Live data from Hacker News

Classic components could be replaced by rubber in next-gen loudspeakers

polytechnique-insights.com

51–60 of 86 posts

Re: Classic components could be replaced by rubber in next-gen loudspeakers

#51

> Current loudspeakers use a magnet coupled with the movement of a copper coil to vibrate a membrane. In the future these heavy, bulky, and expensive components could be replaced by a dielectric elastomer membrane. They mention efficiency, but not power. I don't like how this is framed as the general future of all speakers when it's really just the future of midrange drivers.

Heavy speakers is a plus when moving low frequencies. Otherwise you have to strap or bolt them down and together. _Might_ be the future of mids, but I doubt it. Advancement in ribbon speakers is more likely IMHO. Also people develop a taste for how some speakers sound. I don't see guitar music being played on anything too different for a while, unless it has the same sound character. Even if technically it's a better…

> Heavy speakers is a plus when moving low frequencies. Otherwise you have to strap or bolt them down and together.

I get it.

But I would rather have that in two parts. It is not always needed, in that there is a place to put the speakers, and I could leave the heavy stuff at home

Re: Classic components could be replaced by rubber in next-gen loudspeakers

#52
post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well I guess it's not the wooden box of a speaker that costs $2000-$30000 (normal price range for consumer Hi-Fi speakers). Replacing the speaker drivers would be more like replacing everything within the body of a car.

How do hifi speaker vendors justify such ridiculous prices when most studio monitors are way better priced than that? Insane.

Justification isn't really a thing in that market (see also: luxury watches).

My friends who are into hi-fi/audiophile stuff who value accuracy typically do go for studio monitors or similar (e.g. Harbeth) vs. stuff like Wilson Audio. Some of them still buy fairly woo-woo stuff like spendy cables even though they might know better, but at least they don't go in for the pure scam stuff like Shakti Stones or directional Ethernet cables...

Re: Classic components could be replaced by rubber in next-gen loudspeakers

#53
post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Couldn't you just replace it? We also pay for good cars, but we still change their tires every so often...

Why would I want to replace the headphones I am using for a decade with something I have to replace every few years. Its already sad enough that I have to replace my phone every year or two because of its battery and software upgrades that slow it down.

You can now add headphones to your upgrade cycles because number of new phones with reasonable specs and wired headphone support are becoming rare.

If this proves cost effective to manufacture and resulting headphones come with inbuilt obsolescence due to batteries and degrading rubber, we'll see manufacturers aggressively pushing this new technology.

Re: Classic components could be replaced by rubber in next-gen loudspeakers

#54
post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well I guess it's not the wooden box of a speaker that costs $2000-$30000 (normal price range for consumer Hi-Fi speakers). Replacing the speaker drivers would be more like replacing everything within the body of a car.

How do hifi speaker vendors justify such ridiculous prices when most studio monitors are way better priced than that? Insane.

For one, studio monitors are typically near-field speakers.

Re: Classic components could be replaced by rubber in next-gen loudspeakers

#55
post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lots of traditional speakers already use a rubber ring around the edge of the cone.

Which is what turned to dust in my twenty year old infinitys. They were the cheaper ones but still surprised me.

Same with my Bose. The foam surrounds were short lived. Rubber lasted longer but was not as widely used.

Re: Classic components could be replaced by rubber in next-gen loudspeakers

#56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do hifi speaker vendors justify such ridiculous prices when most studio monitors are way better priced than that? Insane.

For one, studio monitors are typically near-field speakers.

"near field speaker" is a marketing term that has no meaning.

Re: Classic components could be replaced by rubber in next-gen loudspeakers

#57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which is what turned to dust in my twenty year old infinitys. They were the cheaper ones but still surprised me.

Same with my Bose. The foam surrounds were short lived. Rubber lasted longer but was not as widely used.

The foam surrounds can be replaced. It isn't difficult and you can buy kits for a lot of different sizes including the glue.

One thing to watch is to ensure the cone is still centred but anybody who is patient can fix a bad foam surround.

Re: Classic components could be replaced by rubber in next-gen loudspeakers

#58
post #27
post #2

This appears to be describing an electrostatic speaker. They're on the market, and have been for decades, using mylar or a similar material.

It doesn't. This scheme uses a membrane like the electrostatic speakers, but otherwise it is quite different. In the electrostatic speakers, you load the membrane with extra electrons and then use electro-magnets to apply a varying electric field across the membrane in accordance with your sound signal. Since the membrane has much more electrons than protons, the electric field causes the membrane to move. This metho…

Electrostatics shouldn't need magnets. The very name implies that; magnets have no appreciable effect on static charges.

Did you maybe mean transformers? IIRC electrostatics use rather high voltages.

Re: Classic components could be replaced by rubber in next-gen loudspeakers

#59
post #58
post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn't. This scheme uses a membrane like the electrostatic speakers, but otherwise it is quite different. In the electrostatic speakers, you load the membrane with extra electrons and then use electro-magnets to apply a varying electric field across the membrane in accordance with your sound signal. Since the membrane has much more electrons than protons, the electric field causes the membrane to move. This metho…

Electrostatics shouldn't need magnets. The very name implies that; magnets have no appreciable effect on static charges. Did you maybe mean transformers? IIRC electrostatics use rather high voltages.

You are correct. They do not use magnets but grids of stators. These grids of stators apply a good old fashioned electric field not a magnetic field. But the main difference remains, you still need two latge heavy things that take the sound signal and actually move the membrane.

Re: Classic components could be replaced by rubber in next-gen loudspeakers

#60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Same with my Bose. The foam surrounds were short lived. Rubber lasted longer but was not as widely used.

The foam surrounds can be replaced. It isn't difficult and you can buy kits for a lot of different sizes including the glue. One thing to watch is to ensure the cone is still centred but anybody who is patient can fix a bad foam surround.

I've done it! A relative of mine had two Gallien-Krueger 250ML guitar amplifiers, which are an interesting bit of kit, but the 5" speakers had foam surrounds that rotted out. I ordered and installed generic replacements from Parts Express. For my part, I was just curious about how the amps would sound.

As for the Bose, they were nothing special as speakers, and I already had a stereo that I was happy with, so I disposed of them.

Post reply on HN