I was thinking about speaker design during physics a couple of days ago (as normal😀) and I had an idea that I thought might give near open baffleness without all of the drawbacks. After thinking about it a bit more I realized that it was basically just an isobaric enclosure
Here it is:
Picture a sealed box..
Now somewhere on that box add a second woofer so its a dipole type speaker, with the speakers out of phase so that the enclosure pressure stays constant.
Now put a very small sealed box over that second woofer on the outside. (primarily to close off the backwave when I first thought of the idea)
Here's what I was trying to get:
Effectively I wanted near open baffle performance without the problem of phase cancelation from the backwave
Near constant enclosure pressure to minimize box colorations (flexing) and maximize transient response. I realize that because the second woofer would be fighting the compliance of the sealed portion behind it the volume between the woofers would not be at perfectly constant pressure, but very close.
What I was not trying to get:
A smaller enclosure size which is the aim of normal isobarics
Here's how its different from a traditional isobaric (kind of):
The volume between the woofers is very large compared to a 'normal' isobaric arrangement and the sealed box on the second woofer is small compared to it (though the second part is not necessarily true, just what I originally thought of). This was the air between the woofer would have a compliance much larger than a traditional isobaric and therefore the driver could move more freely.
Now of course similar to an isobaric it will be 3db less efficient
What do you guys think? Is this just a totally standard isobaric in a slightly different configurations that has absolutely no difference from it?
Here it is:
Picture a sealed box..
Now somewhere on that box add a second woofer so its a dipole type speaker, with the speakers out of phase so that the enclosure pressure stays constant.
Now put a very small sealed box over that second woofer on the outside. (primarily to close off the backwave when I first thought of the idea)
Here's what I was trying to get:
Effectively I wanted near open baffle performance without the problem of phase cancelation from the backwave
Near constant enclosure pressure to minimize box colorations (flexing) and maximize transient response. I realize that because the second woofer would be fighting the compliance of the sealed portion behind it the volume between the woofers would not be at perfectly constant pressure, but very close.
What I was not trying to get:
A smaller enclosure size which is the aim of normal isobarics
Here's how its different from a traditional isobaric (kind of):
The volume between the woofers is very large compared to a 'normal' isobaric arrangement and the sealed box on the second woofer is small compared to it (though the second part is not necessarily true, just what I originally thought of). This was the air between the woofer would have a compliance much larger than a traditional isobaric and therefore the driver could move more freely.
Now of course similar to an isobaric it will be 3db less efficient
What do you guys think? Is this just a totally standard isobaric in a slightly different configurations that has absolutely no difference from it?
I like isobarics, and I am building another at the moment, as I believe there are benefits beyond smaller box size.
I think the large volume between will mean the two speakers will not be moving as one, especially as the small volume at the back would raise the resonant frequency of the rear speaker. Coupling the two units with a small gap (face to face or face to back, remember to switch the phase to suit) would, I believe, give the best results. The bigger the gap between them, the lower the upper limit. I intend to xover at about 100Hz to the next driver.
I think the large volume between will mean the two speakers will not be moving as one, especially as the small volume at the back would raise the resonant frequency of the rear speaker. Coupling the two units with a small gap (face to face or face to back, remember to switch the phase to suit) would, I believe, give the best results. The bigger the gap between them, the lower the upper limit. I intend to xover at about 100Hz to the next driver.
I've been working on a similar idea, trying to put a full-range driver that normally requires a fairly large enclosure or open baffle into a small sealed enclosure by using an internal bass-only rear driver to "unload" the full-range driver. No good results so far.
With isobaric (2 identical) drivers, the pressure between the drivers is not zero - it is half that in the main enclosure behind the rear driver. You run into problems when the volume between the drivers becomes significant (or even larger than) the volume behind the "rear" driver. The tuning changes, and more significantly the driver excursions start to differ -the drivers no longer "move as one". You need to use AkAbak to simulate this properly.
With isobaric (2 identical) drivers, the pressure between the drivers is not zero - it is half that in the main enclosure behind the rear driver. You run into problems when the volume between the drivers becomes significant (or even larger than) the volume behind the "rear" driver. The tuning changes, and more significantly the driver excursions start to differ -the drivers no longer "move as one". You need to use AkAbak to simulate this properly.
Ok I can see how the drivers would not be together, if the speed of sound was much higher than this would be more viable for high frequencies.
What if you did the same thing I described but for two subwoofers. Then the distance would be much less of an issue and the drivers would be apparently in phase (ie pressure near zero w/out the rear sealed chamber).
Also the phase cancelation from the backwave is only really a problem at the low frequencies. Maybe a sub like that could be paired with an open baffle mid treble with similar spatial awesomeness.
What if you did the same thing I described but for two subwoofers. Then the distance would be much less of an issue and the drivers would be apparently in phase (ie pressure near zero w/out the rear sealed chamber).
Also the phase cancelation from the backwave is only really a problem at the low frequencies. Maybe a sub like that could be paired with an open baffle mid treble with similar spatial awesomeness.
The effect occurs at frequencies well below the resonances caused by the enclosures etc. In other words, you get the excursion problems at subwoofer frequencies.
I'll make you an offer: Pick a couple of drivers and provide their parameters, and provide some enclosure sizes. I'll build an AkAbak model and post the results.
Note that to provide a "near open baffle" environment for the front driver, the rear driver is going to have to either be driven harder or be larger in order to maintain close to zero pressure difference in the enclosure behind the front driver. Remember that in a true "isobaric" configuration, the rear driver only reduces the pressure behind the front driver to about half of what it would be for a single driver. Your setup, where the rear chamber is much smaller than the chamber between the drivers, will require the rear driver to be driven even harder.
I'll make you an offer: Pick a couple of drivers and provide their parameters, and provide some enclosure sizes. I'll build an AkAbak model and post the results.
Note that to provide a "near open baffle" environment for the front driver, the rear driver is going to have to either be driven harder or be larger in order to maintain close to zero pressure difference in the enclosure behind the front driver. Remember that in a true "isobaric" configuration, the rear driver only reduces the pressure behind the front driver to about half of what it would be for a single driver. Your setup, where the rear chamber is much smaller than the chamber between the drivers, will require the rear driver to be driven even harder.
Your assumption is that open-baffle speakers sound so good primarily because of 'truly infinite baffle' big-box characteristics. So why not just use enormous boxes to achieve the same goal and eliminate most of the undesirable characteristics? As it gets bigger and bigger, after some huge point of diminishing returns, you will have acheived about the same thing. On the other hand, some believe the back-wave is an integral asset of the open-baffle sound.
On the other hand, if the rear driver of a isobaric operates into an extremely small space, it will only operate at high frequencies.
For more normal isobarics:
If you really want the drivers to move together, try facing them toward each other and actually physically connecting them. There's several ways, with cardboard or cf tubes over the dust caps, or with careful construction of forms from tape you can fill the entire space between with lightweight expanding foam molded in-place. Or variations of the two, with a rolled paper tube anchored in each cone with some spray foam to glue it, or a spiralled paper "tube". Many variations possible. You could have a styrofoam plug made to the dual-cone shape to fit into opposed clamshelled cones, perhaps with varous voids to save weight, and glue it in with expanding foam. You could even leave the surround off of the inner (or outer) driver. There's more interesting possibilities if you are manufacturing the drivers. If you work with the kind of precision needed for interchangeable parts and field-repaceable diaphragms, you could manuafacture a foam "cone" (shaped like two cones) with a voice coil sitcking out either end, with a single surround and one or two spiders glued pre-centered onto a frame, to which two magnet assemblies would bolt. How about using just one paper cone, but two voice-coil/magnet "motors"...using a very long voice coil former and wind a coil on each end. There's construction complications, but nothing than can't be done. No problems hearing the back driver thru the cone of the front driver if you get rid of the back-driver's cone. What is cool about an isobaric is that you have two motors (a good thing), not that you have two cones (source of a lot of problems).
There's also interesting unexplored possibilities via various manifolds...making "isobariks" with small "front" drivers (capable of higher frequencies) mounted to the outer air, with a complex manifold to a single larger rear driver inside the box. If you design the manifolds carefully, you can balance volume of air between the drivers versus air velocity, and with care you might end up with an isobaric with very little air between the cones, and unexpected bandwidth, extending higher than usual for an isobaric.
Might even experiment with crossovers between the front and back drivers, and unmatched drivers.
There's also trisobarics etc. etc.
Plenty there to keep you thinking during that physics class, and all night after.
On the other hand, if the rear driver of a isobaric operates into an extremely small space, it will only operate at high frequencies.
For more normal isobarics:
If you really want the drivers to move together, try facing them toward each other and actually physically connecting them. There's several ways, with cardboard or cf tubes over the dust caps, or with careful construction of forms from tape you can fill the entire space between with lightweight expanding foam molded in-place. Or variations of the two, with a rolled paper tube anchored in each cone with some spray foam to glue it, or a spiralled paper "tube". Many variations possible. You could have a styrofoam plug made to the dual-cone shape to fit into opposed clamshelled cones, perhaps with varous voids to save weight, and glue it in with expanding foam. You could even leave the surround off of the inner (or outer) driver. There's more interesting possibilities if you are manufacturing the drivers. If you work with the kind of precision needed for interchangeable parts and field-repaceable diaphragms, you could manuafacture a foam "cone" (shaped like two cones) with a voice coil sitcking out either end, with a single surround and one or two spiders glued pre-centered onto a frame, to which two magnet assemblies would bolt. How about using just one paper cone, but two voice-coil/magnet "motors"...using a very long voice coil former and wind a coil on each end. There's construction complications, but nothing than can't be done. No problems hearing the back driver thru the cone of the front driver if you get rid of the back-driver's cone. What is cool about an isobaric is that you have two motors (a good thing), not that you have two cones (source of a lot of problems).
There's also interesting unexplored possibilities via various manifolds...making "isobariks" with small "front" drivers (capable of higher frequencies) mounted to the outer air, with a complex manifold to a single larger rear driver inside the box. If you design the manifolds carefully, you can balance volume of air between the drivers versus air velocity, and with care you might end up with an isobaric with very little air between the cones, and unexpected bandwidth, extending higher than usual for an isobaric.
Might even experiment with crossovers between the front and back drivers, and unmatched drivers.
There's also trisobarics etc. etc.
Plenty there to keep you thinking during that physics class, and all night after.
Last edited:
Just read this thread.
I have four Kef B139 bass drivers that I was considering bonding together, face to face as they would be perfect for this. Flat faced drivers and concave rubber surrounds, giving zero volume between the drivers. Not sure whether I want to potentially destroy their residual value by doing this though. It might be possible to bond them in a manner that they can be separated without damaging the polystyrene cones, but it would be tricky. I like the idea of doing this though, as any electrical and mechanical and magnetic differences between the drivers would be averaged together by bonding them. Measuring them as ‘one driver’ with two motors would be interesting.
I have four Kef B139 bass drivers that I was considering bonding together, face to face as they would be perfect for this. Flat faced drivers and concave rubber surrounds, giving zero volume between the drivers. Not sure whether I want to potentially destroy their residual value by doing this though. It might be possible to bond them in a manner that they can be separated without damaging the polystyrene cones, but it would be tricky. I like the idea of doing this though, as any electrical and mechanical and magnetic differences between the drivers would be averaged together by bonding them. Measuring them as ‘one driver’ with two motors would be interesting.
Maybe, but I reckon bonding them positively together will effectively create a single cone with a motor at each end. A layer of foam will still have some slack that will allow disparities between the drivers to have an effect. It depends on what sort of foam you mean though so it’s worth considering.
They have been sitting in a cupboard waiting for a project for some time.
They have been sitting in a cupboard waiting for a project for some time.
I'm not sure you can bond them and not bond them at the same time. 🙂 I'd we wary that trying to separate them could end up misaligning the voice coils, old B139's are prone to this problem.
This is what I am concerned about. I guess a thin sheet of polystyrene foam could be used and this could be cut through or maybe hot wired through as the original cones do have a foil layer covering that might protect them from heat damage.
Maybe it’s a permanent bond and be done with it though!
Maybe it’s a permanent bond and be done with it though!
Yes, why not? They're not that great a speaker by modern standards and they do have a flat front, just do it!
They do have a loyal following though and hence retain their value rather well considering their age.
A few thoughts as I understand them:
The box only has any effect around the roll off, so any "open" "speed" and all that subjective non-sense is independent of the box.
Dipoles are favored by some because of the back wave and how it works with the room. Might go over to the late Linkiwtz site and read what he had to say. Or maybe some of the sites that cater to electrostats. Some favor di-pole, some bi-pole.
Modern drivers can have much better linearity, so the reversed driver game second order cancelation of the '70's DIY fan club has pretty much gone away. Just not needed.
Isobarics should work similar to a sealed box, just smaller and a lot more expensive. As far as I can tell, the only ones on the market are subs. Again, in most cases one can pick different drivers to achieve a similar result in the same size. Special cases selecting a driver for other than bass as is mentioned above may still apply.
Any sub-tuning frequency excursion limit is easily handled by a HP filter.
The box only has any effect around the roll off, so any "open" "speed" and all that subjective non-sense is independent of the box.
Dipoles are favored by some because of the back wave and how it works with the room. Might go over to the late Linkiwtz site and read what he had to say. Or maybe some of the sites that cater to electrostats. Some favor di-pole, some bi-pole.
Modern drivers can have much better linearity, so the reversed driver game second order cancelation of the '70's DIY fan club has pretty much gone away. Just not needed.
Isobarics should work similar to a sealed box, just smaller and a lot more expensive. As far as I can tell, the only ones on the market are subs. Again, in most cases one can pick different drivers to achieve a similar result in the same size. Special cases selecting a driver for other than bass as is mentioned above may still apply.
Any sub-tuning frequency excursion limit is easily handled by a HP filter.
Because the method does not result in lower distortion. The B139 is a great driver, probably better in its class than most newer drivers. Don`t destroy it.
I really would prefer not to destroy any drivers if at all possible, so If I can figure out a way of doing what I propose without harming them then that’s what I’ll do. The thing is, if you ’were’ to use these isobarically to make a smaller box then any non-linearities between the drivers would be averaged between the drivers if they are mechanically coupled. This would surely reduce distortion. Also by having zero volume between the drivers you add negligible volume to the box size, unlike for instance with Linn Isobarik DMS
There seems to be differing opinions about how good these drivers are. Who is right?
There seems to be differing opinions about how good these drivers are. Who is right?
While doing this would mean a box 1/2 the size of a single driver (a forth the size of using the 2 drivers in the regular fashion). With the low xMax of the B139 getting as much Sd as possible.
It will work, but i would not permanently glue them together. A thin pieve of foam should work well, just to supress some HF resonances.
The modern B139 TLs here have been built and work well.
Transmission Line Speakers
I have a soft spot for these drivers having sold a zillion and used many. But you can get better bass drivers today. Some considerably better.
dave
It will work, but i would not permanently glue them together. A thin pieve of foam should work well, just to supress some HF resonances.
The modern B139 TLs here have been built and work well.
Transmission Line Speakers
I have a soft spot for these drivers having sold a zillion and used many. But you can get better bass drivers today. Some considerably better.
dave