I have a surround on my splits that is torn...it has been glued up, but I'm not very happy about that solution.
Soooo...which is better for SQ?

atm they have a rubber surround of some sort...but I've read the foam sounds better, offering smoother sound or something...but it doesn't last as long.

So tell me...what is the difference and what should I replace my surrounds with?

If I go foam, I'd have to change both, but if I change to rubber, it'll be just the damaged one.

you mean people can hear a difference between a foam and rubber surround??!!! :shock:

call me a sceptic, but i highly doubt it. if they are design properly, then they can be made to offer the same compliance as each other. and i can't see using one material over the other offering an audible difference.

i'd hust have the one repaired. and even then, if you can hear a problem, not just cos it's bugging you. although, if you've got the $$ to spare, no probs.

Well, from what I've read, they say that using a different surround will change the characteristics of the speaker - thus changing how it sounds.

But I dunno...I have no experience.

Thanks for the reply Richard!!

the surround is choesn by the designing engineers as part of the overall design, yes different surrounds alter the sound, but just like any other speaker component. i wouldnt go messing with them, replace like with like

hee,hee, i just figure you could make a foam one sound the same as a rubber one simply by altering the thickness and stiffness, width, etc.

so i'm not convinced that rubber and foam sound different per se. :wink:

from everything i have heard and read, foam is the more ideal matirial for surrounds due to it not being so stiff etc etc but has it's downfalls.


rubber is a good trade off and has longer life

i cant remember anymore haha
have a talk to alan at TR he did tell me a bit about them along time ago
or ask carl for the link he gave me a while ago about speaker matirial, it was quite informative.

It's basically like has been said several times.

Foam doesnt last, but gives better movement.
Ruber lasts, but is more restrictive.

Hence why big subs either use odd rubber surrounds, or big fat foam ones.

http://www.wescomponents.com/SSS/DIY_SPEAK...TERIALS_P2b.htm

enjoy

Thanks Carl...from that, foam is extremely compliant with high damping.

What does this mean and how does it change sound?

i love being controversial, but i still don't get it!

of the rubber surrounds i've seen, they are very thin and very compliant where necessary. i can't see having a foam surround making that any more compliant.

but rubber costs more, so tends to be reserved for more expensive drivers.

the Q at stake is whether one is superior for SQ. and i can't imagine this being the case.

i guess it is a hard thing to judge, unless someone here can get 2 identical speakers, one with rubber and one with foam

time to ask alan at TR to make up a set for testing

they sound the same but the foam is not as durable as the rubber. the rubber tears sometimes, especially as the speaker gets older. :cry:

It depends on the design.. The compliance of both rubber and foam surrounds depends on the design, and it is also typically much higher than the spider. Foam is also lighter, but this also isn't that significant.
Both foam and rubber surrounds can help dampen cone flexing - the effectiveness depends on design. This is also less of a factor with subwoofers.

The main reason, it is easier to design/manufacture a foam surround that is linear over a longer range - currently foam surrounds are used on practically all of the high excursion subwoofers.

In all honesty, a foam surround is not going to magically sound better than a rubber surround - it depends on the actual design. A test like fuddbutter suggested is completely useless as it does not consider the variables.