|
Post by arnyk on Mar 16, 2018 20:23:36 GMT
Thanks, Arnyk. And thank you all for trying to answer my question (I know it's complicated to answer without specific information about the speakers I am talking about). However, the towers I am talking about (upwards from B&W 803D3) all have heavy slabs at their base, so doesn't that isolate their interaction with the floor? I was under the impression that the main concern is not the speaker–floor boundary but the effect of the vibrations caused by the bass woofers on the mid-frequency woofer. Otherwise, isn't this 'floor-interfacing' also a problem for subwoofers? Also, like with bookshelves, one can move tower speakers around to optimise their interaction with the room. However, the optimal location could be different for the mid/high frequencies and for the low frequencies – and that's why the flexibility of positioning the subwoofers is useful. Is that right? For my money, Ethan debunked decoupling. In that light, you could probably set your speakers on any massive slab in the event they're on the floor and your floor is shaking from bass. In my understanding about low frequencies and positioning, your mid and high frequencies are less dependent on source placement for frequency response but more dependent for imaging; the exception of boundary interference being mitigated by first-reflection treatment. So ya, if everything is in one box then you're more limited. My approach to debunking massive slabs and absorptive pads as vibration absorbers is to observe the obvious: that the vast majority of the energy that exits the confines of a speaker enclosure leaves as sound, not mechanical vibrations. Speakers are generally only a few percent efficient, but by design and measurement, the vast majority of the waste energy is heat.
|
|
|
Post by Hexspa on Mar 17, 2018 0:03:31 GMT
For my money, Ethan debunked decoupling. In that light, you could probably set your speakers on any massive slab in the event they're on the floor and your floor is shaking from bass. In my understanding about low frequencies and positioning, your mid and high frequencies are less dependent on source placement for frequency response but more dependent for imaging; the exception of boundary interference being mitigated by first-reflection treatment. So ya, if everything is in one box then you're more limited. My approach to debunking massive slabs and absorptive pads as vibration absorbers is to observe the obvious: that the vast majority of the energy that exits the confines of a speaker enclosure leaves as sound, not mechanical vibrations. Speakers are generally only a few percent efficient, but by design and measurement, the vast majority of the waste energy is heat. That's interesting. I was just thinking that, if he's cranking the low end and his floor shakes as a result, the speakers could conceivably shake too which seems like it would distort the waveform. Not afraid to admit I'm wrong, though.
|
|
|
Post by rock on Mar 17, 2018 14:25:37 GMT
From what I'm familiar with is that speaker enclosures should be designed to be dense and stiff enough not to rattle, resonate, vibrate etc. I imagine that they will vary in that regard but the idea being we want to hear the driver and not the enclosure. If that's the case, there should be nil vibrations to damp in the first place.
Besides trusting Arny's logic (which I agree is solid), we could just measure with and without slabs, pads etc. to see if we can find any difference in any parameter we choose. I imagine we'd want to look at freq resp and harmonic dist
Hey now, this would not be a good application for Ethan's new audio testing device?
|
|