NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #3/NN_1993_3.iso/spool/rec/audio/19163

Text File | 1993-01-23 | 1.8 KB | 40 lines

Newsgroups: rec.audio
Path: sparky!uunet!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!usc!sdd.hp.com!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!usenet.ucs.indiana.edu!silver.ucs.indiana.edu!wakeland
From: [e-mail] (ray s wakeland)
Subject: Speaker vent placement question
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (USENET News System)
Nntp-Posting-Host: silver.ucs.indiana.edu
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 20:20:12 GMT
Lines: 28

Recently someone asked how the placement of a speaker port affected its
performance.  Dick Pierce wrote that the placement of the port has little
effect, and also that it is a bad idea to put the port on the back of a
bookshelf speaker which will probably be put against a wall.  (I hope I got
that right!  I've seen what happens to people who mis-quote Pierce.)  I can
also see why a designer of a larger floor-standing speaker would put the
port in back.  For example, the drivers of my B&W DM640's cover most of the
front surface of the speaker, so it is probably just easier to put the port
in back.  This speaker is not meant to go near the wall.

I am mistified, however, by the Energy 22.3's.  These speakers have TWO
ports, one in front, below the woofers, and one in back in the center of the
speaker.  Why would they do this?

Another question:
About the same time, there was much bashing of piezo tweeters.  My last
speakers were a used pair of Dalquist DQ-10's, which I believe made quite a
splash in the mid 70's.  They were 5-way speakers, with a piezo tweeter at
the very top.  Why? (multiple choice)
a) Dalquist was foolish.
b) It was 1973, and the piezo was the best he could get.
c) Dalquist was an exceptional designer who managed to use the piezo tweeter
effectively dispite its drawbacks.
d) Other

Thanks,
Ray Wakeland
[e-mail]