Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="RobGMN" data-source="post: 8896008" data-attributes="member: 683408">Yes, but they are opposing each other in a dual-forward-facing setup too, simply because of the shared air volume in either design.Mechanically, the woofers in either setup are fighting against the same static air pressure and volume (sealed setup). And that&#039;s where I&#039;m baffled by the idea that throwing one woofer on the back and one on the front of a box (instead of two on the front) allows you to reduce internal volume by 50% AND it reduces resonance of the box itself.I could see where a cancellation of waves at very specific frequencies might happen, but not enough to make any real difference.I&#039;ve built isobarics with the design you mention, but also with the drivers face-coupled, and one on the outside of the box.Maybe driver technology and the use of DSP has made the idea/need/use of isobarics a true thing of the past?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="RobGMN, post: 8896008, member: 683408"] Yes, but they are opposing each other in a dual-forward-facing setup too, simply because of the shared air volume in either design. Mechanically, the woofers in either setup are fighting against the same static air pressure and volume (sealed setup). And that's where I'm baffled by the idea that throwing one woofer on the back and one on the front of a box (instead of two on the front) allows you to reduce internal volume by 50% AND it reduces resonance of the box itself. I could see where a cancellation of waves at very specific frequencies might happen, but not enough to make any real difference. I've built isobarics with the design you mention, but also with the drivers face-coupled, and one on the outside of the box. Maybe driver technology and the use of DSP has made the idea/need/use of isobarics a true thing of the past? [/QUOTE]

Verification