How Force Cancelling Driver Technology Eliminates Cabinet Vibrations

sb6 said:
Poor horse....
it's about the drivers chassis' opposing movement that's cancelled.
Click to expand...
That does zero to oppose force. It serves a stiffener to the structure(s). The unconnected drivers have the exact same force cancellation.
Poor audiophile, its a high school physics thing.
The chassis don't move, the cones do via motor force.
 
AJ Soundfield said:
That does zero to oppose force. It serves a stiffener to the structure(s). The unconnected drivers have the exact same force cancellation.
Poor audiophile, its a high school physics thing.
The chassis don't move, the cones do via motor force.
Click to expand...

Let's keep this simple Mr. snarky speaker designer:

A) Are the drivers physically attached in any other company other than Vivid Audio and KEF? No.
B) Is there a difference between "cancelling" 2 drivers' rear wave via installing in a sealed cabinet where both drivers' rear waves cancel compared to two opposing drivers that are physically connected and opposing each others' chassis movement that are not cancelling each others' rear wave as they are in a ported design? Yes.

They are different design topologies with different end results that are somewhat related.
And the Vivid Audio / KEF implementation cancels the secondary force from the cones (resultant in the driver chassis) while the ML / Pinnacle cancels the primary force from the actual cones. Makes sense?
 
sb6 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Ok, I see the source of your confusion. "Spaced" 180 is not "wired" 180, aka opposite polarity. That would be a box dipole, no such thing exists to my knowledge. Regardless, its incorrect. The ML is a force cancelling design, the drivers are IN phase.
That's precisely what Alan demonstrated with the nickel. The chassis attachment means ZERO, the forces are cancelled regardless...by the "spaced 180" drivers. The ONLY thing the connected chassis does is stiffen the enclosure. It is, as demonstrated , completely irrelevant to force cancelling.

sb6 said:
A) Are the drivers physically attached in any other company other than Vivid Audio and KEF? No.
Click to expand...
You have no idea. The 80s Pioneer paper showed...interconnected drivers.
Regardless, its irrelevant to the topic - Force cancellation. Its not a necessity whatsoever.

sb6 said:
B) Is there a difference between "cancelling" 2 drivers' rear wave via installing in a sealed cabinet
Click to expand...
That is all your misunderstanding of "spaced".

sb6 said:
They are different design topologies with different end results that are somewhat related.
And the Vivid Audio / KEF implementation cancels the secondary force from the cones (resultant in the driver chassis) while the ML / Pinnacle cancels the primary force from the actual cones. Makes sense?
Click to expand...
They all do the exact same thing. Force cancel. The only difference is the added structural stiffening of interconnected opposed drivers. Unnecessary for force cancellation, as DEMO'd. Also unnecessary in a small sub cube type enclosure.
In a larger sidewall floor standing type design (Giya, KEF blade, etc), there would be possibly beneficial added stiffness.
Bottom line, force cancellation is nothing new.
 
We'll have to agree to disagree that both solutions "do the exact same thing." However, I'll leave you with this bit of information relative to your comment stating, "That's precisely what Alan demonstrated with the nickel. The chassis attachment means ZERO, the forces are cancelled regardless...by the "spaced 180" drivers. The ONLY thing the connected chassis does is stiffen the enclosure. It is, as demonstrated , completely irrelevant to force cancelling".

Vivid Audio Show Alpha High End belgium - Laurence Dickie - Part 2 - YouTube starting at about 8 minutes in...

"It completely removes the reaction force from the couple (of the opposing and attached drivers), and so the transmission of vibration from the chassis to the cabinet is eliminated". -- Laurence Dickie.

And here's a tip - condescension and typing in caps and bold is unbecoming of any adult let alone a purported speaker designing professional. Perception counts.

And as always, Happy Listening!
 
sb6 said:
We'll have to agree to disagree that both solutions "do the exact same thing."
Click to expand...
That's ok, audiophiles and basic physics don't mix, no need for agreement.
They all cancel forces/cabinet vibrations, the proof is in the (nickel) pudding...whether cognizant or not. Couldn't be any simpler than that.

cheers
 
AJ Soundfield said:
That's ok, audiophiles and basic physics don't mix, no need for agreement.
They all cancel forces/cabinet vibrations, the proof is in the (nickel) pudding...whether cognizant or not. Couldn't be any simpler than that.

cheers
Click to expand...

Nice, take a dig at your customer base, even though many of us have technical backgrounds. At least you graduated from caps and bold so there's that.

Have a good one!
 
Do they know their designer believes "chassis attachment means ZERO..."? Audiophiles and basic physics don't mix, no need for agreement. Maybe you should call up Dickie and discuss - as an audiophile... ;-)
 
sb6 said:
Do they know their designer believes "chassis attachment means ZERO..."
Click to expand...
Sure. Anyone who comprehends Alans video of ML non attached driver chassis and that nickel not moving, understands that zero relation to force cancelling.
No belief required. YMMV.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top