[thepaulthomas]

On Dec 9, 1:35*pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"thepaulthomas"
wrote in



On Dec 9, 10:11 am, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
"Ray Thomas" wrote in message

My understanding (of the sales pitch/marketing ?) of the
function of cones or spikes was that they were supposed
to act as a 'physical diode'..in other words to allow
unwanted vibrations and micro-motion to transfer from
the speaker cabinet into the thick end of the cone and
then down through its point to a massy, inert body
below it (floor, shelf, concrete slab etc) which would
then absorb the vibes and in theory refuse to allow
them to be reflected back up the spike/cone again ?
However the biggest fallacy is the idea that there will
be significant vibrations of the speaker cabinet.
Does that mean building speaker cabinets of heavier
materials is pointless?

No, but its all a matter of diminishing returns.

Also, if you want a stiff cabinet, after a certain point, additional wood is
better allocated to internal bracing.

OK, gotcha. Thanks, Arny. Now what about things like concrete
cabinets? I have a small pair of Rauna speakers that I like and they
are made of concrete. Even though they are "bookshelf" size speakers
they weigh about 45 pounds each. Would you consider that type of
construction to be way beyond the point of diminishing returns or
would the significantly heavier concrete walls just be similar in
effect to the extra bracing you mentioned?