Leather does have some viscoelastic properties, so sitting between the driver mounting flange and the top aluminum layer, it literally behaves like another constrained layer, so in the grand scheme of things, the driver flange can be included, at least in this case, as another constraining layer.
https://leicester.figshare.com/arti...d_viscoelastic_properties_of_leather/10167332
https://leicester.figshare.com/arti...d_viscoelastic_properties_of_leather/10167332
Last edited:
Hi,
I think its important to compare with a normal baffle.
I have no doubt that your specific baffle are better in performance than a normal,
but the question is, how much better ?
Better distorsion ? better CSD ? IMD ?
It could be very interesting to compare !
Nice job
I don't want this to come across as criticism. This design is obviously required a large effort.
Rather than constraining layers of panels I might dampen the driver in the direction of motor movement. Then wrap that structure with a simple enclosure.
How did you decide on those materials and combinations? Did you consider "completely" decoupling the driver?
Hi,
I think its important to compare with a normal baffle.
I have no doubt that your specific baffle are better in performance than a normal,
but the question is, how much better ?
Better distorsion ? better CSD ? IMD ?
It could be very interesting to compare !
Nice job
Yes, I agree that it is the only way to do a truly valid comparison, and I'm also very curious about this. I have to make a new mdf baffle to compare it to, which is not a big deal. I am fully willing to accept that it has no effect at all on nonlinear distortion, but If it does, it would be a completely unintended side effect. It is not something I set out to do when I made these baffles.
My old baffles can be used, but the have a hole cut for a 5.25" driver, so they would have to be modified to except the 4" driver. I'm thinking of filling the hole with bondo, and then recutting the hole in the correct size
Last edited:
This is why I asked if you'd measured without a baffle, is one really necessary for HD measurements?
It is a much simpler approach that is, in my humble opinion, totally valid. It's currently being used in all of Laurence Dickie's Vivid designs, and goes all the way back to the Nautilus. High compliance rubber gaskets on the front, and tension rods connected to the back of the magnet structure and then secured to the back of the speaker with another rubber gasket. This can be tightened from the back of the speaker to tune the amount of pressure put on these rubber bushings. Quite ingenious if you ask me.
As far as the approach I used goes, It was simply(Or not so simply)an attempt to create a "black hole" for mechanical vibrations that not only uses a multi layer cld scheme, but also takes advantage of mass(It weighs 6 times more than an mdf baffle of the same size. Is this approach more valid than the Vivid approach? I have absolutely no idea🙂
Last edited:
You are absolutely correct, but to really make a perfectly valid, side by side comparison, all else should be perfectly equal. Remember that the cabinets are also filled to the brim with high density acoustic felt(The acoustic "black hole" part of the overall project). Over sixty pieces per cabinet, and I'm not about to take those out. I'll never be able to figure out how to get them back in🙂
Last edited:
Looks like Magico M series use solid composite frame to mount drivers, then something blue stuff (soft?) and the outer contoured baffle gets sort of isolated from the real frame
M6 - Product Page — Magico Loudspeakers
De-coupling of the driver is difficult when it must get sealed as well! Remlab is using bolts - don't they transfer vibrations? I think that the most important thing is to get really tight match between the driver's frame and the baffle/box to prevent any extra resonances! Then just make other walls of the box solid and stiff as well and add stuffing - that's it!
Many people make the front baffle very thick, but then easily the motor is in a cavity and this will introduce new interferences!
Horio's Wavecor Ardent Build - Page 2
M6 - Product Page — Magico Loudspeakers
De-coupling of the driver is difficult when it must get sealed as well! Remlab is using bolts - don't they transfer vibrations? I think that the most important thing is to get really tight match between the driver's frame and the baffle/box to prevent any extra resonances! Then just make other walls of the box solid and stiff as well and add stuffing - that's it!
Many people make the front baffle very thick, but then easily the motor is in a cavity and this will introduce new interferences!
Horio's Wavecor Ardent Build - Page 2
Last edited:
Juhazi
The bolts are decoupled! I thought I mentioned that in the list! Not only did I mention it, but I showed it in an image! Please read and look before you attack! 🙂
The bolts are decoupled! I thought I mentioned that in the list! Not only did I mention it, but I showed it in an image! Please read and look before you attack! 🙂
Last edited:
Then magnet mounting can be a good compromise with no tight coupling between frame and baffle,
The idea that Hiperia brought up, comparing this baffle configuration to a normal baffle configuration, is the ultimate litmus test to tell whether the approach I used falls flat on it's face or not(The nonlinear distortion part). That is my next step. If it does work, I can then compare it to the conventional baffle with a simple decoupled driver(Sorbothane driver gasket on the front, with rubber washers on the back of the baffle)which may work just as well.
I just purchased these to listen to after I take the drivers out of the baffles for the test. Essentially it's the same driver, but with a poly cone and no phase plug. I always wanted to try these anyway, so..
https://www.parts-express.com/pedocs/specs/264-1070--tymphany-hds-p830870-spec-sheet.pdf
The ones I have now..
http://www.madisound.com/pdf/peerless/830881.pdf
Look at the measured response this guy got with the poly version I just purchased. Pretty amazing. He also did a distortion plot, so since it is an identical motor as mine, but on a conventional baffle, some direct comparison can be made to my baffle(Well, kind of. It's a different measurement system for one, and distance vs. amplitude would have to be identical. He doesnt say what that is. )
Solitaire – Peerless 830870 HDS 4″ Midrange with Morel MDT29 – AmpsLab
https://www.parts-express.com/pedocs/specs/264-1070--tymphany-hds-p830870-spec-sheet.pdf
The ones I have now..
http://www.madisound.com/pdf/peerless/830881.pdf
Look at the measured response this guy got with the poly version I just purchased. Pretty amazing. He also did a distortion plot, so since it is an identical motor as mine, but on a conventional baffle, some direct comparison can be made to my baffle(Well, kind of. It's a different measurement system for one, and distance vs. amplitude would have to be identical. He doesnt say what that is. )
Solitaire – Peerless 830870 HDS 4″ Midrange with Morel MDT29 – AmpsLab
Last edited:
yeah, -40 dB 2nd Harmonic from 50 Hz up past 4k is pretty good, but 2nd harmonic is very benign any way... Its the 3rd harmonic that is really cool.
If it does indeed turn out to be baffle related ( I think the probability of that is low, but you never know) ... if a simple MDF baffle results in higher HD, then this kind of finding deserves an AES paper... I think it would be a unique and new finding... yes? anyone ever hear of this kind of effect?
j.
If it does indeed turn out to be baffle related ( I think the probability of that is low, but you never know) ... if a simple MDF baffle results in higher HD, then this kind of finding deserves an AES paper... I think it would be a unique and new finding... yes? anyone ever hear of this kind of effect?
j.
