Compound , Iso-Barik - diyAudio
Go Back   Home > Forums > Loudspeakers > Subwoofers

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 20th July 2007, 12:09 AM   #1
Lindell is offline Lindell  Sweden
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Planet Earth
Question Compound , Iso-Barik

Just to continue the other "Push-Pull" thread.



I've read up on the "compound & Iso Barik" theory's. And I understand the deal. What I'm uncertain of is the calculation of the total compound box. Do you calculate the combined volume of the two boxes? Or just the one behind the second woofer?

See my drawing below:

Click the image to open in full size.


Thanks!
  Reply With Quote
Old 20th July 2007, 05:42 AM   #2
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Göteborg
Fig 2 is the right one.

The chamber between the drivers should be as small as possible.
__________________
We live in a horizontal world, why use vertical topologies???
  Reply With Quote
Old 20th July 2007, 11:38 AM   #3
BHTX is offline BHTX  United States
diyAudio Member
 
BHTX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Quote:
Originally posted by Circlomanen
The chamber between the drivers should be as small as possible.
Yep, and the face-to-face 'clamshell' method is usually ideal, rather than back to back.
  Reply With Quote
Old 21st July 2007, 01:23 PM   #4
diyAudio Member
 
Brisso57's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: the leafy west of Brisbane
Quote:
Originally posted by BHTX


Yep, and the face-to-face 'clamshell' method is usually ideal, rather than back to back.
??? I don't understand. Why wouldn't you fit them in-line, and facing the same way?
That way the volume could be minimised, with the "tail" of the first in the second's "face"? ... taking care that the excursion never exceeded the gap.

Perhaps the cabinetry is trickier, but you would also have the front side of a driver exposed externally. Surely that's better than a rear? (The sound waves not striking the frame.)

Doug
__________________
A speaker-builder's parable: "That burned down, fell over, then sank into the swamp. But the fourth one stayed up. And that's what you're going to get, Lad, the strongest castle of all."
  Reply With Quote
Old 21st July 2007, 02:58 PM   #5
tade is offline tade  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Ralieigh nc
Send a message via AIM to tade
At those frequencies, there is not "striking" of the soundwaves, they just kind of come out. so definitely cone to cone it a good way. Plus, its seldom you see a subwoofer with the motor on the outside. I really would have liked to have done that with my dayton RS 12" woofers. They have nice motors!
  Reply With Quote
Old 21st July 2007, 09:49 PM   #6
diyAudio Member
 
Brisso57's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: the leafy west of Brisbane
Quote:
Originally posted by tade
<snip> Plus, its seldom you see a subwoofer with the motor on the outside. <snip>
That's because of the dreaded WAF, mostly! javascript:smilie('')

Doug
__________________
A speaker-builder's parable: "That burned down, fell over, then sank into the swamp. But the fourth one stayed up. And that's what you're going to get, Lad, the strongest castle of all."
  Reply With Quote
Old 21st July 2007, 10:11 PM   #7
Did it Himself
diyAudio Member
 
richie00boy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Gloucestershire, England, UK
Putting them both the same way loses the benefits of push-pull.
__________________
www.readresearch.co.uk my website for UK diy audio people - designs, PCBs, kits and more.
  Reply With Quote
Old 22nd July 2007, 11:00 AM   #8
BHTX is offline BHTX  United States
diyAudio Member
 
BHTX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Well first of all, even though the performance of both of the drivers motors will likely stick closer together, (since they're in the same exact cooling environments), you must also realize that you now have two large sources of heat dissipation stuck right up against each other, and in the same ridiculously small enclosure. Of course, this has the potential to reduce the thermal handling of the two woofers. And on top of that, remember that heat is not only detrimental to the motor, but also to the entire woofer, including the cone! Heat expands. Why would we want warm air trapped between the backs of both drivers? Besides the whole thing regarding both magnets being together in such a small box, I just don't think it's a good idea.

Second, and perhaps even more importantly, you generally want the space for coupling between the two drivers to be as small as possible, since this air between the two woofers adds to the moving mass of the system, and thus results in less than optimal coupling between them. Since your goal is for the two subwoofers to act as one driver, adding a springy mass of air in between the two of them compromises that goal. It'll also have the tendancy to make predictions of the response and modeling of the system more difficult and inaccurate. Using the back-to-back method of isobaric loading shown in the above diagrams, this volume of air between the two drivers will be a bit larger, versus the face-to-face clamshell method. With that said, this method shown above is even worse in that respect, as far as the amount of air between the two drivers, than the piggy-back tunnel loading method, although this method of loading (piggy-back) also won't provide the benefits of cancelling out driver non-linearities.

As a side note, an easy way to think of it is.. as long as both drivers are face-to-face or back-to-back, you'll receive the major benefits of greatly reduced enclosure size from isobaric loading.

Third...with the volume of the coupling chamber being increased even more than the other inferior methods, the total volume of the isobaric enclosure is obviously approching that of a single conventional subwoofer with one of the same drivers. With that said, you're now getting close to losing a major advantage of isobaric loading.

Quote:
Originally posted by richie00boy
Putting them both the same way loses the benefits of push-pull.
Both the same way? I assume you're referring to the instance of a 'regular' push-pull configuration (not isobaric), where both drivers are mounted conventionally, but with one driver facing the opposite direction, wired out of phase. However, both face-to-face and back-to-back loading arragements causes cancellation of driver non-linearities, cancellation of odd order harmonics, and requires half the enclosure volume than a single driver. Any other push-pull method may give you the first two benefits, but the reduction of required box volume won't exist, as the two woofers aren't physically coupled together.

The main disadvantage to isobaric loading is a fairly significant reduction of 3dB in efficiency per pair of woofers, versus a single one of those woofers. For example, say you have 4 subwoofers, each rated at 87dB/watt. You take those 4 woofers, and put them in two isobaric pairs. Theoretically, efficiency for the combined 4 woofers will still be 87dB with 1 watt applied to each woofer. However, since power handling has also quadrupled, due to using 4 woofers rather than 1, the situation regarding the loss of efficiency can also be seen as being 'evened out' by this large increase of overall power handling of the system.

So, basically, when deciding to go with an isobaric configuration, you're accepting to pay for double the cost of woofers, amplifier power, and possibly having to deal with the disadvantages of having to have at least double the power supply on hand for the massive increase in required amplifier power... all for the main advantage of reducing Vas, and hopefully receiving the other side benefits previously mentioned above.

For most, it's probably not worth it in a home environment. I'd usually prefer a conventional push-pull design, versus isobaric push-pull...unless my enclosure is just insanely huge, or if I want the smallest enclosure possible, or want to attempt impressing less knowledgable and informed individuals with the best low freq extension to enclosure size ratio.

Honestly, I'm still not too clear on the whole reduction of distortion thing with push-pull configurations. I hear and read different claims from different companies and manufacturers, and different opinions and statements from different people. With all that, I just can't get a good grasp on it. I'm currently interested in trying it out myself though.

By the way, I didn't type all of the above solely because I felt someone here needed the information, but so that someone in the future who's attempting to obtain information on the subject might come across it. I didn't search the forum though for info on it yet. I'm guessing there's probably not THAT much out there though. Facts seem to be too cluttered with personal opinions, as well as false statements.

If I myself am misunderstanding anything regarding this subject and have provided false information as a result, please let me know, as I'd very much like to be corrected.

~ Brandin
  Reply With Quote
Old 22nd July 2007, 12:15 PM   #9
Lindell is offline Lindell  Sweden
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Planet Earth
Thanks Brandin,

I guess it all depends on the driver and what you want to achieve with it. And the physical size of it.
Like for an example getting the maximum bass out of a small woofer like 5" or 6" in the smallest possible enclosure. Normally takes a large vented box, but with iso-barik with a "small" woofer makes for half the size.

Since I'm in the recording business we like to play loud. So more bass woofers the better......in a small size.....

What about putting a tube between the woofers to reduce air?Same size as the baffel cut out?

/L
  Reply With Quote
Old 22nd July 2007, 02:33 PM   #10
Did it Himself
diyAudio Member
 
richie00boy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Gloucestershire, England, UK
No I was referring to Brisso57's comment about putting them in 'train carriage' formation.
__________________
www.readresearch.co.uk my website for UK diy audio people - designs, PCBs, kits and more.
  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
Iso-barik? thatotherguy Subwoofers 5 17th July 2008 04:00 AM
DCX2496 – compound XOs? otto88 Digital Line Level 4 28th March 2008 01:44 PM
Hartley compound sub rdr Subwoofers 3 2nd October 2006 02:04 AM
iso-barik sub odysseybmx414 Subwoofers 3 13th March 2006 08:01 PM
iso-barik subwoofer busterno1 Subwoofers 0 9th September 2003 08:41 AM


New To Site? Need Help?

All times are GMT. The time now is 06:55 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