DIY Open Baffle Full Range Speakers from Wal-Mart . . .

Status
This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.
Scottmoose said:
To give one example, a 26" wide baffle will begin to run into baffle-step issues (-3db point) at around 175Hz I believe.

Hey, howdja get that? I was just putting together some Wal-Mart open baffles myself for breaking in and tweaking my Fostex drivers, and I was a bit confused with the roll-off frequency formulae and charts I found on a forum search. For example, I don't think I grok this calculation that Dave posted last year, and I was thinking of posting and asking if he or someone else might like to spell it out for me:


planet10 said:

There are 3 or 4 different of these floating around, including one i made based on Olsen. It seems that the most accurate results flow out of Linkwitzes work and, IIRC, this boils down in its simplest form to 0.17 x f(bafflewidth) for the roll-off point.

dave

...also this later post:


planet10 said:

.... There was quite a long discussion here on the forum, and the 0.17 figure of merit seemed to best correspond with measured data (i actually plotted some data provided). A 1 m wide baffle should get you to 58 Hz.

This is way better than the 170 Hz or so that Olsen predicts (see attached chart).

dave

Here is the chart that Dave attached (it would give about a 39 inch baffle width for 175Hz).

Anyway, mrpopgun, this page and the one or two following, which I got the above quotes from, have plenty of discussion and potential clarification/confusion that you might have some fun with.

Everyone be good and take care,
Don
 
I am using the Ciare CH250 in the center of 100x55cm baffles, originally with 17.5 cm side walls. I extended the side walls to 45cm to get the same acoustic short circuit in both directions and this was essential to get some bass. Rolloff should start at 85Hz now and that`s what it does. According to the fostex site the side walls shouldn`t be too long to avoid pipe sound. An alternative is to make the side walls not parallel, like in these examples:

http://www.auditorium23.de/PHY/Plaene2.html

Or build plain baffles that are partly made of glass to avoid killing the room, The most popular variant in this forum.
 
This may also be a solution for some rooms, I once tried it with a small Qts 1.5 driver and the 60° needed to listen on axis also sonically seemed to be the optimum.
 

Attachments

  • room.jpg
    room.jpg
    7 KB · Views: 1,144
Hello Martin!

I am going to use the HX201 as omnidirectionals, looking to the ceiling in a 40l-BR without correction, reflector or supertweeter. Tests in sealed enclosured showed that this definitely works, except bass, but the simu looks fine. I have suggested to try this with the B200, because it has a similar rise in frequency response, but in a thread about omnidirectionals in the loudspeaker forum one person said he is not so pleased with that and is using the B200 30° tilted with crossover and supertweeters. I tried the 30° tilt with the HX201, sounds very shouting and the omni-typical spacial image is gone. There is probably some difference between the B200 and the HX201. I couldn`t imagine to use the HX201 on axis without correction, like many people do with the Visaton.

Greets, Oliver
 
mrpopgun said:
I always see OB and references to the width of the baffle. What about the height? I would think that both have to be taken into account, but have no idea what the relationship should be.

In fact it´s not so much the width of the baffle that defines it´s response but its area. Even more important is the distance from floor to driver. The best tool available to learn more about the interaction of T/S parameters, baffle dimensions and driver position is xlbaffle.xls courtesy of Kuei Yang Wang:
http://baseportal.de/cgi-bin/basepo...io/download&cmd=list&range=0,20&cmd=all&Id=15
 
Some people from the Saba vintage scene calculate with length of the short-circuit = quarter of the wave length for the special case of a plain round baffle. In my case the vertical short circuit is one meter and vertical one is around 1.1 meter, so it comes pretty close to the ideal and rolloff should start at 85Hz or 78Hz respectively. But that`s too close to discriminate, because I don`t have a micro and do subjective tests with a function generator.
 
frugal-phile™
Joined 2001
Paid Member
The 0.17 figure of merit doesn't take into account the driver's Q (ie assumes a Q of 0.7).

Thorsten's (Kuei Yang Wang) SS does.... particularily of use to take max advantage of a high Q driver such as vintage Sabas or Isophons (and many others) -- the high Q driver needs a narrower baffle of just the right dimension that the dipole cancellation interacts with the rising response of the driver to get flat down as far as possible.

dave

(PS the SS is also on my site)
 
Hello all. I've been reading threads for three days, and am excited about visiton B200's. Re the baffle, a guy who seemed to know his stuff on the gravity well of a dark star thread on audiocircle was saying that having a 10-14" front baffle that's not too high and wider at the bottom, and having two 8" ish wings on either side, swept back at 60 degrees and not hinged, with an upwardlysloped "roof" on it, with the whole thing riggidly held by crossmembers, would behave like a 48" wide flat baffle in his experience, and keep the openess. Anyone here up with his imput, because if it works, its a hell of a smaller object! I hope I've got what he said accurately. Thanks
 
Scottmoose, he waas pretty clear it wasnt an isobaric, but an open baffle design, with all the advantages, and without the disadvantage of two huge smooth plates facing you. Among the advantages he listed were that they could go nearer the corner without resultant loss of sound quality and that the sound was warmer. He'd been building OB designs for two years in Coasta Rica. His explainations are quite technical. The latter part of the dark star thread, with a picture of his speakers is the best bet. I'm afraid I'm very new to this, and mainly trying to deside if i should go ahead or not, as the benifits cited for OB sound to me very much like the benifits of my Quad ESL57's, repannelled by One Thing Audio, which are as stunning to me as the OB's seem to be tto those who make them. I hope this clarifies a bit
 
his name is JohninCR and he said:
"Dmason,

I'll submit that the sonic difference you hear with acrylic is primarily due to reflections off of that big flat surface directed at the listening position with acrylic being more reflective than wood. Try draping a blacket over the front of the baffle left and right of the driver. While you are doing so, also listen for an improvement in imaging.

At the risk of being repetitive, I want to make 2 points from my experience:

1. The complaint of most who are used to high detail boxed speakers with magical imaging is that OB's don't image as well. I believe this is due in large part to the big hard flat reflective surface pointed right at your listening position and often it will be the most reflective surface in the entire room. It also blocks rear wall reflection for that same area, preventing the disappearing act. The same way a computer monitor acts like a black hole in your audio image with speakers at your computer, I believe big baffles have a similar effect. Folding the baffles solves the problems of overall size and reflections off of the baffle.

eg Having a 10" front, one 7" wing and one 8" wing swept back at about 60 degrees results in an effective baffle width for bass purposes equal to about a 38" wide flat baffle. In a 12" wide by 8" deep footprint you are talking about small box speaker size, so which is going to have better WAF?

While there is a slight change away from a pure dipole radiation pattern, I believe it is sonically superior because you do away with a large reflective front and a large blockage of rear wave reflections. This allows much more freedom in placement without losing the open natural sound of OB. In addition it gives you structural support and a place to hide exposed drivers, XO's, etc. With a grill cloth across the back it will look like a box speaker with an interesting shape.

2. I used to be a proponent of adjustable wings, using some type of hinging. After playing around with it, I am now firmly against adjustable wings. This is because significant forces act on those wings and they vibrate. Not only are fixed wings important, but they need liberal cross bracing as well."

The page its on is http://www.audiocircle.com/circles/viewtopic.php?t=19253&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=390

I hope me reproducing his post is Kosher. if not the link will take you tyherre and explain it better than I can. Regards, David
 
it was in reference to the post at the top of the last page. ;-)Believe me, I know the feeling though!

For your interest, picture a normal, box enclosure, with a driver mounted on the front baffle. Now picture another, identical driver, completely inside the box, mounded directly behind the first, usually facing in th dame direction. That's the most common type of isobaric design (there are others of course). It has a few advantages; bass performance is usually outstanding for the size of enclosure. It's not often used commercially though. Linn were the most famous exponents with the Sara 2 way, and the infamous Isobarik [sic] 3 way that had amplifiers the world over cowering in fear.

Cheers
Scott
 
gilbodavid said:
:

1. The complaint of most who are used to high detail boxed speakers with magical imaging is that OB's don't image as well.


I also experienced a clear plus in imaging when I mounted the extra walls. I guess because there is less reflection at the wall between the speakers. If that`s true, a "monobrane" concept will also do the job, but I didn`t test.
 

Attachments

  • monobrane.jpg
    monobrane.jpg
    6.8 KB · Views: 1,652
Re the open-baffle isobaric, well, I suppose you could mount them like that, but I'm not sure what you're hoping to achieve by doing it?

Thanks for the reply Scottmoose! (sorry about the confusion GilboDavid!) - The Isobaric/Baffle idea is one I came up with ages ago. In actuality, it uses the isobaric principle in reverse to solve one of the issues concerning baffle arrangements whilst retaining the mechanical distortion cancellation features of the isobaric layout.

One potential problem associated with a "free-air" driven unit not designed for free baffle mounting is it's (forgive my misnomenclature) increased "slewing" owing to a complete lack of mechanical damping such as the air-pressure/resistance employed in an IB or BR enclosure.

In standard format, the isobaric layout is typically engaged with the drivers working at an equal power level (using the same drivers face-face/back-back if the distortion effect is to be utilised) from the same amplifier source; principally to relieve the frontal driver of some of the pressure of an undersized enclosure.

My idea uses the rear driver at a dissimilar level of amplitude to effectively pressurise the frontal driver, improving transients and improving overall clarity through some elements of the distortion cancelling effect. Just to throw a little more perplexity into the equation, eq could be added to the rear driver in order to counter linearity difficulties at frequencies above roll-off. I was thinking of doing something along these lines using an SE amp for the frontal unit & a Gainclone to power the rear.

Any thoughts?

Cheers - Jezz
 
Well, I decided to take my "experiment" to the next level (thanks to Ed "adason")

I ordered another pair of B200's and mounted them in the corkys below the original B200s. I mounted them in reverse as per Ed's Lowther setup - in effect a mechanical XO with the magnet cutting off the HF. I still thought I could hear some comb-filtering so I attached a piece of felt cloth over to cover most of the bottom B200's. This really made things come together!

All I have to say is WOW! The added LF response sure completed the picture. This may be just the right amount of bass for our apartment setup. The mids and highs are better balanced now. I can honestly say these are one of, if not the best sounding speakers (LF limited) I have heard anywhere, at any price. Not too shabby for under 700 clams.

The additional dipole bass is truly something to behold and must be experienced. I can see what all the buzz is about now.

I made the mistake of wiring the drivers in series (out of phase) to start with. There were some distortion artifacts. Parallel definitely was the way to go. Such clean sound and I still have lots of volume to play with on the preamp. For 96db speakers, the B200's will eat quite a bit of juice.

The corkboards are probably the weakpoint (flex?) now and some more solid baffles are in the works. Also, I had to pull the speakers another 2 feet away from the back wall as the bass was gettting a touch boomy in the original position.

The picture below shows the felt cloth lifted over the left speaker so you can see the bottom driver.

Thanks again everyone. These drivers are a-mazing.
 

Attachments

  • img_1084.jpg
    img_1084.jpg
    52.6 KB · Views: 2,042
regarding Isobaric

Jezz,

You'll damage your drivers with unequal output and negate the distortion reduction benefit anyway, since the push and pull wouldn't be equal.

I was on the isobaric trail a couple of years ago and as I understand it's only useful for low frequencies. In the higher frequencies where the distance between the 2 cones is significant in comparison to the wavelength, the operation of the drivers will interfere with each other not complement each other.

Regarding drivers not designed for free air operation, most of time they need boxes to make bass because their Qts is too low. They don't flap around in free air operation, it's just the opposite and isobaric alignment won't help. Super cheapie woofers are an exception.

Isobaric halves the Vas and that's about it, so it reduces the required box size by half. One other time I've found them useful is with cheapie woofers with very high Vas. Their suspension is so loose that they bottom out too easily. Clamshelling them improves their performance.
 
Status
This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.