchronizes photons, you could conceivably have a whole cone in two places at the same time and get two wavefronts from each piston cycle. I don't know if that would make it louder or just add a chorusing effect. It might actually be quieter due to cancellation as the two wavefronts would be somewhat out of phase.

This is in the realm of science fiction. Real-world work with quantum phenomena is still limited to laboratory experiments and an extremely few startup applications in nanotech.
Surely the use of the term "quantum physics" by certain parties in the thread above were not backed by any real science or engineering.