How Force Cancelling Driver Technology Eliminates Cabinet Vibrations

Isn't this just a variation from isobaric loading developed by Harry Olson back in the 1950s?
 
Great to see other brands other than Vivid employing this engineering tech that Dickie spearheaded over a half decade ago with the Giya range.
 
Isobarik loaded woofers don't have magnet to magnet , it’s usually woofers compounded together operating in the same volumetric space .

These force cancelling designs with magnet to magnet are not new in concept but were never really adapted before because early loudspeaker design 101 teaches heavily about never to place woofers on opposing walls because of the bass cancelling force ..

Maybe the physics have changed a bit, no wait it’s the crafty marketing

:)


Regards
 
NekoAudio said:
Yes, I believe so. Magnet-to-magnet is one possible configuration. I built my subwoofers that way.
Click to expand...

I don't believe the Vivid Audio application is isobaric as an isobaric magnet - to - magnet typically requires one woofer to be in a non - vented enclosure. The Vivid coupling is mechanical (physically connecting both drivers so the mechanical force of the coil to cone and finally to the driver chassis / magnet is cancelled via equal force from opposite mounted drivers. Other than that it's a typical ported woofer enclosure (if typical includes a chamber with no parallel surfaces).
 
GSOphile said:
KEF Blades have featured force cancelling woofers for around 10 years.
Click to expand...

I believe the Kef Blades were released in 2012 four years after Vivid Audio released the Giya G1 with their Reaction Cancelling Compliant Mount (what Kef dubbed "Force cancelling woofers") in 2008.


Both great designs and great speakers btw.
 
This force cancelling phenom came to front and center when everyone started placing underhung woofers in small sealed underweight enclosures and watch them walk around the room when fed any low frequency info, by adding the second woofer back to back there were able to cancel this destabilizing effect.


Think of it as another avenue to Bass and not “the” avenue ...!



Regards
 
MartinLogan has (essentially) been doing that for years! First, with their "BalancedForce" subs, and now, with their latest Masterpiece line. With my ML BF210 subs, as well as my Expression 13A's, I can balance a nickel on the cabinet, then play Béla Fleck's Flight of the Cosmic Hippo. No vibration or resonance whatsoever, even with the deepest bass notes!

 
sleepysurf said:
MartinLogan has (essentially) been doing that for years! First, with their "BalancedForce" subs, and now, with their latest Masterpiece line. With my ML BF210 subs, as well as my Expression 13A's, I can balance a nickel on the cabinet, then play Béla Fleck's Flight of the Cosmic Hippo. No vibration or resonance whatsoever, even with the deepest bass notes!

Click to expand...


I think folks are getting two topologies and implementations confused. The ML BalancedForce® Alignment takes 2 opposed drivers "spaced 180 degrees apart" in a sealed relatively small cabinet and as such, the back waves essentially cancel out. The Vivid and the KEF technology has 2 driver mechanically coupled via a rod such that the drivers mechanically cancel out the physical driver vibrations. So no, ML is not doing what Kef and Vivid are doing.
 
Yes, that's why I said ML is "essentially" doing that. They are not physically coupled, but the net effect is the same.
 
sleepysurf said:
Yes, that's why I said ML is "essentially" doing that. They are not physically coupled, but the net effect is the same.
Click to expand...

Not to beat a dead horse but they're not essentially the same. One attempts to cancel the rear wave of 2 drivers, the other cancels the stresses placed on the cabinet and the drivers' chassis.
 
sb6 said:
Not to beat a dead horse but they're not essentially the same. One attempts to cancel the rear wave of 2 drivers, the other cancels the stresses placed on the cabinet and the drivers' chassis.
Click to expand...

No sir. The physics is exactly the same. The opposing driver forces cancel. There is no "rear wave cancellation". The drivers are IN phase.
This is an ancient concept. I still have a late 90s Pinnacle Baby Boomer stashed somewhere...and they weren't first.
internal_bb_dropshadow.gif
 
AJ Soundfield said:
No sir. The physics is exactly the same. The opposing driver forces cancel. There is no "rear wave cancellation". The drivers are IN phase.
This is an ancient concept. I still have a late 90s Pinnacle Baby Boomer stashed somewhere...and they weren't first.
internal_bb_dropshadow.gif
Click to expand...

Poor horse....

It's not the same. The opposing drivers from Pinnacle, Martin Logan, etc. are not physically connected which is unique to the Vivid Audio Giya range and KEF blades. It's not about the drivers' rear wave, it's about the drivers chassis' opposing movement that's cancelled.
 

Attachments

  • download.jpg
    download.jpg
    5.2 KB · Views: 56
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top