|
|||||||
| Home | Forums | Rules | Articles | Store | Gallery | Blogs | Register | Donations | FAQ | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read | Search |
| Multi-Way Conventional loudspeakers with crossovers |
  |
|
|
|
Please consider donating to help us continue to serve you.
Ads on/off / Custom Title / More PMs / More album space / Advanced printing & mass image saving |
 |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
8th June 2010, 08:45 PM
|
#1 |
|
diyAudio Member
Join Date: Jun 2010
|
Driver compliance vs Chamber size
Heres a good one. Someone may know the answer to this, i'm hoping.
Could you make a rear chamber smaller of FLH by decreasing the stiffness of the suspension? Why is this not done regularily, (efficiency?) ? To me the rear chamber on a FLH just acts as extra stiffness to the suspension anyway (acoustic suspension), or is there more to it than that?  To me efficiency shouldn't be affected according to this as it does not affect any of those parameters, I think? Maybe the LABhorn is an example of this, as it uses drivers with fairly high compliance in small rear chambers... ? |
|
|
| Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| 6th Order Bandpass Subwoofer (rear & front chamber size?) | nickthevoice | Subwoofers | 12 | 8th February 2008 10:01 PM |
| what size box will be best for this driver ? | zuki | Multi-Way | 9 | 5th April 2007 02:22 PM |
| Driver Size Thoughts | theNoid | Multi-Way | 9 | 11th September 2005 04:05 PM |
| Compression Chamber Size | mrlots2do | Full Range | 29 | 17th August 2005 06:02 PM |
| Best chamber size for Jordan JX125 / JX150 | kubi | Multi-Way | 16 | 16th May 2005 11:11 AM |
| New To Site? | Need Help? |
| Page generated in 0.08442 seconds (56.88% PHP - 43.12% MySQL) with 10 queries |
