At the moment i'm using a vulcan with the Cube Neo speaker. I heve the impression that the front panel is adding output in the 150 - 300Hz region.
i have 2 questions
Would love to hear your thoughts
i have 2 questions
- Could this be solved by adding a thin panel with constraint layer damping?
- Is the Vulcan a good case or is there a better option?
Would love to hear your thoughts
At what point did you build Vulcan?
After a build here showed baffle resonance, we added a brace to the design to deal with that.
dave
After a build here showed baffle resonance, we added a brace to the design to deal with that.
dave
If you remove the driver, is there a brace splitting the first sections running up to the top and down to the bottom?
dave
dave
An original build.
You will need to somehow stiffen the baffle.
We did this after the fact by drilling a series of holes in the front baffle and inserting a “peg” that reaches thru the baffle to give an after-the-fact” internal (composite) brace. Used a constrasting wood and it turned out to add visual appeal to the baffle.
You could also add a brace externally, but while it works on the back of the box (ref Fostex factory horn) it is likely not aestheticaly pleasing, but i guess something OK could be fasioned.
So a 2nd full size baffle to stiffen up the existing baffle. I don’t think constrained layer would really help.
dave
You will need to somehow stiffen the baffle.
We did this after the fact by drilling a series of holes in the front baffle and inserting a “peg” that reaches thru the baffle to give an after-the-fact” internal (composite) brace. Used a constrasting wood and it turned out to add visual appeal to the baffle.
You could also add a brace externally, but while it works on the back of the box (ref Fostex factory horn) it is likely not aestheticaly pleasing, but i guess something OK could be fasioned.
So a 2nd full size baffle to stiffen up the existing baffle. I don’t think constrained layer would really help.
dave
Did testing with constraint layer damping and observed a very fast decay in vibration as the layer absorbs the energy.
When stiffning the frontpanel the vibration energy is transposed to higher frequency’s
Would it be benificiat to ues both?
When stiffning the frontpanel the vibration energy is transposed to higher frequency’s
Would it be benificiat to ues both?
The 2 approaches counter each other.
The stiffness increases by the cube of the thickness.
With 1 thickness you have (2 x thickness)^3 versus 2 x thickness^3 so the solid construction (theoretically rasies the resonance 4x higher than the constrained layer, which (theoretically) will have more damping.
Given that the air cavity acts as a low pass filter, moving the resonance up high enuff so that it is never excited makes most sense to me.
dave
The stiffness increases by the cube of the thickness.
With 1 thickness you have (2 x thickness)^3 versus 2 x thickness^3 so the solid construction (theoretically rasies the resonance 4x higher than the constrained layer, which (theoretically) will have more damping.
Given that the air cavity acts as a low pass filter, moving the resonance up high enuff so that it is never excited makes most sense to me.
dave
Thanks Dave! You got a point there. So in my view the front panel damping makes the most sense. Be it by brace or other means. Will post the findings
Marcel
Marcel
Well, it helps damp any existing vibrations, but stiffening is preferable IMO (yeah, realize I'm 'preaching to the choir' here 😉, but there seems to be a lot of newbies since the forum upgrade.
FWIW, added panel(s) need only be ~70% of area and if beveled at least 45 deg (90 deg included) can make for a more room/furniture /SAF friendly 'look' without any audible penalty.
Dave,
Would you know the length of the pegs requires to just connect the frontpanel with the underlaying panel? What was the diameter of the pegs used and what distance between the pegs?
--Marcel
Would you know the length of the pegs requires to just connect the frontpanel with the underlaying panel? What was the diameter of the pegs used and what distance between the pegs?
--Marcel
Hi all,
Been a while, and a couple of updates since my last post regarding fe206 in Kirishima.
Built some class A stereo (in mono mode) dual amp Camp Amps.
Was ok, but did not have the punch I thought they might deliver to the 206's
Slowly putting together components for my Nelson Pass M2 clone (25W into 8ohm)
Also been looking at tweaks to the speakers, and one possibly upgrade is to integrate a super tweeter.
Check out the options and simplest and workable solution is the fostex ft17h supertweeters.
I picked up a pair of fostex ft17h from fleabay.
Dave did post an option around mounting the tweeter in the box, see image attached in post.
Just wondering if any one has done this yet, and what was the results?
Cheers, S.
Been a while, and a couple of updates since my last post regarding fe206 in Kirishima.
Built some class A stereo (in mono mode) dual amp Camp Amps.
Was ok, but did not have the punch I thought they might deliver to the 206's
Slowly putting together components for my Nelson Pass M2 clone (25W into 8ohm)
Also been looking at tweaks to the speakers, and one possibly upgrade is to integrate a super tweeter.
Check out the options and simplest and workable solution is the fostex ft17h supertweeters.
I picked up a pair of fostex ft17h from fleabay.
Dave did post an option around mounting the tweeter in the box, see image attached in post.
Just wondering if any one has done this yet, and what was the results?
Cheers, S.