|
Post by adamjbrass on Jun 11, 2018 15:19:17 GMT -6
Wondering why you would even waste time listening to someone stating common knowledge as their own made up facts. Two very different "reasons". if you can call them that - #1, entertainment value, #2, sometimes he can be quite intrusive. And another - I have this "thing" about people intentionally spreading bad information. Id rather punch my dick in the dark...........
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Jun 11, 2018 15:20:44 GMT -6
Two very different "reasons". if you can call them that - #1, entertainment value, #2, sometimes he can be quite intrusive. And another - I have this "thing" about people intentionally spreading bad information. Id rather punch my dick in the dark........... HAH! And boy, you're fast.....
|
|
ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 15,015
|
Post by ericn on Jun 11, 2018 18:44:56 GMT -6
Two very different "reasons". if you can call them that - #1, entertainment value, #2, sometimes he can be quite intrusive. And another - I have this "thing" about people intentionally spreading bad information. Id rather punch my dick in the dark........... I once completely sarcastically thanked Ethan for his old article that pushed 1/3 oct EQ’s for room correction that convinced a client this would be the silver bullet for all his room problems. This was after he started Realtraps, he was not a happy man !
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 12, 2018 1:25:24 GMT -6
Has anyone read his book? Is it a waste of time/money/paper? I remember the big fights over at the WOMB forum, a decade or so back, there was a lot of great popcorn action to be had.
My last dealings with Ethan were via FB sometimes last year, I can't remember exactly what happened now, except that I said something sensible, and was promptly jumped upon by a million of his fawning sycophants and had to block him. Controversy, BS and misinformation seem to follow that guy around like a bad smell.
|
|
|
Post by jazznoise on Jun 12, 2018 3:26:44 GMT -6
The issue to me is that speaker decoupling is for the room and not the surface, so a low mass table isn't actually so bad. It's a sturdy table that allows the low frequency energy to disperse into the floor and from there into the walls and ceiling that's problematic. Poor speaker isolation is about exacerbating room modes and distortion of the stereo image, not just frequency coloration.
|
|
|
Post by mcirish on Jun 12, 2018 10:51:44 GMT -6
Upon further testing, which is kind of never-ending, I do understand and believe in the validity of isolating the speakers from the room, via decoupling with heavy stands and/or foam. My point was that in some cases, the foam is not dense enough (for heavier speakers) to hold the cabinet from moving ever so slightly with the excursion of the woofer. I think this has a possibility of blurring the low-end response. I have no hard data to back it up, but that's a feeling i get about it. Having the speaker coupled to the floor and thus the room is a bad idea. I think that (possibly) foam with a solid and heavy top might be the best option to keep the speaker solidly connected yet acoustically decoupled. I'm fairly happy with my results so far but I'm always a sucker for experimentation in the hopes of gaining clarity while mixing.
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Jun 12, 2018 11:08:24 GMT -6
Has anyone read his book? Is it a waste of time/money/paper? I remember the big fights over at the WOMB forum, a decade or so back, there was a lot of great popcorn action to be had. My last dealings with Ethan were via FB sometimes last year, I can't remember exactly what happened now, except that I said something sensible, and was promptly jumped upon by a million of his fawning sycophants and had to block him. Controversy, BS and misinformation seem to follow that guy around like a bad smell. I have one of his "Total Asshole" awards on my refrigerator, coming from that "controversy" To this day he can't understand why I consider faking test results to be a major no-no.
Were you around for the initial thread at GS that started it all?
Funny things, I still get an email from him every so often pushing one thing or another.
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Jun 12, 2018 11:12:20 GMT -6
The issue to me is that speaker decoupling is for the room and not the surface, so a low mass table isn't actually so bad. It's a sturdy table that allows the low frequency energy to disperse into the floor and from there into the walls and ceiling that's problematic. Poor speaker isolation is about exacerbating room modes and distortion of the stereo image, not just frequency coloration. There's also the question of something absorbing energy vs allowing the speaker to project it into the room as intended.
|
|
ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 15,015
|
Post by ericn on Jun 12, 2018 13:09:41 GMT -6
Upon further testing, which is kind of never-ending, I do understand and believe in the validity of isolating the speakers from the room, via decoupling with heavy stands and/or foam. My point was that in some cases, the foam is not dense enough (for heavier speakers) to hold the cabinet from moving ever so slightly with the excursion of the woofer. I think this has a possibility of blurring the low-end response. I have no hard data to back it up, but that's a feeling i get about it. Having the speaker coupled to the floor and thus the room is a bad idea. I think that (possibly) foam with a solid and heavy top might be the best option to keep the speaker solidly connected yet acoustically decoupled. I'm fairly happy with my results so far but I'm always a sucker for experimentation in the hopes of gaining clarity while mixing. It’s not really as much about the room as sympathetic vibrations of surfaces coupled to the speakers. A desk is not just a desk it is in many cases the desk top, legs, computer, monitor, keyboard, mouse, rack gear ect on the desk. Each of these has its own resonance frequency that the cabinet can excite. The idea of decoupling is isolate it via some type of elastimer, the concept of mass loading is couple it to a mass so heavy your not going to have enough energy to excite it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 12, 2018 13:41:28 GMT -6
Has anyone read his book? Is it a waste of time/money/paper? I remember the big fights over at the WOMB forum, a decade or so back, there was a lot of great popcorn action to be had. My last dealings with Ethan were via FB sometimes last year, I can't remember exactly what happened now, except that I said something sensible, and was promptly jumped upon by a million of his fawning sycophants and had to block him. Controversy, BS and misinformation seem to follow that guy around like a bad smell. I have one of his "Total Asshole" awards on my refrigerator, coming from that "controversy" To this day he can't understand why I consider faking test results to be a major no-no.
Were you around for the initial thread at GS that started it all?
Funny things, I still get an email from him every so often pushing one thing or another.
Possibly, although possibly just before my time there. Is the post still there? What kicked it all off? Sorry for the OT Ethan bashing...
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Jun 12, 2018 13:45:22 GMT -6
Upon further testing, which is kind of never-ending, I do understand and believe in the validity of isolating the speakers from the room, via decoupling with heavy stands and/or foam. My point was that in some cases, the foam is not dense enough (for heavier speakers) to hold the cabinet from moving ever so slightly with the excursion of the woofer. I think this has a possibility of blurring the low-end response. I have no hard data to back it up, but that's a feeling i get about it. Having the speaker coupled to the floor and thus the room is a bad idea. I think that (possibly) foam with a solid and heavy top might be the best option to keep the speaker solidly connected yet acoustically decoupled. I'm fairly happy with my results so far but I'm always a sucker for experimentation in the hopes of gaining clarity while mixing. It’s not really as much about the room as sympathetic vibrations of surfaces coupled to the speakers. A desk is not just a desk it is in many cases the desk top, legs, computer, monitor, keyboard, mouse, rack gear ect on the desk. Each of these has its own resonance frequency that the cabinet can excite. The idea of decoupling is isolate it via some type of elastimer, the concept of mass loading is couple it to a mass so heavy your not going to have enough energy to excite it. The difference is that the elastomer absorbs the energy, mass loading does not. So did the designer of the speaker intend for energy to be absorbed, or did he intend that all the speaker's energy to be projected into the room? Does the elastomer absorb all frequencies in equal proportion? It's pretty obvious that the mass not absorbs energy equally, if you get what I'm getting at....
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Jun 12, 2018 13:50:08 GMT -6
I have one of his "Total Asshole" awards on my refrigerator, coming from that "controversy" To this day he can't understand why I consider faking test results to be a major no-no.
Were you around for the initial thread at GS that started it all?
Funny things, I still get an email from him every so often pushing one thing or another.
Possibly, although possibly just before my time there. Is the post still there? What kicked it all off? Sorry for the OT Ethan bashing... No, the entire thread mysteriously vanished. Not locked, vanished overnight. A lot of people were rather upset about the way it was handled. IIRC, Mixerman retrieved a web archive of it, but with The Womb gone I don't know if it's accessible anywhere now, or if it's also been purged from the archive. If you're interested in the details, PM me and I'll tell you as much as I remember.
It involved Ethan's claims that Soundblaster converters produced results indistinuishable from high end professional converters.
|
|
ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 15,015
|
Post by ericn on Jun 12, 2018 14:15:38 GMT -6
It’s not really as much about the room as sympathetic vibrations of surfaces coupled to the speakers. A desk is not just a desk it is in many cases the desk top, legs, computer, monitor, keyboard, mouse, rack gear ect on the desk. Each of these has its own resonance frequency that the cabinet can excite. The idea of decoupling is isolate it via some type of elastimer, the concept of mass loading is couple it to a mass so heavy your not going to have enough energy to excite it. The difference is that the elastomer absorbs the energy, mass loading does not. So did the designer of the speaker intend for energy to be absorbed, or did he intend that all the speaker's energy to be projected into the room? Does the elastomer absorb all frequencies in equal proportion? It's pretty obvious that the mass not absorbs energy equally, if you get what I'm getting at.... Last time I talked to my elastomer expert there wasn’t anything compact that would cover the audio bandwidth but it’s been a while. Many have combined different elastomers but that , in ways that were way above my head , brings it’s own set of problems. Honestly I don’t think most near field monitors were designed with the current desktop studio in mind and that’s one of the reason we need products like this. Of course most manufacturers do know how to build a speaker that minimizes these problems it’s just the market wouldn’t like the size price or weight!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 13, 2018 2:08:11 GMT -6
Possibly, although possibly just before my time there. Is the post still there? What kicked it all off? Sorry for the OT Ethan bashing... No, the entire thread mysteriously vanished. Not locked, vanished overnight. A lot of people were rather upset about the way it was handled. IIRC, Mixerman retrieved a web archive of it, but with The Womb gone I don't know if it's accessible anywhere now, or if it's also been purged from the archive. If you're interested in the details, PM me and I'll tell you as much as I remember.
It involved Ethan's claims that Soundblaster converters produced results indistinuishable from high end professional converters.
Cheers, yeah I remember all that John. But I didn't know The WOMB had gone. :0
|
|
|
Post by thehightenor on Jun 13, 2018 2:31:27 GMT -6
I have tried everything of the years.
I currently feel I've wasted £500 on a beautiful looking pair of Towersonics adjustable height speaker stands to for K&H 0300's.
The very best I've heard my monitors sound was, 100% no question in my mind, when I once built solid brick piers and tied them into to a very solid thick brick wall.
The movement was 0.000% - the speaker platform was beyond solid there was no possible movement of even 0.00000000000001 of an inch in any direction.
When I put my monitors on those brick pier stands the bass clarity and response was incredible - the high were so clear without any smearing.
In my current room this type of set up isn't possible - so I have some very expensive stands full of sand - but there's too much lateral movement possible for them to perform properly - they look pretty but really they were a waste of money.
For me IME - isolation and decoupling never did anything for me - it's about putting the speakers on something that has literally 0% possibility of moving when your speaker cones start moving - you want 100% of the speaker movement to be turned into waves without any possibility the the cone moving in an action and reaction fashion.
Speakers need to be tied to the ground via 8 foot foundations imho :-)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 13, 2018 3:52:06 GMT -6
I love my Towersonic stands.
|
|
|
Post by thehightenor on Jun 13, 2018 3:59:22 GMT -6
I love my Towersonic stands. I do too - they look great - and they are height adjustable. Plus when I ordered mine from KMR in the UK they asked what speakers I was using and they made a custom plate to exactly fir my K&H 0300's. But and it's a big "BUT" they guy who makes them comes from an engineering world not an audio world, and he went into making speaker stands to diversify his engineering business. Fair enough, very sensible. My stands are very well engineered except for the fact he has used a steel tube which is fixed to the huge foot plate and custom speaker top plate via a single bolt on each end. This makes for a very springy system that is able to very minutely sway in reaction to the cone of my speakers moving. My 0300's look fantastic on my Towersonic stands but I have to admit (even though the stands cost me £500) that it is not the best my 0300's have ever sounded. From my perspective my Towersonics are beautifully made and it's great to have height adjustment - but the system as a whole is not stable enough even when full of very dense sand - my pair of Towersonics stands to my mind have a fundamental design flaw. My much cheaper Ultimate Support speaker stands were actually much more stable in terms of lateral movement. Really I should of sent my Towersonics back, but the height adjustment was great and those huge triangular foot plates looked so cool I decided to keep them :-)
|
|
ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 15,015
|
Post by ericn on Jun 13, 2018 7:00:04 GMT -6
I love my Towersonic stands. I do too - they look great - and they are height adjustable. Plus when I ordered mine from KMR in the UK they asked what speakers I was using and they made a custom plate to exactly fir my K&H 0300's. But and it's a big "BUT" they guy who makes them comes from an engineering world not an audio world, and he went into making speaker stands to diversify his engineering business. Fair enough, very sensible. My stands are very well engineered except for the fact he has used a steel tube which is fixed to the huge foot plate and custom speaker top plate via a single bolt on each end. This makes for a very springy system that is able to very minutely sway in reaction to the cone of my speakers moving. My 0300's look fantastic on my Towersonic stands but I have to admit (even though the stands cost me £500) that it is not the best my 0300's have ever sounded. From my perspective my Towersonics are beautifully made and it's great to have height adjustment - but the system as a whole is not stable enough even when full of very dense sand - my pair of Towersonics stands to my mind have a fundamental design flaw. My much cheaper Ultimate Support speaker stands were actually much more stable in terms of lateral movement. Really I should of sent my Towersonics back, but the height adjustment was great and those huge triangular foot plates looked so cool I decided to keep them :-) Man O300 on a single steel tube that’s adjustable? Yeah that’s going act like a spring unless that pillar is 12in x 12in and sand filled! Sound Anchors at least knows what a large cabinet needs to support it properly and makes no apologies about the inconvenience of shipping them! There is another way and I have considered designing a version of the monitor design we have been playing with like this. 25 years ago when in my teens we built what we called the “ Big Heavy’s” these were a floor standing JBL 15, plus 2in 0n a fiber glass horn but picture this they stood first on an integrated 10in box constructed of 2. Layers of 19mm ply filled with sand, the well braced cabinet was constructed of 2 layers of 19mm ply with a cavity of 19mm with little hockey puck sized spacers randomly placed in the cavity for support and filled with sand. The top cabinet contains the horn that had already been dampened by spraying a polymer on the back had an integrated support system for the driver and the rest of the cavity filled with sand! They weighed a ton and I probably spent more on caulk then I did on drivers on those speakers but talk about a pair of speakers that didn’t move. They lived in my mothers basement for 20 years and between them was a custom turntable stand built with 4 hollow sand filed legs with 2x12 beams bracing the legs together and a top of 8in of solid granite bolted to the legs ( ever drilled through 6 in of granite 😁)? Oh to have the time physical strength of youth as well as a lumber yard and Wausau Granite and their discard yard within 3/4 mile of your childhood home. See I have been nuts about this stuff my entire life !
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Jun 13, 2018 11:16:14 GMT -6
I have tried everything of the years. I currently feel I've wasted £500 on a beautiful looking pair of Towersonics adjustable height speaker stands to for K&H 0300's. The very best I've heard my monitors sound was, 100% no question in my mind, when I once built solid brick piers and tied them into to a very solid thick brick wall. The movement was 0.000% - the speaker platform was beyond solid there was no possible movement of even 0.00000000000001 of an inch in any direction. When I put my monitors on those brick pier stands the bass clarity and response was incredible - the high were so clear without any smearing. In my current room this type of set up isn't possible - so I have some very expensive stands full of sand - but there's too much lateral movement possible for them to perform properly - they look pretty but really they were a waste of money. For me IME - isolation and decoupling never did anything for me - it's about putting the speakers on something that has literally 0% possibility of moving when your speaker cones start moving - you want 100% of the speaker movement to be turned into waves without any possibility the the cone moving in an action and reaction fashion. Speakers need to be tied to the ground via 8 foot foundations imho :-) As long as you're not in a place where the ground moves, yes....
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 13, 2018 13:19:07 GMT -6
I still love them. Gotta go on personal experience. My ATCs have never sounded better.
|
|
|
Post by donr on Jun 13, 2018 15:02:14 GMT -6
I bought the Primacoustic rubber covered steel plate and foam after hearing a demo at NAMM. Identical Mackie monitors, one on the pad and one not on the pad. Not a subtle difference. I use 'em still.
|
|
|
Post by matt@IAA on Jun 13, 2018 17:26:52 GMT -6
It’s not really as much about the room as sympathetic vibrations of surfaces coupled to the speakers. A desk is not just a desk it is in many cases the desk top, legs, computer, monitor, keyboard, mouse, rack gear ect on the desk. Each of these has its own resonance frequency that the cabinet can excite. The idea of decoupling is isolate it via some type of elastimer, the concept of mass loading is couple it to a mass so heavy your not going to have enough energy to excite it. The difference is that the elastomer absorbs the energy, mass loading does not. So did the designer of the speaker intend for energy to be absorbed, or did he intend that all the speaker's energy to be projected into the room? Does the elastomer absorb all frequencies in equal proportion? It's pretty obvious that the mass not absorbs energy equally, if you get what I'm getting at.... Hm what? *Puts on nerdy mechanical engineer hat* Any base under anything can be modeled as a spring-damper system under a suspended mass. In the case of a speaker you have a forcing function (the frequency of the sound being produced) acting on the mass (the speaker). The structure of the speaker cab, and the structure underneath the speaker, have stiffness and damping. Deflection (i.e., vibration) always absorbs energy, because you have to put energy into the system to make it move. Good ole Hooke's law, F=kx. Damping is what causes the spring oscillation to decay, it is turning the kinetic energy of the spring's motion into heat and dissipating it. When you talk about modal analysis, everything has sympathetic natural frequencies - infinite numbers of them. Higher order frequencies are more complex mode shapes (have more stationary parts). Just like a guitar string, the higher pinch harmonics have more stationary points on the string than the 12th fret 1st harmonic. It's increasingly difficult to excite the higher and more complex modes, so you generally focus on lower mode shapes. The thing to remember is a mode shape has to have a corresponding exciting force, as well as the force acting in the appropriate direction to excite the sympathetic mode. Again with the guitar, you hold the guitar perpendicular to the speaker, it makes the string vibrate. Move to the 12th fret, it'll vibrate more vigorously (1st mode excitation). Point the neck of the guitar at the speaker, no harmonic excitation - wrong direction for the mode shape. So what eric is saying makes sense to me, by decoupling the speaker from the base it is on you will no longer transmit sympathetic vibrations to the support structure by flanking - they'll only be excited by whatever goes through the air. But there's no guarantee that just because your table has a mode that is excited by 100 Hz vibrations that you'll excite that mode through the flanking speaker vibration. If you put a big ole whopping mass under it, you are decreasing the natural frequency of the support structure (natural frequency is the root of stiffness over mass). You're also making it bigger and therefore requiring more energy to excite. However, you can also do this by decreasing the stiffness of the spring...which would be the pad. Making the spring twice as mushy is the same as making the structure twice as heavy, with regard to natural frequency. But decreasing stiffness doesn't pay the dividends of mass. Anyway... long story short... I can understand why approach may works, and I can see how it may be dependent on the problem which one "works better", but both most definitely dissipate the same amount of energy through the base. They have to: whatever force is being put into the air by the cone is being reacted in the cab and through the support structure under the cab.
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Jun 14, 2018 0:07:10 GMT -6
The difference is that the elastomer absorbs the energy, mass loading does not. So did the designer of the speaker intend for energy to be absorbed, or did he intend that all the speaker's energy to be projected into the room? Does the elastomer absorb all frequencies in equal proportion? It's pretty obvious that the mass not absorbs energy equally, if you get what I'm getting at.... Hm what? *Puts on nerdy mechanical engineer hat* Any base under anything can be modeled as a spring-damper system under a suspended mass. In the case of a speaker you have a forcing function (the frequency of the sound being produced) acting on the mass (the speaker). The structure of the speaker cab, and the structure underneath the speaker, have stiffness and damping. Deflection (i.e., vibration) always absorbs energy, because you have to put energy into the system to make it move. Good ole Hooke's law, F=kx. Damping is what causes the spring oscillation to decay, it is turning the kinetic energy of the spring's motion into heat and dissipating it. When you talk about modal analysis, everything has sympathetic natural frequencies - infinite numbers of them. Higher order frequencies are more complex mode shapes (have more stationary parts). Just like a guitar string, the higher pinch harmonics have more stationary points on the string than the 12th fret 1st harmonic. It's increasingly difficult to excite the higher and more complex modes, so you generally focus on lower mode shapes. The thing to remember is a mode shape has to have a corresponding exciting force, as well as the force acting in the appropriate direction to excite the sympathetic mode. Again with the guitar, you hold the guitar perpendicular to the speaker, it makes the string vibrate. Move to the 12th fret, it'll vibrate more vigorously (1st mode excitation). Point the neck of the guitar at the speaker, no harmonic excitation - wrong direction for the mode shape. So what eric is saying makes sense to me, by decoupling the speaker from the base it is on you will no longer transmit sympathetic vibrations to the support structure by flanking - they'll only be excited by whatever goes through the air. But there's no guarantee that just because your table has a mode that is excited by 100 Hz vibrations that you'll excite that mode through the flanking speaker vibration. If you put a big ole whopping mass under it, you are decreasing the natural frequency of the support structure (natural frequency is the root of stiffness over mass). You're also making it bigger and therefore requiring more energy to excite. However, you can also do this by decreasing the stiffness of the spring...which would be the pad. Making the spring twice as mushy is the same as making the structure twice as heavy, with regard to natural frequency. But decreasing stiffness doesn't pay the dividends of mass. Anyway... long story short... I can understand why approach may works, and I can see how it may be dependent on the problem which one "works better", but both most definitely dissipate the same amount of energy through the base. They have to: whatever force is being put into the air by the cone is being reacted in the cab and through the support structure under the cab. No, it's not.
It's not because the mushy "spring" absorbs energy and the large, solid mass absorbs nothing - the resonant frequency has been driven so low it's zero.
There's also the fact that, unlike a real spring, the elastomer is not going to absorb all frequencies equally. Perhaps in a theoretically perfect world it might, but here's some news for you - the world ain't theoreticall;y perfect. This is a place where a lo9t of people making mathematical "models" of things totally blow it - they make the erroneous assumption that thing are theoretically, modewlably perfect and the real world just doesn't behave that way. Then people create things based on the assumption that the simplifications are the way things actually work.
|
|
|
Post by matt@IAA on Jun 14, 2018 7:34:18 GMT -6
Perhaps you could draw the free body diagram for yourself? The force imparted by the cone to the air to make the sound is reacted to the speaker frame, into the cab. The cab doesn't fly away, so that force is reacted on the base of the cab. We can model the base as having a rigid connection to the floor (which is practically true but not necessarily so in reality, because if you're on a board-on-joist floor or something the floor can resonate, too). That base has a stiffness and damping matrix in three dimensions (x,y,z - imagine a piece of plywood, which will have radically different stiffnesses between its three dimensions, but more or less the same damping). So, the force imparted by the cone is reacted down through the base and ultimately to the rigid floor. A static load (like you leaning on the speaker) will cause a static deflection of the whole structure - think like a diver standing on the edge of a springboard but not jumping, only sideways. A dynamic load, like playing a test tone or music, will cause an oscillating deflection of the whole structure. Everything moves, nothing is truly rigid, even if it is for all intents and purposes rigid. But deflection and load are not the same thing. I promise you, the mushy spring and the large solid mass react the exact same force. They have to, because otherwise the speaker would move. The stiffness of the foam pad may have a frequency component to it - I don't know. I am not familiar with this kind of behavior, but I'm not an expert in the field by any means. The structure below the cab - every structure - has a resonant natural frequency. We can practically decouple these by introducing very weak springs between structures that effectively isolate the structures from each other's oscillations or stiffness matrices. In electronic circuit design this is not unlike a buffer amplifier. In turbomachinery this is the purpose of a coupling - a spring of sufficiently low lateral stiffness to isolate lateral motion between rotors / bodies (while maintaining torsional coupling). These are not theories, this is fact. I can't help you with you theory and perfection hangup. As the young engineers that I train will tell you, I often say "all models are wrong; some are useful". But that is what engineers do - create useful models. We don't create useful models based on a diminished understanding of the underlying principles. And when results aren't as anticipated - when we made a bad model - we understand what is causing the observed results to improve our model. In this case, though, we're talking about a fairly simple structural design problem, compared to something like a hydrodynamic bearing or the modal response of a large steam turbine blade up to 8 kHz. I have to get back to my ivory tower now.
|
|
|
Post by matt@IAA on Jun 14, 2018 8:10:54 GMT -6
Also - I’m sure the damping characteristics of these soft supports is part of their utility as well. Has nothing to do with stiffness at that point and can be very unintuitive in application.
|
|