• TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
    Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
    Join freeLog in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

anyone using isobaric cabs?

flameworker

Guest
Jun 15, 2014
1,842
344
52
Landenberg, Pennsylvania
Disclosures
one day....
I tried the orange 212, meh, sounded like a 15, and really had to crank it.

But, power amps are cheap now. I saw two qsc plx 1600 watt power amps for less than 200.

When using WINISP hitting that isobaric button and watch ing the curve suddenly straight en out to 25hz is pretty cool.

Is this tech still a novelty? Personally I couldn't "waste" a driver like that right now, but I love the idea.

Maybe this summer I'll try it. Neo speakers means weight is no issue, they will only get cheaper. A set of 4 virgin eminence neo 8's just popped off on ebay for 79 for all 4!. Would have been a perfect test group, but I'm overextended.
 
Of course it's a bad idea to slap two random 15's in an isobaric cabinet. The same engineering principals you're ignoring apply to this thread as any other. Quit wasting your money and build a pre engineered speaker box like a fearlful. Power is cheap, mistakes are expensive.

What is your obsession with 25 Hz? To recreate that frequency at the levels you're shooting for requires specialized and expensive technology, not just some random speakers off eBay.

If you wanna educate yourself in tandem with the book, try searching google scholar for things like isobaric speaker design. Invalid Link Removed
 
When using WINISP hitting that isobaric button and watch ing the curve suddenly straighten out to 25hz is pretty cool.

Say what? Open two files, one with a single driver, vented, QB3 alignment. Now the same driver, paired, isobaric, vented, also QB3. You'll find that the low extension is exactly the same, but the iso cab is about half as big. You can't just toggle back and forth without also changing the box size, unless you like really goofy frequency response curves.

BTW, you are running WinISD 0.7.0.900, not the old obsolete versions, right?
 
Christw has a bit of a point. Isobaric cabinets I believe we're mostly used in the 50s to reduce the box size for woofers. Basically what isobaric cabinets do is increase low end extension in a smaller box size in return for decreased sensitivity and volume. Of course, you could try to design an isobaric cabinet, I've heard one of the orange cabinets live once and it punched some good pillowy low end, but the general aim of hitting 25hz seems more than a tad excessive. I suppose one interesting idea would be an isobaric folded horn subwoofer, that could help with sensitivity, but it would need to be big and need a mid driver. The thing with isobaric cabinets is that in our love of work there's not much point - the extra driver is extra cost and weight, and the loss in sensitivity means that while low end extension is increased, more power would be spent on making the higher and more efficient frequencies audible as well as the lower frequencies.
 
...the extra driver is extra cost and weight, and the loss in sensitivity means that while low end extension is increased, more power would be spent on making the higher and more efficient frequencies audible as well as the lower frequencies.
that was kinda my impression of the iso cab i auditioned, the orange 2x10 that looked like a 1x10; it seemed to have the lows of a 2x10, but was only as loud as a 1x10.
 
Pretty much what I thought, I d o hope to see more research into "alternative" design s tho. There is so much cool tech available a lot that was passed over.

For example, infinity irs speakers havery four 12"driver s, there is a control unit that keeps the speakers from distorting, some thing like a knock sensor on a car engine. Apparently they can be pushed harder without failure.

Those insane looking 6th order bandpass rear loaded folded horns, I would like to try bass thru one.

Car audio systems and subwoofer s are catching up with hifi too, in Europe they are blasting classical music instead of just buzzy "electro bass music". I hope they stumble upon something we can use soon.

Back to my study. Thanks for the Google scholar tip. I didn't take any classes this semester and my brain is still set to "learn everything" mode. It is no fun to not know what your talking about trying to discuss this stuff.
 
I didn't take any classes this semester and my brain is still set to "learn everything" mode. It is no fun to not know what your talking about trying to discuss this stuff.

Have you worked your way through the stickies in the Amps Forum FAQ? Even just Speaker Building 101 answers a lot of your recent questions, but I guess "there's no free lunch" isn't really what you're hoping to hear...Link Removed
 
  • Like
Reactions: INTP and B-string
"Isobaric" sounds very cool but IMO it's not so special, especially if you have drivers nowadays that sorta act like an Isobaric driver.
In simple terms Isobaric creates a driver similar to the original driver except that the Moving mass has doubled. Doubling the moving mass will half the Vas when Fs(resonance frequency) stays the same. That's the reason why you only need half of the enclosure volume, but....in practice you'll see that the total enclosure size will not decrease a lot since you also lose volume because of the coupling volume between the two drivers you use.
That's one of the reasons I don't see any use in using this design approach for basscabs.
If you want to use Isobaric then do it the "right" way, the "right" way is IME/IMO to mount the drivers in a push/pull configuration. This will keep the coupling volume low and it will lower even order harmonic distortion(caused by asymmetry in the suspension and motor).
Isobaric2a.GIF

Btw. you also need to pump twice the power into such a system to get the same spl so keep that in mind, definitely no free lunch here.
 
Last edited:
I hope you don't think we're ganging up on you. I did all sorts of crazy car audio builds as a teenager and learned a lot. My first attempt at custom porting ruined three great speaker boxes and sucked the life out of a friend's system. And that was after a lot of experimenting on my own. In the end I ruined a lot of good speakers and boxes with little to show for it.

Making mistakes is a vital part of the learning process. But if you're using the internet there are no excuses for ignorance. You have as much information as a brain can absorb available on nearly any subject you can imagine. Many of the questions you ask have already been answered by the hundreds on this forum and plenty of others.

The information is out there, trust me. I've learned more online than I ever have in a classroom and I'm almost done with my second bachelor's degree, this time in EE.
 
Last edited:
Pretty much what I thought, I d o hope to see more research into "alternative" design s tho. There is so much cool tech available a lot that was passed over.

I think this quote is why you are hung up on speaker designs.. The fact is, anything you can find on the internet has not been passed over.. or forgotten. The designs you've mentioned and others in books you'll find have been designed and tried but eventually failed usually due to one or more of the following.... COST, QUALITY, WEIGHT, SIZE.

The reason you see the current speaker designs out there is because that's what sells and gives the best sound per dB/dollar/size/weight.
You've purchased powered home stereo subs and mentioned stacking multiple together for more volume.... nobody does that because nobody wants to set up for a show, or even practice with 4 trips to the car just for your subs, and all the cables and plugs/power strip setup.. then you have your mids and highs handled some other way.. It might work but it's not practical for most people.

The contemporary speaker designs allow for loud low cabs without needing giant folded horns to increase sensitivity.. Flush front mounted speakers have sensitivity loss because of speaker/air impedance mismatch ( someone please correct me if I'm wrong on this ) but it's made up for by their improved power handling and especially massive power amps now available. Previously folded horn enclosures were required to get the most dB from every watt of power from lower powered amps and speakers that couldnt take 400-500 watts RMS each.

If you want to experiment with old designs and take advantage of their capabilities that sounds like a fun endeavor. I can only imagine the volume you'd get from a huge folded horn cab with the latest high power high Xmax drivers. Of course a single 15 cab will be larger than an Ampeg 810 but it would be cool to check out.

The current trend is high power in a lighter or smaller and lighter design.. or massive power in a standard size enclosuere ( Greenboy 151566 is a beast )

With the money it sounds like you've spent recently, it looks like you could have built a monster of a cab from current designs. If you go with older designs, you can have great sounding results, they will just be big and heavy... and that's why you don't tend to see those designs currently. The isobaric designs have some advantages and some disadvantages, but go against the trend of smaller/lighter/louder You could probably get the added low freq with a LF driver and mid speaker rather than the iso design.. And you're right back into Greenboy style designs.

...........whew... long post.
 
Last edited:
With all these threads, some times I wonder if checking which way the wind is blowing first might be helpful..... :woot:
+1. There's nothing wrong with asking questions, or with looking to do better than what's sitting on the GC floor, but you can study this stuff for years and still not come close to having the design chops that guys like greenboy and Bill Fitzmaurice have. If there was anything useful about isobaric or 25 hz response or most of the other subjects you've brought up they'd be doing it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: wisconsindead
"Flush front mounted speakers have sensitivity loss because of speaker/air impedance mismatch"

What side of the baffle board a speaker is mounted only affects the volume it takes up in the cab. Front mounting, less space loss inside the cab.

Stop looking for the magic beans. There is very little that has not been done. Infinite baffle, sealed, full and 3/4 bass reflex, simple ported, T/S ported, horns, folded horns, corner horns, labyrinths, bandbass, passive radiator, isobaric. All tech that has been around for half a century or better.
 
  • Like
Reactions: agedhorse
Love your threads dude.
Tried the orange isobaric 212 and it sucked (of course imho), after that my very simply minded self gave up on it.
However, my question with these is would there be such a way to position the speakers in such a way that one could achieve constructive interference and double the volume with no increase in power or speaker size? Itd probably be one deep ass cabinet though
 
  • Like
Reactions: Quilbert