Isobaric for subs only? - 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 3rd December 2003, 11:19 PM   #1
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: santa rosa
Default Isobaric for subs only?

I was looking into buying some stryke audio sa071 7" drivers recently because they are pretty ******* cheap if you buy 8 or more, they are only 10 US bucks. I was gonna buy 8 and make 2 MTM speakers, with the 7" drivers in an isobaric config with a tubular enclosure connecting them magnet to magnet to act sort of like a bucking magnet, plus it should cancel out any magnetic irregularities caused by the position of the voice coil vs. magnet stuff. is this feasable? or is it only for subs? winisd told me that if i have 2 pairs of speakers in an isobaric config i could have an F3 of 29hz in a 2 cu ft box! which surprised me quite a bit. that would be awesome. i also trid to do calculations on fitting 4 drivers in a ported box and it was almost 8 cu ft for the same F3! of course i would have to account for the cylindrical enclosure for the sealed iso enclosure. Does anybody understand what i am talking about? I mean come on! $80 for 8 7" woven cone, apparently very nice drivers, its a steal!
  Reply With Quote
Old 3rd December 2003, 11:53 PM   #2
sreten is offline sreten  United Kingdom
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Brighton UK
Back to back you will waste enclosure volume that simply not
needed for Isobaric coupling.

I'd go for a 2.5 way with the lower bass units reversed for
distortion cancellation.

The basic principle of twin isobaric compared to a single unit is
you get the same bass response with half the enclosure volume
but this costs you halving the drive impedance.

with 4 units - isobarically paired - in series parallel - you get
the same impedance as one drive unit - the same bass response
in the same volume - but twice the bass power level and 6db
more sensitivity.

Obviously compared to 4 normally connected units the bass power
level is halved - and you need 4 times the enclosure volume.

/sreten.
  Reply With Quote
Old 4th December 2003, 05:27 AM   #3
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: santa rosa
I am not quite sure i understand that post.... i didn't understand this part.

"I'd go for a 2.5 way with the lower bass units reversed for
distortion cancellation."
  Reply With Quote
Old 4th December 2003, 09:47 AM   #4
7V is offline 7V  United Kingdom
diyAudio Member
 
7V's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: North London
I don't completely understand the design that you're talking about here but all the main isobaric points have been covered - half the volume (except for wastage in connecting the two drivers), -3dB efficiency, double the power handling.

Don't forget though that the isobaric layout will only work for the bass frequencies. If you go near the mids it will sound horrid.
  Reply With Quote
Old 4th December 2003, 12:00 PM   #5
sreten is offline sreten  United Kingdom
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Brighton UK
Quote:
Originally posted by speekergeek
I am not quite sure i understand that post.... i didn't understand this part.

"I'd go for a 2.5 way with the lower bass units reversed for
distortion cancellation."
Thinking about it not a helpful statement, sorry.

You are correct that 'magnet to magnet' will significantly reduce
the stray magnetic field. It will also tend to cancel distortion in
the bass units caused by assymetry in the magnetic field for the
voice coils.

Note that you don't need to link them by a tubular structure -
a simple box will be fine. If magnetic cancellation is not such a
concern the volume of this box can be reduced significantly
by offsetting the drivers such that they are next to each other.
If your speaker is vertically narrow the box becomes a sub-baffle.

Have to agree with 7V regarding the midrange having thought
it about some more - so a 3 way would be a much better choice
than a MTM (2 way) or TMM (2.5 way).

hope this is more helpful, /sreten.
  Reply With Quote
Old 4th December 2003, 05:20 PM   #6
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: santa rosa
thanks much for your help, i understand now. so isobaric is for subs only, muddies up the midrange and all the good stuff. THX!
  Reply With Quote
Old 4th December 2003, 06:36 PM   #7
RHosch is offline RHosch  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: SouthEast
Quote:
Originally posted by 7V
Don't forget though that the isobaric layout will only work for the bass frequencies. If you go near the mids it will sound horrid.
That's true only for face/face configurations. Isobaric mounting of magnet/face or magnet/magnet using a coupling cylinder shouldn't have any negative impacts on the mids, other than perhaps a pipe resonance in the coupling cylinder that could be in the desired bandwidth of the drivers. Magnet/magnet would offer the best assymetrical distortion cancelling properties, but would require a bit more volume in the cylinder than magnet/face.
  Reply With Quote
Old 4th December 2003, 07:15 PM   #8
sreten is offline sreten  United Kingdom
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Brighton UK
Isobaric bass midrange has been / is being done, but requires
a lot more care and thought than just using it for bass.

Its certainly a lot easier for the amateur just to use it for bass.

/sreten.
  Reply With Quote
Old 13th January 2004, 03:15 AM   #9
sardonx is offline sardonx  Canada
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Canada
I would say all that is partly true and partly untrue.

I'm going to do an isobaric mid/bass design and have given it some thought. Magnet/magnet config doesn't necesserally have to take up more room... in fact in some cases it takes up LESS room. This is the config i'd go with too. The reason being that when you're mounting magnet/face, if you go with the magnet 'into' or too close to the rear speaker, when the XmaX gets going... the rear cone might travel far enough to hit the front magnet. Which would lead me to distance the drivers ever further for safety reasons with a magnet/face config.

So not only is magnet/magnet configuration safer, it also cancels out magnetic irregularities and seems a better way to go. Of course i am just talking out of my *** cuz i don't have experience with isobaric, but i think everythign out to the last detail before i make it.

Oh and those of you who say that isobaric is only for sub applications... did you forget about the Totem Mani-2?
__________________
The End
  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
isobaric keyser Subwoofers 9 9th December 2010 01:35 AM
Isobaric, whatcha think? Clipped Car Audio 49 15th June 2009 08:10 AM
Convert floor standers to subs with Tang Band 8" subs? prerunnerv6 Subwoofers 3 26th February 2006 12:44 AM
isobaric 6.5" subs - newbie johsti Subwoofers 4 18th February 2006 04:17 PM
4x isobaric Jennice Subwoofers 42 17th May 2005 07:42 AM


New To Site? Need Help?

All times are GMT. The time now is 11:24 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