Once again, I appreciate all the supportive input I've received over the past couple of years, and especially appreciated is the patient tolerances of Mr. Wayne Parham. Goodbye, and thanks for all the fish (obscure reference)!!

-Michael (Cuppa Joe)

I have followed a few of your threads in interest. But, I know almost nothing about speaker building, ask Wayne, he knows me.

But, one thing I do know is, that you cannot let others influence your efforts to build speakers and enjoying it.

We are all a work in progress, there is not a sole who does not learn something every day, even the experts.

So, hang in there, don't give up your passion. Your efforts will pay off eventually, for yourself and others.

Norris Wilson

If you think you're right, fuck 'em.

When I started telling people that the fibers in a TL don't move, everybody rained on my idea. Since the early 70's the JAES articles all said the fibers move. Almost everybody said I was a quack and the forum "experts" ridiculed me and my MathCad worksheet approach to transmission line speaker design. Times have changed.

You never know unless you try and most forum "experts" are anything but,

Martin

Frankly, I wasn't expecting any outpouring of support, maybe just a few farewells; I was taken by surprise! However, the mechanical drawings are already in the dumpster at my place of employment, and are irretrievable. I don't plan to recreate them.

The real problem is that I lack the cohesive formal education and the discipline of experience to discern whether one expert's application of fact & principle is more correct than another's. Attempting to navigate the sea of expert opinion is a frustrating kind of confusion to the serious amateur, so I've chosen to get out of the water.

Thanks anyway, Guys!
-Michael

If your ideas are unworkable, then it will show up in the speaker when you build it. That's what everyone faces when they build a new speaker design from a new concept. If it works, that proves the concept. If it doesn't, then that may prove the concept to be unviable, but even then, it may also just mean that some adjustments are in order.

I think I know at least one of the "talking heads" you're referring to. He is a bit of a blowhard, and yet people look up to him. I've measured his designs. They suck. I can't believe people would accept their performance level, completely unacceptable in my opinion. Even compared with other low-cost DIY speakers, his products fare poorly.

So if someone like that critiqued your ideas unfavorably, that says nothing. It's like having a guy that is sure the world is flat beat you up about your idea that it is round. There are lots of guys like that in audio, so keep your chin up and stop throwing away your designs unless you've tested them and found them to be unsatisfactory. Don't let some quacks beat you down.

Might I humbly suggest that, at least in audio, to try and fail is better than to have never tried at all (ignoring for the moment the effect on your piggy bank). I learn more from my failures than from my successes - my failures tell me what I need to pay attention to next time.

The creative urge within might not be so easily dismissed - you now have a clean slate before you. How long before you sketch something out on it??

If you have access to a public library, you might want to spend a few evenings there looking through old issues of the Journal of the Audio Engineering Society. Back in the 50's and 60's and 70's, they were researching fundamental questions, such as "what really matters most in loudspeaker design?"

The enormous variety in speaker design today reveals that the answer to that question still hasn't been pinned down. Maybe you'll be the one to see the forest without being distracted by the trees.

Duke

I recognize the names responding to your latest post and they don't seem to think your idea is out of line.

Don't Panic.

Grant

Some websites aren't that way, and they're really cool. But the bad websites are just terrible. You can identify them by the way regulars treat newbies or "outsiders". They bully them, talk like they have superior intellect, and aften point to their alpha male as having the "ultimate authority" or some such crap. It's like guys in a little gang.

Good websites, on the other hand, are also easy to identify. They have regulars that are helpful and welcoming. Those websites are the most useful, and the most fun.

Trouble is, there is a sort of emotional obsession that draws you back into a sick website. Once you're attacked, you feel a need to set things right, to explain yourself. So people can get caught in that like a spider's web. It's a sick cycle, but it's easy to get stuck in it for a while. You always think there's a need to explain yourself, so you keep going back.

The bad sites are those that are run by a guy that is a technical hack pushing garbage or a attention-seeking egomaniac that thrives on driving internet traffic to his website at any personal or ethical cost. Nothing to offer but pseudo-science and insults backed by a host of sockpuppets and shills. The best thing you can do is to stay away from a site like that. Otherwise, you can get really hurt and I think that's what Cuppa Joe is trying to say has happened to him.