We all know isolating the speaker from the ground is better than coupling (spiking) them to the ground. Better LF definition and transients etc. (Sorry if I triggered someone with that statement). Anyhow, what about isolating drivers from eachother? If you have a multi way speaker, the driver playing the lower frequencies to the next will play that drivers fs, and then make the higher frequency driver essentially work as a tuned mass with a diaphragm, creating distortion. If the baffle is devided for each individual driver, and separated with Taica alpha gel, the baffle/enclosure borne vibrations will be redused by some 20 - 30 dB (-ish). Of course parameters like internal baffle material damping, distances and geometry will be of importance as well. I've seen Q acoustics and B&W with damped tweeter mounts, so I suppose the damping must have some quantifiable benefit. Have you tried/experienced it, or have any thoughts on the matter?
Mr Siegfried Linkwitz has done some research on this topic. You can find it here:
Issues in speaker design - 2
For most applications thick foam/grommets in combination with a very stiff enclosure will be sufficient.
Issues in speaker design - 2
For most applications thick foam/grommets in combination with a very stiff enclosure will be sufficient.
I thought most drivers were decoupled to a degree? There's usually some kind of flexible gasket and the recommendation is not to over-tighten the mounting screws.
No, there are probably some speakers with some viscoelastic gasket out there, but the driver should be tight in there to avoid air leaks and rattling. The "natural" decoupling is basically the internal damping of the baffle, basket and surround (which isn't much).
Several prior threads on this forum have discussed the decoupling of drivers.
See one prior thread on this forum, starting around Post #202 for "decoupling of driver frame attachment" methods. Andrew Jones (associated with KEF, Pioneer TAD, Elac) posts in this thread at Posts #113 and #264.
how to brace a speaker cabinet?
Andrew Jones white paper on decoupling:
http://www.linkwitzlab.com/Driver Decoupling.doc
See one prior thread on this forum, starting around Post #202 for "decoupling of driver frame attachment" methods. Andrew Jones (associated with KEF, Pioneer TAD, Elac) posts in this thread at Posts #113 and #264.
how to brace a speaker cabinet?
Andrew Jones white paper on decoupling:
http://www.linkwitzlab.com/Driver Decoupling.doc
Last edited:
Isolating both drivers makes a big difference, do a search for " biab ". Much more clarity but less warmth.
Isn't that the point of the flexible gasket? I'm not sure the driver should be screwed back tight, there'd be a small chance of distorting the chassis.
That is exactly why we want a baffle that's thick, dense, and damped, do reduce those distortions. Because the screws will be in contact between the driver and the enclosure regardless of gasket or no gasket, vibrations will be transmitted through the screws and into the enclosure.
Sorry my fault, I didn't find it when searching threads. However, I'm in particular thinking about decoupling the individual enclosures/baffles, as to make drivers not interfere with each other.
Do a search of this website or go to page 10 of multiway and look for box in a box, I'm afraid I don't know how to do links.
did not audio physics do this for tweeters as well in the early days? i believe step and virgo used this, glued to sorbothane, and their home brewed coaxial driver with the tweeter suspended with rubber bands in front of the midrange driver
Simply copy and paste the url 🙂
Box in a box speaker
I read you thread. I found your internal enclosures very interesting. The full range tweeter with the rear wall angles and the "v" in the middle. Have you found that kind of "trap geometry" to be beneficial? And also, the woofer, why are the walls shaped like a butterfly, and aperiodic vents so small and plenty full?
Might be. Those were the only I was aware of. It's seems like a good investment for cleaner transients. Apparently tweeters excite enclosures/baffles more than one might assume considering their size and mms.
Yea that's true, gasket in the front with special grommets that separates the shaft and head/nut from the enclosure... One hell of a system though. Not sure where you'd get hold of that. I think 3M has something called E.A.R that is in the ballpark for such applications.
I've had problems with reflections from the rear in other speakers, but I used the tweeter boxes on they're own full range and they sounded surprisingly good, I can only presume that some of that is to do with the V trap. The butterfly shape is so the radiating wave from the woofer doesn't just bounce back but is diffused. The aperiodic vents are just a guess, but work really well.
Have you used them? Don't know how neoprene fairs against more visco elastic rubbers.
^ about what parameters ( what do you want to achieve)?
I've used neoprene as part of architectural decoupling of walls on a studio build.
They were some pads located between floor and the walls fundation* ( plasterboard cld in dual leaf configuration for noise immunity). In fact the whole wall is decoupled thanks to it.
Works wonderful.
* and between ceiling and wall. Ceiling was floating too. In facts all walls were decoupled ( including floor).
I've used neoprene as part of architectural decoupling of walls on a studio build.
They were some pads located between floor and the walls fundation* ( plasterboard cld in dual leaf configuration for noise immunity). In fact the whole wall is decoupled thanks to it.
Works wonderful.
* and between ceiling and wall. Ceiling was floating too. In facts all walls were decoupled ( including floor).
Last edited: