"The only Peter I can think of is Belt."
My first thought was...Pan.
My previous speakers used both wood screws and a soft brace behind the magnet for stability.That’s got nothing to do with glupson’s screws made of wood idea, right?
And yeah the idea of having a flexible gasket and mounting the driver from the back isn’t used (at least not commonly so), and it seems like a pretty good idea to me.
This article also could be construed to validate that (which I was told by my employer, a loudspeaker designer for at least three decades) he uses copper screws to damp the vibrational interactions with the speaker basket and the baffle. This has been my understanding as to why the different material can act like a spring (here we go again) by absorbing the kenetic energy of the driver. It was explained to me, that he chose copper because it is softer, but more importantly that copper can convert kenetic energy into heat, being another property of copper.
Regardless, the article you posted cd318 shows grounds for decoupling the driver basket from the baffle - however is this commonly used today?
Or used at all?
It seems the second method (B) was used by my former employer, with positive results, however the rubber grommet was replaced with a copper ring set into the baffle and copper screws to retain the driver. Obviously not a cost effective upgrade.
cd318 - thanks for sharing that link
Not my field but shear velocity in metals is basically the speed of ultrasonic pulses in that metal, or at least its presented that way. Someone correct me if im wrong. I think tubing guys care and maybe others like non destructive testing wonks? Given that the units for most metals is near a 0.1 inch/10^-6 seconds, would that not imply that we are up in the mHz with this? no comment on the topic but it seems like the propagation delta for different metals, say a .1 to a .12 is pretty small?
’That’s got nothing to do with glupson’s screws made of wood idea, right?’
I’m guessing that the difficulty of obtaining such screws would limit the likelihood of designers wishing to experiment with wood screws.
In practical terms steel screws are fairly universal, easy to implement, and are cost effective. Whether they are sufficient enough is down to the designer.
Let’s not forget that the loudspeaker market is an extremely competitive one, with literally hundreds of different companies with models to sell.
So is it not fair to assume that something as simple to implement as type of metal used, steel or brass, for the screws would have been considered in most cases?
We know that some major designers consider the choice of screw metal irrelevant.
Do we know of any that don’t?
As glupson asked earlier,
’Also, there is a mention of "tightened to spec" earlier. Do manufacturers publish those specifications?’
As far as I know they don’t. I know Harbeth suggest finger tight (up til resistance) but are we now suggesting that manufacturers should publish torque figures?
If so, should it be our responsibility to maintain that recommended torque ourselves? Or the dealers?
Is fleschler’s case with his Focus speakers which arrived by freight with very loose screws/drivers a one-off?
Do Focus Audio know about this, and what the implications for them might be?
What do Wilson, Magico, Tannoy, Zu, JBL, Revel, B&W, ATC, PMC, Vivid, Spendor, Sonus Faber etc have to say on this issue?
Years ago people used to hot rod and modify their cars, but now in the computer age, this no longer seems to be popular.
Doesn’t this also apply to computer designed loudspeakers?
On the other hand I’m happy to accept that some, possibly only a few, like yourself have been able to get good results through careful experimenting.
You know sometimes, getting a little carried away, I almost wish that loudspeaker design was something I had considered back in school. But then I start to consider all of the technical difficulties and then I have to bring that particular pipe dream to a conclusion.