3 ms·

> I know the field of loudspeakers/acoustics very well, what I've said so far and will say now is all off the top of my head, and it's unlikely that it's in his

> I know the field of loudspeakers/acoustics very well, what I've said so far and will say now is all off the top of my head, and it's unlikely that it's in his head at all. The wikipedia article (linked above, linked here for your convenience) [0], disagrees with your claim, and matches what the action lab says. Perhaps you can reconcile the difference, or you can correct the wikipedia article. The article says the bass reflex improves "the efficiency of the system at low frequencies", and "the efficiency can be substantially improved over the performance of a similarly sized sealed-box enclosure". My best guess is that are defining efficiency as something other than total_power_out/total_power_in. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bass_reflex https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bass_reflex

nilslindemann 12d ago
I also just asked the AI [1], and it too states that you are wrong, fsckboy. Quote (translated to english): --- start quote --- This system is precisely tuned so that the air mass within the tube resonates — acting like an additional diaphragm — at the resonant frequency. This delay inverts the phase of the sound wave from the rear of the diaphragm, causing it to exit the enclosure in phase with the sound from the front. Instead of cancelling each other out, the sound waves reinforce one another. This significantly increases efficiency in the bass range. Efficiency: A bass-reflex enclosure increases efficiency in the low-frequency range compared to a sealed box of the same size. At the resonant frequency, the speaker requires less amplifier power and less cone excursion to produce the same sound pressure level. Boominess and Neutrality: The first user claims the port is there to reduce boominess. The opposite is often the case: poorly tuned bass-reflex speakers are prone to "booming" or imprecise ("boomy") bass precisely because of the resonance. A sealed enclosure often sounds more "neutral" and precise by nature, though it does not extend as deep into the low frequencies." --- end quote --- [1] https://share.google/aimode/tmlU5Bho6uHZ9IrGq https://share.google/aimode/tmlU5Bho6uHZ9IrGq, available for seven days.
- fsckboy 10d ago
  with a bass reflex port, the design tunes it acoustically to work with the chosen speaker (and cabinet size blah blah). Given how acoustics work, that means you could tune it to be out-of-phase at the resonant frequency, or you could tune it to be in-phase at the resonant frequency. It would not surprise me at all if modern boom box speaker design was tilted to the in-phase mode in order to get a BOOM-BOOM room sound for hip hop, EDM etc. It could be a cheap way to achieve boominess that skateboarders or whoever would find appealing. my information comes from the past where I come from. In the 1960s and 70s, bass reflex port design (which had only just bugun to be understood) was tuned toward out-of-phase tuning to accomplish the taming of the resonant frequeny hump in the frequency response, and the audiophile goal was generally regarded as recreating the classical music concert hall experience in your living room without sound coloration, and which music does not have boom-boom elements, except for the occasional timpani thump. The subwoofer had not even been invented yet. as to the efficiency claims, see the cousin-to-this-comment i just made. In brief, wikipedia is talking about comparing different designs, and I (and the original youtube video) were talking about the efficiency effect it would have on the self-same system, not compared to other different systems. You can surely see that out-of-phase resonance might be likely to decrease the sound level, and in-phase reinforcement would be likely to increase the sound level. That is what I was talking about. (it's not actually as simple as what it seems on its face, the acoustic feedback of the sound waves (bass reflex) will be transmitted back through the electronics to the feedback loop in the amplifier itself. Think of it like a conservation of energy type argument, shifting gears on your bicycle does not give you more energy but it can increase the efficiency-kind-of-sort-of of the transfer of energy from you to your bicycle, so comparatively speaking shifting gears on your speaker. I say kind-of-sort-of because what energy gets wasted where (in the form of wasteful heat) isn't completely intuitive. systems have their lowest impedance at their resonant frequency, thus highest energy transfer, but feeding back to change the behavior at the resonant frequency will change the impedance rather than simply "hey free efficiency" or something, because we are changing frequency dependent impedance rather than removing resistance/friction.) the musical problem with choosing a "resonance reinforcement" technique is that it works at the same resonant frequency all the time (same for that speaker, different for other speakers). What's pleasing about music is the artists choices of musical notes. Different songs have different note choices, but the speaker's resonant frequency is always the same so a song in the key of, e.g., G will always be emphasized in the key of C which does not make musical sense. the opposite is not the case, if you use bass reflex to demphasize the resonant frequency, you are making all songs sound better. in the particular case of the youtube video, he would still be wrong because he is measuring/testing right at the bass port, which for bass notes with a long enough wavelength would still be reinforced by the sounds from the front of the speaker, but not in the directed way that he is trying to capture with the smoke ring cannon because the reinforcing waves would be arriving from elsewhere and not coherent with the (hypothetical) smoke rings. also the smoke ring cannon is tuned for a much lower bass note, if you pumped 20Hz through it (an extremely low note, the limit of human hearing), that would imply 20 smoke rings a second. Does anything about the smoke ring cannon seem to indicate that it could put out 20 smoke rings a second? highly doubtful, they would interfere with each other. notice that the bass port is much smaller than the smoke ring cannon, probably a bad impedance match, though I doubt the smoke ring cannon is operating at all on frequency, just simply the turbulent movent of air (and smoke)
fsckboy 10d ago
my statement was that the bass reflex design decreased the efficiency of that system itself (as in "it could be more efficient in itself, which is what the youtube video was saying). Cancelling some frequencies decreases the efficiency of it's own components, but that it did so by choice in favor of accuracy of sound and beneficial compromises toward space-efficient form factor. I did NOT say it was more or less efficient than any other design, nor did the youtube video, which is what wikipedia has successfully attempted to delude you into talking about, and unsuccessfully at being correct because it conflates infinite baffle with acoustic suspension which with absolute certainty have vastly different efficiencies and tonal qualities and therefore the wiki simply wrong. On another dimension you have left out, different loudspeaker acoustic cabinet designs are optimized by coupling with completely different drivers (I'm using the term driver to refer to the metal-frame/paper-cone structure itself, not any wooden enclosure) With acoustic suspension, the air in the cabinet privates a taut springiness, and thus the spring built into the driver is more or less eliminated making the speaker cone on its own "floppy". You can't use that driver in a different design, the components must be designed together to work together, matching impedance, so it is silly to naively compare efficiency, and as I already pointed out, any 5% efficiency difference is dwarfed by other considerations. I'm happy to educate you, but you don't know what you are talking about, so arguing against your uninformed reading of wikipedia is tedious.
- fsckboy 9d ago
  came back and read, to late to edit. "privates" was supposed to be "provides" and I wrote another long comment to a separate reply, you should look for it.

nilslindemann 12d ago

I also just asked the AI [1], and it too states that you are wrong, fsckboy. Quote (translated to english): --- start quote --- This system is precisely tuned so that the air mass within the tube resonates — acting like an additional diaphragm — at the resonant frequency. This delay inverts the phase of the sound wave from the rear of the diaphragm, causing it to exit the enclosure in phase with the sound from the front. Instead of cancelling each other out, the sound waves reinforce one another. This significantly increases efficiency in the bass range. Efficiency: A bass-reflex enclosure increases efficiency in the low-frequency range compared to a sealed box of the same size. At the resonant frequency, the speaker requires less amplifier power and less cone excursion to produce the same sound pressure level. Boominess and Neutrality: The first user claims the port is there to reduce boominess. The opposite is often the case: poorly tuned bass-reflex speakers are prone to "booming" or imprecise ("boomy") bass precisely because of the resonance. A sealed enclosure often sounds more "neutral" and precise by nature, though it does not extend as deep into the low frequencies." --- end quote --- [1] https://share.google/aimode/tmlU5Bho6uHZ9IrGq https://share.google/aimode/tmlU5Bho6uHZ9IrGq, available for seven days.

fsckboy 10d ago
with a bass reflex port, the design tunes it acoustically to work with the chosen speaker (and cabinet size blah blah). Given how acoustics work, that means you could tune it to be out-of-phase at the resonant frequency, or you could tune it to be in-phase at the resonant frequency. It would not surprise me at all if modern boom box speaker design was tilted to the in-phase mode in order to get a BOOM-BOOM room sound for hip hop, EDM etc. It could be a cheap way to achieve boominess that skateboarders or whoever would find appealing. my information comes from the past where I come from. In the 1960s and 70s, bass reflex port design (which had only just bugun to be understood) was tuned toward out-of-phase tuning to accomplish the taming of the resonant frequeny hump in the frequency response, and the audiophile goal was generally regarded as recreating the classical music concert hall experience in your living room without sound coloration, and which music does not have boom-boom elements, except for the occasional timpani thump. The subwoofer had not even been invented yet. as to the efficiency claims, see the cousin-to-this-comment i just made. In brief, wikipedia is talking about comparing different designs, and I (and the original youtube video) were talking about the efficiency effect it would have on the self-same system, not compared to other different systems. You can surely see that out-of-phase resonance might be likely to decrease the sound level, and in-phase reinforcement would be likely to increase the sound level. That is what I was talking about. (it's not actually as simple as what it seems on its face, the acoustic feedback of the sound waves (bass reflex) will be transmitted back through the electronics to the feedback loop in the amplifier itself. Think of it like a conservation of energy type argument, shifting gears on your bicycle does not give you more energy but it can increase the efficiency-kind-of-sort-of of the transfer of energy from you to your bicycle, so comparatively speaking shifting gears on your speaker. I say kind-of-sort-of because what energy gets wasted where (in the form of wasteful heat) isn't completely intuitive. systems have their lowest impedance at their resonant frequency, thus highest energy transfer, but feeding back to change the behavior at the resonant frequency will change the impedance rather than simply "hey free efficiency" or something, because we are changing frequency dependent impedance rather than removing resistance/friction.) the musical problem with choosing a "resonance reinforcement" technique is that it works at the same resonant frequency all the time (same for that speaker, different for other speakers). What's pleasing about music is the artists choices of musical notes. Different songs have different note choices, but the speaker's resonant frequency is always the same so a song in the key of, e.g., G will always be emphasized in the key of C which does not make musical sense. the opposite is not the case, if you use bass reflex to demphasize the resonant frequency, you are making all songs sound better. in the particular case of the youtube video, he would still be wrong because he is measuring/testing right at the bass port, which for bass notes with a long enough wavelength would still be reinforced by the sounds from the front of the speaker, but not in the directed way that he is trying to capture with the smoke ring cannon because the reinforcing waves would be arriving from elsewhere and not coherent with the (hypothetical) smoke rings. also the smoke ring cannon is tuned for a much lower bass note, if you pumped 20Hz through it (an extremely low note, the limit of human hearing), that would imply 20 smoke rings a second. Does anything about the smoke ring cannon seem to indicate that it could put out 20 smoke rings a second? highly doubtful, they would interfere with each other. notice that the bass port is much smaller than the smoke ring cannon, probably a bad impedance match, though I doubt the smoke ring cannon is operating at all on frequency, just simply the turbulent movent of air (and smoke)

fsckboy 10d ago

my statement was that the bass reflex design decreased the efficiency of that system itself (as in "it could be more efficient in itself, which is what the youtube video was saying). Cancelling some frequencies decreases the efficiency of it's own components, but that it did so by choice in favor of accuracy of sound and beneficial compromises toward space-efficient form factor. I did NOT say it was more or less efficient than any other design, nor did the youtube video, which is what wikipedia has successfully attempted to delude you into talking about, and unsuccessfully at being correct because it conflates infinite baffle with acoustic suspension which with absolute certainty have vastly different efficiencies and tonal qualities and therefore the wiki simply wrong. On another dimension you have left out, different loudspeaker acoustic cabinet designs are optimized by coupling with completely different drivers (I'm using the term driver to refer to the metal-frame/paper-cone structure itself, not any wooden enclosure) With acoustic suspension, the air in the cabinet privates a taut springiness, and thus the spring built into the driver is more or less eliminated making the speaker cone on its own "floppy". You can't use that driver in a different design, the components must be designed together to work together, matching impedance, so it is silly to naively compare efficiency, and as I already pointed out, any 5% efficiency difference is dwarfed by other considerations. I'm happy to educate you, but you don't know what you are talking about, so arguing against your uninformed reading of wikipedia is tedious.

fsckboy 9d ago
came back and read, to late to edit. "privates" was supposed to be "provides" and I wrote another long comment to a separate reply, you should look for it.