remove standing waves without damping - diyAudio
Go Back   Home > Forums > Loudspeakers > Multi-Way

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
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 26th May 2011, 10:05 AM   #1
el`Ol is offline el`Ol  Germany
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Bavarian Forest
Default remove standing waves without damping

Hello all!

I had a U-frame with a nasty 200 Hz peak and first searched for a heavy enough damping material for the side wings that is not detrimental to my lungs, but didn't find anything I could get in small quantities. I said to myself why not reflect instead absorb and strangely the first attempt worked. I wonder: Could such a tube also be an alternative to damping for large sealed enclosures?
And what other means do you know? Threadjacking allowed.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg CIMG7828.JPG (77.5 KB, 705 views)
File Type: jpg hx255.jpg (214.2 KB, 689 views)
File Type: jpg frei.jpg (214.5 KB, 666 views)
  Reply With Quote
Old 26th May 2011, 10:22 AM   #2
croat47 is offline croat47  United States
diyAudio Member
 
croat47's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Eastern Shore, Maryland
Why would the rest of the range shift from 90-95dB to 95-100dB? Could position have changed and resulted in shift in the 100-300 range as well?
__________________
Regards,
Aaron
  Reply With Quote
Old 26th May 2011, 10:50 AM   #3
diyAudio Member
 
speaker dave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: The Mountain, Framingham
I see quotes about this regularly on these threads. Without absorption the energy will still be there, although you can break up the reflections to the point were the frequency response effects are well distributed. Your lower resolution curves may not show it distinctly but the energy is still there. I guess this is analogous to adding diffusion to listening rooms rather than absorption. Each reflection is spread in angle and lowered in magnitude but not in total power.

Also not possible: rooms with shapes devoid of standing waves or cabinet panels with shapes without resonances.

By the way, fiberglass is itchy but it is not known to be carcinogenic. If you don't like it though, you can try different foam absorber material or felt or reprocessed wool.

David S.
  Reply With Quote
Old 26th May 2011, 11:09 AM   #4
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Switzerland
Quote:
Originally Posted by speaker dave View Post
you can try different foam absorber material or felt or reprocessed wool.
... or polyester batting. CARUSO GmbH in Germany even cuts it to customer specifications.
  Reply With Quote
Old 26th May 2011, 11:25 AM   #5
diyAudio Member
 
speaker dave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: The Mountain, Framingham
Except polyester batting doesn't absorb much sound. Certainly not the pillow stuffing material. I don't know why people keep filling speaker cabinets with it, or BAF wadding or Dacron fluff.

Nothing beats fiberglass for absorption vs. thickness.

David S.
  Reply With Quote
Old 26th May 2011, 12:16 PM   #6
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Hi el 'Ol,

Did you take a measurement/test with the tube around the other way, with the curve facing the back of the driver?
__________________
... jh
  Reply With Quote
Old 26th May 2011, 12:30 PM   #7
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Switzerland
Quote:
Originally Posted by speaker dave View Post
Except polyester batting doesn't absorb much sound. Certainly not the pillow stuffing material. I don't know why people keep filling speaker cabinets with it, or BAF wadding or Dacron fluff.

Nothing beats fiberglass for absorption vs. thickness.

David S.
I was talking about room treatment not speaker stuffing.

Polyester batting works just like any other porous absorber. It's not important what the porous absorber is made of, important is the flow resistivity.

To make a porous absorber work at low frequencies it has to be thick (porous absorption works only at sound velocity points). If the flow resistivity is too high then sound waves can't penetrate deep enough - the absorber becomes reflective and not much energy is dissipated.
A low flow resistivity allows a deeper penetration. Unfortunately absorption effectiveness is decreases at the same time.
So it's always a trade off between thickness, density and effectiveness at lower frequencies.

The pyramids commonly known from anechoic chambers are filled with very fluffy stuff.
  Reply With Quote
Old 26th May 2011, 12:38 PM   #8
el`Ol is offline el`Ol  Germany
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Bavarian Forest
Quote:
Originally Posted by croat47 View Post
Why would the rest of the range shift from 90-95dB to 95-100dB? Could position have changed and resulted in shift in the 100-300 range as well?
Measured on two days with two uncalibrated amps.
  Reply With Quote
Old 26th May 2011, 12:39 PM   #9
el`Ol is offline el`Ol  Germany
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Bavarian Forest
Quote:
Originally Posted by jameshillj View Post
Hi el 'Ol,

Did you take a measurement/test with the tube around the other way, with the curve facing the back of the driver?
Attached Images
File Type: jpg free180.jpg (217.4 KB, 608 views)
  Reply With Quote
Old 26th May 2011, 01:36 PM   #10
T101 is offline T101  Bulgaria
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Sofia-Bulgaria
My knowledge is that U and H frames do not experience standing waves. They do have a quarter wave resonance peak though. It is governed by the shortest way around the frame - multiply that distance by 4 and you get the resonance wavelength. 200 Hz is about 1.7 m wavelength, a quarter of that is 42.5 cm - does that lenght has something to do with your H frame? I think it is very probable. If you read MJK's site "quarter wave" you'll find many answers. The way I see things is that you somehow terminated the quarter wave resonance by putting a reflecting lens focused at the membrane. Another obvious circumstance is that you run your U frame at frequencies that are too high. As it can be learned from MJK's researches, the quarter wavelength resonance must be around an octave above the low pass point, thus combined raise from resonance and crossover slope result in a flat output and thus resulting in a acoustical crossover point that is about an octave higher than the electrical one. Either way the resonance is normal and is expected to be there and it is not a standing wave driven one. And again it should be outside the operating range. Best regards!
  Reply With Quote

Reply


Hide this!Advertise here!
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Minimising standing waves GerhardW Multi-Way 13 2nd September 2008 07:43 PM
Standing waves, anyone willing to experiment ? jay1st Multi-Way 4 10th February 2008 01:33 AM
Low resonance and standing waves? Audist Multi-Way 3 6th November 2005 03:29 AM
Standing waves again... Vikash Multi-Way 4 3rd June 2004 11:25 PM
Golden ratios and standing waves Vikash Multi-Way 36 27th September 2003 02:12 AM


New To Site? Need Help?

All times are GMT. The time now is 08:24 AM.


vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright 1999-2014 diyAudio

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2