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
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
Yeah, it's expensive, especially given the relatively small size, and the photos at Madisound product page looks like a damaged diaphragm, you'd think they'd grab a good one for the beauty shots at least.
MD60N-6 measurements are going to be extremely interesting. Congratulations to Yevgeniy as it looks like many manufacturers start to recognise him as one of the best driver reviewers out there.
Agree on both counts. I'm considering the MD60N-6 as a mid in my next build, if the distortion is low enough. I'd really like to see SB do a textreme MD60. I also really hope Purifi comes out with a dedicated midrange.
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".
