Live data from Hacker News

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

polytechnique-insights.com

61–70 of 86 posts

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

#61
post #33
post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah I am really nonplussed how this is the top post on HN right now (I know that is against the rules to mention but really)

Because it has nothing to do with EL speakers -- this is just the casual HN dismissal

I must have misread, but it seemed similar to me and would love an explanation?

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

#62
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.

Not at all. Pro grade reference monitors can cost a small fortune. PMC BB6 XBD-A for example are $125,000 a pair.

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

#63
post #30

Wouldn't rubber dry out over time? If you pay for a good set of speakers you probably want them to last for decades.

I have a pair of 35 year old Mission speakers constructed using rubber and so far there's no evidence of degradation and they still sound great.

I imagine if this was a tyre then it wouldn't fare so well because the rubber compound is for a completely different use and also exposed to adversities such as wide temperature differences and all sorts of kinetics that a speaker will never experience (hopefully).

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

#65
post #22
post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These seen smaller than a billboard: https://www.crutchfield.com/S-Me16Db11xTX/p_839EMESLD/Martin... And with lower frequency sound, aren't heavy drivers actually better? You literally need more mass/energy to push more air, but at a lot lower frequency so the effect of moving the mass back and forth at 20Hz does not really matter as much as 40Khz?

The weight of the driver is not really a factor so much as a side effect of the engineering. You want to look at it in terms of total volume displaced and the sensitivity (if you are thinking about efficiency). Drivers with more surface area & excursion typically do have larger magnets and support structures. LFE reproduction is all about moving large volumes of air by any means necessary. There are relatively feathe…

> There are relatively featherweight subwoofers that literally use fans to move volumes of air and achieve performance that is impossible in traditional drivers of any weight class.

Wow I've never heard of this, what are these called? Would love to read more about this tech

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

#66
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.

This was about 10 years ago but here in New Zealand I found someone who could repair and replace the rubber so my 30 year old infinities are as good as new.

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

#67
post #46

These speakers seem to work like this: There is a rubber layer, coated with conducting material to serve as electrodes. The signal is applied in form of a high voltage which makes the electrodes attract each other and contract the rubber in between perpendicular to the surface (i.e. the rubber layer gets thinner). Since the rubber material is relatively incompressible though (volume of the material doesn't change), t…

It sounds a little like Bayer’s ViviTouch, but for higher frequency bands. ViviTouch was only used for haptics and sunwoofers as far as I know. https://www.innovationworldcup.com/finalist/vivitouch-eap-he...

Other than the vacuum bit, it sounds a lot like planar headphones.

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

#68
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.

I bought (separately, used) a full set of older Infinity surround speakers. Eventually they all had to be re-foamed, but I managed to do it myself with parts ordered online. Have some acetone on hand to take the glue back off if you get it wrong and have to try again...

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

#69
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.

[deleted]

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

#70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

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

thats not true. A near-field speaker tends to be a speaker that performs well at closer distances. its obviously implied given its prefix.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Studio_monitor

You dont know what you are talking about. “has no meaning” is such a nothing sandwich,

Post reply on HN