Nah - the energy in the box has to go somewhere. It leaks out however it can. Even a heavy woofer is leakier than a typical cabinet wall.
I did some tests where I put a sound source inside a speaker box.
Sound leaked through the woofers (far more than through the cabinet) no matter what I did, including loading plates + weight onto the speaker cones.
post 127:
Measuring sound output from speaker cabinet walls
Would the classic KEF B139 oval polystyrene foam filled "cone/piston" fair better for less sound transmission though the cone? And the surround also has a fair amount of area for transmission.
https://us.kef.com/pub/media/pdf/Datasheet_B139B_SP1044.pdf
KEF B139 SP1044 REPLACEMENT. FALCON B139 8 ohm. MADE IN UK.
KEF B139 SP1044 fs 43Hz?
We are getting off topic of the thread, but it is and interesting subject.
Last edited:
Member
Joined 2003
No SB AMT? I am outraged!
Madisound now has the AMT. Holy expensive, these are more Beyma and Mundorf competitors. I was hoping for something around $100 that would bring AC AST2560 performance to the masses (and would have lower extension like the 2560 did originally).
Looks very similar to the (hopefully) forthcoming Mundorf AMT U series, specifically the U60 against which it will need to compete:
Air Motion Transformer U.Series | Mundorf EB GmbH
A $100 original 2560 would, in fact, be amazing but is perhaps too much to ask. I'd be happy with just getting the original 2560 back for its current price. I wonder if it would be possible to restore some of the original performance by putting it in a waveguide. What I'd really like to see is a front and back waveguide for using the 2560 dipole.
Air Motion Transformer U.Series | Mundorf EB GmbH
A $100 original 2560 would, in fact, be amazing but is perhaps too much to ask. I'd be happy with just getting the original 2560 back for its current price. I wonder if it would be possible to restore some of the original performance by putting it in a waveguide. What I'd really like to see is a front and back waveguide for using the 2560 dipole.
Member
Joined 2003
Member
Joined 2003
I want to know why SB intentionally put a poor chamber on that MD60 midrange. A small straight tube with inadequate damping, you can see the rear wave reflection at 700Hz in both the frequency response and represented in the impedance as well. A sudden cliff in the response by 5dB is usually not wanted by anyone, yet it's advertised as a feature "Tuned closed-end transmission line chamber".
