Due to another severe spate of upgradeitis I have been searching for replacement fronts that offer a significant improvement over my trusty Epos M5 fronts.
My M5s are lovely and transparent, open and detailed, but as always, better can be had. Being a DIY convert earlier this year (built a Rythmik audio DS12) many a long night has been spent searching for a good kit. I settled on the Clearwave RBR from madisound - a reference level standmount at an incredible price.
Clearwave RBR 'recession buster reference'
Info on the design here
I’ll be building the sealed version as the sub would negate the need for a ported version. I’m hoping to add some interest to the side of the boxes with surfacing as below...maybe in gloss white, maybe in gloss black, still undecided. The front baffle will be 1.5" thick, and the side walls 3/4" thick, plus an external 'surfacing layer'. At this stage, I need to work out an optimum cutting plan for the MDF.
My question is...will subtle surface changes on the side walls (see below) negatively affect diffraction?
Any input appreciated,
Ash
My M5s are lovely and transparent, open and detailed, but as always, better can be had. Being a DIY convert earlier this year (built a Rythmik audio DS12) many a long night has been spent searching for a good kit. I settled on the Clearwave RBR from madisound - a reference level standmount at an incredible price.
Clearwave RBR 'recession buster reference'
Info on the design here
I’ll be building the sealed version as the sub would negate the need for a ported version. I’m hoping to add some interest to the side of the boxes with surfacing as below...maybe in gloss white, maybe in gloss black, still undecided. The front baffle will be 1.5" thick, and the side walls 3/4" thick, plus an external 'surfacing layer'. At this stage, I need to work out an optimum cutting plan for the MDF.
My question is...will subtle surface changes on the side walls (see below) negatively affect diffraction?
Any input appreciated,
Ash
Attachments
Nothing mysterious , nothing serious ...!
I was referring to the cabinet as the extension of speaker behavior , which shouldn't be true in reality , as it is a *negation* of the speaker itself , like a bird in a cage.
The pictures are excellent - I mean the design - and many changes like a total non-parallel sides can be done .
I would try an experimental box by making a baffle with curved edges on the sides , leaving the tweeter external and using a large PVC pipe as woofer air mass load.
I was referring to the cabinet as the extension of speaker behavior , which shouldn't be true in reality , as it is a *negation* of the speaker itself , like a bird in a cage.
The pictures are excellent - I mean the design - and many changes like a total non-parallel sides can be done .
I would try an experimental box by making a baffle with curved edges on the sides , leaving the tweeter external and using a large PVC pipe as woofer air mass load.
Ashley_May,
Test the front baffle shape with the help of a software (like Edge or other). The curved edges (picowallspeaker) are not proved to be better or anything like that (not enough experience), is just a matter of (taste) localizing the speakers in the room in a different way. So the better way is testing I agree (I mean here the shape of the edges of the baffle, and not the side walls that have more to do in a different way
).
Test the front baffle shape with the help of a software (like Edge or other). The curved edges (picowallspeaker) are not proved to be better or anything like that (not enough experience), is just a matter of (taste) localizing the speakers in the room in a different way. So the better way is testing I agree (I mean here the shape of the edges of the baffle, and not the side walls that have more to do in a different way
).
Last edited:
What's written above is totally true . I use two cubic cardboard boxes with inexpensive off-the-radio speakers connected to 1 W germanium amps for listening to my music . I don't even care to put them on conical feet for mechanical separation.
Sitting in front of the computer smokin' cigarettes is just blowing my mind and the body.
Cheers!
Sitting in front of the computer smokin' cigarettes is just blowing my mind and the body.
Cheers!
Thanks guys. I wouldn't want to change the baffle / driver geometry or anything critical to undermine Jeds plans. I understand the enclosure shouldn't impose anything on the sound, which is why the internal enclosure is exactly as Jed designed. The external skin the on side walls and rear baffle is purely for aesthetic purposes. (just to make it clear!)
Therefore the internal diffraction should remain the same, but it is the external diffraction I'm concerned with. Your right, I suppose the only way is to test it. Rather than construct a fake cabinet, I may as well proceed with Jeds exact plans, and then temporarily stick on the thin CNC 'surfaced' MDF to the outside and do comparitive listening tests.
Therefore the internal diffraction should remain the same, but it is the external diffraction I'm concerned with. Your right, I suppose the only way is to test it. Rather than construct a fake cabinet, I may as well proceed with Jeds exact plans, and then temporarily stick on the thin CNC 'surfaced' MDF to the outside and do comparitive listening tests.
Ash,
I don't think the side surface contours you are proposing would have a significant audible effect, but I'll leave that up to the speaker experts here, and to direct experimentation.
However, as a design professional, I will add this: With a matte finish, the visual cues from which the eye deduces shape are profile and shadow; both of which require significant feature size and, in this case, large-ish relative face to face angles to have a dramatic visual effect. Since you are planning a high-gloss finish, reflection becomes the dominant shape cue. With strong surface reflections, the eye can pick up the subtlest of angle changes. Since you have the skills and software access, I suggest experimenting with your CAD model, reducing the height (thickness?) of the side "add-ons", making the relative angle between the side faces smaller, until you find the minimum "addition" that still provides the reflective visual shape cues you are looking for, but will have the smallest audible impact. Also, for dramatic reflections, sharp distinct lines between faces are better than smooth blended radius transitions. Try sharp edges between the side faces and a chamfer at the sides of the baffle rather than a roundover (the speaker designer used a chamfer and indicated either would work). Also, during the piano-gloss finish process, sharp transitions are a little easier to polish than roundovers.
That's my 2 cents.
Best of luck,
James
I don't think the side surface contours you are proposing would have a significant audible effect, but I'll leave that up to the speaker experts here, and to direct experimentation.
However, as a design professional, I will add this: With a matte finish, the visual cues from which the eye deduces shape are profile and shadow; both of which require significant feature size and, in this case, large-ish relative face to face angles to have a dramatic visual effect. Since you are planning a high-gloss finish, reflection becomes the dominant shape cue. With strong surface reflections, the eye can pick up the subtlest of angle changes. Since you have the skills and software access, I suggest experimenting with your CAD model, reducing the height (thickness?) of the side "add-ons", making the relative angle between the side faces smaller, until you find the minimum "addition" that still provides the reflective visual shape cues you are looking for, but will have the smallest audible impact. Also, for dramatic reflections, sharp distinct lines between faces are better than smooth blended radius transitions. Try sharp edges between the side faces and a chamfer at the sides of the baffle rather than a roundover (the speaker designer used a chamfer and indicated either would work). Also, during the piano-gloss finish process, sharp transitions are a little easier to polish than roundovers.
That's my 2 cents.
Best of luck,
James
Thanks James,
I too am a design professional, and I did mess around with angles, depth and rads etc before I settled on this. The sides only add an extra 9mm, but the gloss is sufficient to read this as definite surface changes as you describe.
I settled on the radius on these edges so the design is read as 2 elements as shown in the attached image. The roundover on the main feature line seperates the vertical element and acheives a 'wrap around' baffle appearence, whilst still maintining the dynamic of the side diagonal feature.
I just need to be careful when finishing on such subtle surface changes.
Cheers, Ash
I too am a design professional, and I did mess around with angles, depth and rads etc before I settled on this. The sides only add an extra 9mm, but the gloss is sufficient to read this as definite surface changes as you describe.
I settled on the radius on these edges so the design is read as 2 elements as shown in the attached image. The roundover on the main feature line seperates the vertical element and acheives a 'wrap around' baffle appearence, whilst still maintining the dynamic of the side diagonal feature.
I just need to be careful when finishing on such subtle surface changes.
Cheers, Ash
Attachments
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.