How tight should I screw in speakers?
This is sorta of a dumb question & I didn't have time to finish testing it out 2nite for it is pretty late. I was wondering, say for your front speakers in the doors or any speakers for that matter when screwing them in, should they be as tight as they can be or should they be sorta half-tight to allow the speakers to reverberate. My friend likes to leave them slightly loose to reverberate.
This is assuming the speakers are installed with baffles, so their not touching directly to the door frame & has a cushion. (http://www.crutchfield.com/S-4...7XT65)
It seems like perhaps at higher volumes, the woofer/cone won't distort as easy & has more room to move & at lower volumes when the screws are all the way tight, the sound is tighter but may distort a tad more at higher volume (but it could be vibration from something else). Anyway I couldn't really experiment yet but wanted to get some perspective on what the audio guys do or whats "right" or "wrong".
This is assuming the speakers are installed with baffles, so their not touching directly to the door frame & has a cushion. (http://www.crutchfield.com/S-4...7XT65)
It seems like perhaps at higher volumes, the woofer/cone won't distort as easy & has more room to move & at lower volumes when the screws are all the way tight, the sound is tighter but may distort a tad more at higher volume (but it could be vibration from something else). Anyway I couldn't really experiment yet but wanted to get some perspective on what the audio guys do or whats "right" or "wrong".
Honda-Tech Member
iTrader: (1)
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 9,716
Likes: 3
From: 99 probs but a stolen car aint 1, ca, cerritos/fullerton
your friend is a
The speakers should be tight as possible with out warping the the speaker basket. Leaving them loose causes vibrations and cancellation.
The speakers should be tight as possible with out warping the the speaker basket. Leaving them loose causes vibrations and cancellation.
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">My friend likes to leave them slightly loose to reverberate. </TD></TR></TABLE>
LOL!!!
I would suggest not speaking to this retard anymore... He's distorting your perception of reality...
LOL!!!
I would suggest not speaking to this retard anymore... He's distorting your perception of reality...
LOL, yea you should never tighten any screw or bolt, in fact if you leave the bolts that hold the head to the block loose it will get you another 15HP because the head can "reverberate".
Please take note of sarcasm dripping from above statement.
94
Please take note of sarcasm dripping from above statement.
94
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by 361 accord »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote"> feetpounds</TD></TR></TABLE> feetpounds???
94
94
Trending Topics
LOL, forgot about this thread...In his defense, we're talking about a few turns of the screw loose so it's not as tight as the screw can be yet maintain the seal around the speaker but help transfer less vibration to the door. He's not a complete idiot.
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by 361 accord »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">yeah i guess? sometimes i say it like that, sometimes footpounds</TD></TR></TABLE>
Feet referes to more the one. These measurements are taken if you hung 20lbs from a bar 1 foot away from the bolt you are trying to tighten.
Correct term is foot-lbs (one foot-20lbs)=20 foot-lbs
Feet referes to more the one. These measurements are taken if you hung 20lbs from a bar 1 foot away from the bolt you are trying to tighten.
Correct term is foot-lbs (one foot-20lbs)=20 foot-lbs
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by nsxxtreme »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
Feet referes to more the one. These measurements are taken if you hung 20lbs from a bar 1 foot away from the bolt you are trying to tighten.
Correct term is foot-lbs (one foot-20lbs)=20 foot-lbs</TD></TR></TABLE>
My understanding is that you are supposed to write it as 20-pound-feet or 20lb/ft because its [20]pounds-per-foot, not [20]foots-per-pound. Just like how spring rates are written as 560lb/in or 10kg/mm. But maybe I'm not thinking of this right.
Even 'Nm' like 13Nm, the Newton is before the meter.
But yes, I always pronounce it as foot-pounds or inch-pounds. Wikipedia says the ft-pound force can either be a unit of energy or torque.
Feet referes to more the one. These measurements are taken if you hung 20lbs from a bar 1 foot away from the bolt you are trying to tighten.
Correct term is foot-lbs (one foot-20lbs)=20 foot-lbs</TD></TR></TABLE>
My understanding is that you are supposed to write it as 20-pound-feet or 20lb/ft because its [20]pounds-per-foot, not [20]foots-per-pound. Just like how spring rates are written as 560lb/in or 10kg/mm. But maybe I'm not thinking of this right.
Even 'Nm' like 13Nm, the Newton is before the meter. But yes, I always pronounce it as foot-pounds or inch-pounds. Wikipedia says the ft-pound force can either be a unit of energy or torque.
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by chrisw85 »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
My understanding is that you are supposed to write it as 20-pound-feet or 20lb/ft because its [20]pounds-per-foot, not [20]foots-per-pound. </TD></TR></TABLE>
I don't think my Honda service manual says to torque to 20 pound-feet... I'm pretty sure it says foot-pounds...
My understanding is that you are supposed to write it as 20-pound-feet or 20lb/ft because its [20]pounds-per-foot, not [20]foots-per-pound. </TD></TR></TABLE>
I don't think my Honda service manual says to torque to 20 pound-feet... I'm pretty sure it says foot-pounds...
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by chrisw85 »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Just like how spring rates are written as 560lb/in or 10kg/mm. But maybe I'm not thinking of this right.
Even 'Nm' like 13Nm, the Newton is before the meter. </TD></TR></TABLE>
lbs is a unit of force.
kg is a unit of mass.
Newtons is a unit of force so I think your spring rate example is screwed up.
For example 20lbs on earth would not be the same as 20lbs on the moon because gravity is different.
100Kg on earth is the same as 100Kg on the moons because its a unit of mass. In order to get force you need to take into the effects of Gravity.
Even 'Nm' like 13Nm, the Newton is before the meter. </TD></TR></TABLE>lbs is a unit of force.
kg is a unit of mass.
Newtons is a unit of force so I think your spring rate example is screwed up.
For example 20lbs on earth would not be the same as 20lbs on the moon because gravity is different.
100Kg on earth is the same as 100Kg on the moons because its a unit of mass. In order to get force you need to take into the effects of Gravity.
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by 361 accord »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">oh god yall dont be so technical about that term lol ur not supposed to use nuts and bolt and torque it down lol</TD></TR></TABLE>
The original question was stupid so we needed something useful to discuss.
The original question was stupid so we needed something useful to discuss.
Hey watch it...I already admitted that orignally no need to throw it in my face. Sorry that I'm thorough & like to know the correct ways of doing things. If you guys want to argue about this BS & go off topic, PM eachother or make your own damn thread otherwise Admins feel free to lock.
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by HatchSpeeD »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Hey watch it...I already admitted that orignally no need to throw it in my face. Sorry that I'm thorough & like to know the correct ways of doing things. If you guys want to argue about this BS & go off topic, PM eachother or make your own damn thread otherwise Admins feel free to lock. </TD></TR></TABLE>
Relax don't take the internet so seriously.
Relax don't take the internet so seriously.
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by nsxxtreme »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
Newtons is a unit of force so I think your spring rate example is screwed up.
</TD></TR></TABLE>
If you convert 10kg/mm into lb/in, you get 560lb/in. Many springs in the japanese market are labled as kg/mm. It would make sense to me in this regard because you have 560-pounds-per-inch, or 10-kg-per-millimeter, and not 560-inches-per-pound or 10-millimeters-per-kg.
A 'pound' can either be a unit of measure of force or a unit of measure of mass. Pound-force would be lb,f with the little 'f' hanging off the 'b'. lb,m would be for pound-mass. http://www.answers.com/topic/pound-force
Newtons is a unit of force so I think your spring rate example is screwed up.
</TD></TR></TABLE>
If you convert 10kg/mm into lb/in, you get 560lb/in. Many springs in the japanese market are labled as kg/mm. It would make sense to me in this regard because you have 560-pounds-per-inch, or 10-kg-per-millimeter, and not 560-inches-per-pound or 10-millimeters-per-kg.
A 'pound' can either be a unit of measure of force or a unit of measure of mass. Pound-force would be lb,f with the little 'f' hanging off the 'b'. lb,m would be for pound-mass. http://www.answers.com/topic/pound-force
From your website link.
"For example, in structural engineering applications the term “pound” is used almost exclusively to refer to a unit of force and not to refer to the unit of mass. In those applications, the preferred unit of mass is the slug, i.e. lbf·s²/ft."
Pound is a unit of force. F=ma the a is the gravitational constant. The m is the mass. m*a = pound.
The metric equivalent is the newton =kg*gravitational constant.
I know of no one that uses pound to refer to mass.
While they may use kg/mm for the japenese parts. Its a different thing then lb/in
One refers to the amount of force exerted per inch.
The other refers to the amount of mass per mm. They are two entirely different things.
If you took 20kg and a 44lb weight to the moon you would still have 20kg but your weight would no longer weigh 44lbs. One unit of measure is dependent on gravity the other is not.
Modified by nsxxtreme at 4:03 PM 7/9/2007
"For example, in structural engineering applications the term “pound” is used almost exclusively to refer to a unit of force and not to refer to the unit of mass. In those applications, the preferred unit of mass is the slug, i.e. lbf·s²/ft."
Pound is a unit of force. F=ma the a is the gravitational constant. The m is the mass. m*a = pound.
The metric equivalent is the newton =kg*gravitational constant.
I know of no one that uses pound to refer to mass.
While they may use kg/mm for the japenese parts. Its a different thing then lb/in
One refers to the amount of force exerted per inch.
The other refers to the amount of mass per mm. They are two entirely different things.
If you took 20kg and a 44lb weight to the moon you would still have 20kg but your weight would no longer weigh 44lbs. One unit of measure is dependent on gravity the other is not.
Modified by nsxxtreme at 4:03 PM 7/9/2007
Be careful in using that slash, guys... ("/")...
"lbs<FONT COLOR="red">/</FONT>ft" = "Pounds <FONT COLOR="red">Per</FONT> Foot"
Assuming uniform distribution of mass for an object at sea level, this could be considered as another formula for Density. The treachery of using the slash is more easily seen when saying (typing) Kg/Meter instead of Kg-Meter...
Torque is typically described in units as a product, not a quotient (although you can derive other units that describe it as a ratio).
I need another beer...
JasonGhostz
"lbs<FONT COLOR="red">/</FONT>ft" = "Pounds <FONT COLOR="red">Per</FONT> Foot"
Assuming uniform distribution of mass for an object at sea level, this could be considered as another formula for Density. The treachery of using the slash is more easily seen when saying (typing) Kg/Meter instead of Kg-Meter...
Torque is typically described in units as a product, not a quotient (although you can derive other units that describe it as a ratio).
I need another beer...
JasonGhostz
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by fcm »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote"> feetpounds??? 94</TD></TR></TABLE>
My god, I have unleashed the engineers.
Sorry HatchSpeeD I should have kept it to, tighten screws till they are snug.
94
My god, I have unleashed the engineers.

Sorry HatchSpeeD I should have kept it to, tighten screws till they are snug.
94
Honda-Tech Member
iTrader: (1)
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 9,716
Likes: 3
From: 99 probs but a stolen car aint 1, ca, cerritos/fullerton
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by HatchSpeeD »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">LOL, forgot about this thread...In his defense, we're talking about a few turns of the screw loose so it's not as tight as the screw can be yet maintain the seal around the speaker but help transfer less vibration to the door. He's not a complete idiot.
</TD></TR></TABLE>
not as bad a loose, but still is a bad install. hell both are bad. But if you want his advice and still want to let him work on your car there is no need to ask us for anything. hummm... I wonder what tricks does he have for his subs... Hey guys thanks for the briefing on the tork,
</TD></TR></TABLE>not as bad a loose, but still is a bad install. hell both are bad. But if you want his advice and still want to let him work on your car there is no need to ask us for anything. hummm... I wonder what tricks does he have for his subs... Hey guys thanks for the briefing on the tork,



