Tweak - can you speak to why you chose iron (magnetic) rather than stone (more innert)?
- ...
- 13526 posts total
Tom Thiel The metal and its shape is more reactive to vibration. In this case the reactive material will dissipate the vibrational energy because of the bearing motion. The steel bearing can also be another barrier to RFI penetration along with any other metal barrier that may already exist around the conductor. Back to the whole shear velocity thing. In this case you don't want even smaller more densely packed particles that have very slow velocities because they could or will over damp the copper or silver wire. As I wrote earlier with the same material and shape the smallest material that could be more densely packed did not sound as good as it's larger brother of the same shape which is less densely packed. Any single material boundary can swamp and overwhelm the sound of another material and its boundary.. From the International Atomic Energy Agency below. I found this years ago and forgot and found it again recently. I want to post this on other threads as it will describe how particle waves react with each other and their material boundaries. https://www.ndt.net/forum/files/ut--.pdf Look to pages 38 to 41 or so. What is described is how and what we hear and how different materials and shapes sound the way they do. I want to thank a lady Debbie Miles, a seismologist for 40 years, she has greatly influenced my venture into how materials and shapes interact and their influence on what we hear.. Tom |
Is there a known replacement for the 2.2 8" woofer? Are any still available? There is a pair of 2.2's for sale locally at a ridiculous price with one woofer likely blown. Alternately - is rebuilding the woofer an option? I won't be giving up my 3.5's but at the price offered I'm thinking of getting them for a relative or friend - or just to have around for fun |
- 13526 posts total