Template:Did you know nominations/Linn Isobarik

Linn Isobarik

 * ... that the Linn Isobarik loudspeaker (pictured) is named after the isobaric loudspeaker?
 * Reviewed: Vinohrady Cemetery

Created by Ohconfucius (talk). Self nominated at 08:10, 29 November 2013 (UTC).


 * Symbol confirmed.svg Article long enough, count at 8490 characters. Article has also been expanded 5x. Good to go. EhthicallyYours! 13:32, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Symbol question.svg I can't see where the hook fact is cited in the article. It's mentioned in the lead but there is no citation and the citation further down doesn't appear to mention the hook fact. Doesn't look good to go to me. --Bcp67 (talk) 15:07, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

OK, I haven't touched anything. Please note that paragraph 3 of the 'History' section about the name derivation is cited to [1], in which Ivor Tiefenbrun said (section 2:DOWN TO DC): "So I began to design a speaker that would go down to DC and have no fundamental bass resonance. And that is how our Isobarik (constant pressure) system came along." Further down, the article says: "The principal benefit of the isobaric (or Isobarik) principle is that by doubling the moving (two cones and two coils), doubling the motor strength, and doubling the stiffness (two surrounds, spiders) we can produce the same low frequency extension from half the cabinet volume compared to a non-isobaric system employing the same driver type. Ivor's patent doesn't cover the isobaric loading principle (originally proposed by Harry Olson in the 1950s). Instead it covers an arrangement whereby the two drivers used in the isobaric system both point towards the front, one behind the other. In Olson's proposal the drivers were installed either face-to-face or back-to-back." Let me know if that isn't enough. --  Ohc  ¡digame! 15:39, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I think at this point I'll have to admit my lack of knowledge of loudspeakers and look to another more experienced reviewer to say if this does match with the hook - apologies. --Bcp67 (talk) 16:24, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Trouble is, it's kind of recursively defined and the connection would seems pretty obvious. The link between the words isn't broken by the "k" (which Linn are known to like) replacing the "hard-c", and there are few reviews still around these days that make that direct connection. I do so because I want to maximise the "interest" of the hook. --  Ohc  ¡digame! 01:50, 30 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I've added an image. The author has given me permission. --  Ohc  ¡digame! 04:42, 3 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Needs new reviewer to check both the hook fact/sourcing and whether the image can be used for DYK. Also, since the original review only mentions size and age, all the other usual DYK requirements—neutrality, sourcing, close paraphrasing, etc.—should be checked as well. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:12, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Size (more than) OK, plentiful citations, hook sourcing seems fine (per my understanding of the above discussion and reading the source), no obvious NPOV issues. I've not checked all the sources, but didn't find any obvious close paraphrasing issues from the above source, so will assume good faith on this. The image is recorded as having OTRS permission for re-use, with  being passed for OTRS by Jcb on 15 Dec 2013. Additionally, this made an interesting read... which I found rather timely after spending a couple of hours last night investigating inconsistent sound on my Kef Coda 7s! -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 10:20, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks.  Ohc  ¡digame! 12:43, 15 January 2014 (UTC)