Cabinet construction is layers of 12mm mdf from back to front (not top to bottom as many hifi designs) with about 12mm aluminium plates front and back. All under compression by lots of bolts all the way through. The idea is that under the compression, the cabinet can't resonante much.
That said, constructing tha cabinets in layers front to back and it being a narrow cabinet, the MDF sides are actually pretty thick and unlikely to resonate much anyway. With the chambers for the vortex bits, it's double walled too in parts.
That said, constructing tha cabinets in layers front to back and it being a narrow cabinet, the MDF sides are actually pretty thick and unlikely to resonate much anyway. With the chambers for the vortex bits, it's double walled too in parts.
so i guess trying to replicate the manifold i saw in the patent out of "foamcore" is likely a bad idea...
would be nice to have a diy means to replicate the vortex channel... anybody with a 3D printer...
would be nice to have a diy means to replicate the vortex channel... anybody with a 3D printer...
A basic cone, dome driver is a point source direct radiator, so until the driver is covered up in some way to impede axial radiation, it's a [sealed, vented] direct radiating cabinet.
GM
Sorry for my ignorance of the terminology but I still don't understand what is being said. 🙁
Why is the cabinet automatically considered to be radiating if it is the driver that is radiating? If I mount a driver into the side of a mountain, is the mountain still considered to be a direct radiator too even though it is not moving whatsoever because of it's mass and inertia? Or am I getting the wrong end of the stick?
Why does covering up the driver in some way then change the terminology of the cabinet and not the terminology of the driver? if the driver is covered, won't this make the driver in-direct but do nothing to change what the cabinet is doing.
I guess overall I don't get the terminology relating to the cabinet to be determined by the driver and seemingly the design of the cabinet not being taken into account . If a cabinet is designed so that it doesn't radiate, perhaps because it is so massive, for example, or some other technology can it still be called a radiating cabinet, direct or otherwise?
I couldn't tell if the original mention of the terminology was a technical one or an opinion based on no knowledge of the one in question - why I'm asking.
Why is the cabinet automatically considered to be radiating if it is the driver that is radiating? If I mount a driver into the side of a mountain, is the mountain still considered to be a direct radiator too even though it is not moving whatsoever because of it's mass and inertia? Or am I getting the wrong end of the stick?
Why does covering up the driver in some way then change the terminology of the cabinet and not the terminology of the driver? if the driver is covered, won't this make the driver in-direct but do nothing to change what the cabinet is doing.
I guess overall I don't get the terminology relating to the cabinet to be determined by the driver and seemingly the design of the cabinet not being taken into account . If a cabinet is designed so that it doesn't radiate, perhaps because it is so massive, for example, or some other technology can it still be called a radiating cabinet, direct or otherwise?
I couldn't tell if the original mention of the terminology was a technical one or an opinion based on no knowledge of the one in question - why I'm asking.
I don't reckon it's a bad idea necessarily. the idea would be to create a freer movement of the cone, more like an open baffle but whilst still keeping the infinite baffle element.
The video and the dispersion is all about the cabinet construction which, yeah, is a where foamcore would get crushed to practically the paper on each side!
The 3D printed vortex channels for their circular speakers, the Zero, could be made using grooves and some flexible plastic slotted into them? Once the shape is made, you could apply something to make the curves more solid and stop air going where it shouldn't, fill between with foam or resin?
You could make a jig, that holds the material in the shape whilst you apply more layers of something that then makes those curves more solid and mountable in your cabinet design.
regardless of material choice the big question is sizing. i would think that chamber and aperture sizes are what determine the effect. without knowing whether it's a broad or narrow filter effect or if it's a combination it hard to choose where to start in a reverse engineering attempt.
yeah... my problem too.
In terms of the Zero where there are mulitple vortex chambers all around (the complex one to copy), you can try to estimate dimensions from the images on their promo video in comparison to the driver used. It's a Beymer driver so you can work out frequency range.
Ask away.
"Direct-radiating cabinets" is more of a PA-system-related term, where one or more of the cones in the cabinet are directly exposed to the outside world. For example, I'd say the traditional 12" two-way cabinet is a direct-radiating one since the 12" driver (which will usually cover 80Hz-2kHz) is open to the world. The high-frequency driver is usually horn-loaded, though.
Anything loaded by a horn/port/slot wouldn't be counted as a direct-radiator.
Chris
I see ! Sorry for the confusion. I've come across many that are not other than a tweeter, many line arrays I've helped install - so now fully know what you mean. "cabinet" meantioned in the terminology because it dictates where the drivers are, not because IT is radiating anything... (that was my confusion).
Yes, these are direct-radiating cabinets. Flare did or does also make non-direct-radiating cabinets and have seen them about, like at Building 6 at the O2 arena.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.