
Home  Forums  Rules  Articles  diyAudio Store  Blogs  Gallery  Wiki  Register  Donations  FAQ  Calendar  Search  Today's Posts  Mark Forums Read  Search 
MultiWay Conventional loudspeakers with crossovers 

Please consider donating to help us continue to serve you.
Ads on/off / Custom Title / More PMs / More album space / Advanced printing & mass image saving 

Thread Tools  Search this Thread 
11th January 2004, 06:46 AM  #1 
diyAudio Member

The "Golden" Ratio?
I try to consider every aspect of loudspeaker design when I make one. Before I make anything, the ratio of dimensions has to be determined. Now, I understand some (most?) people don't care about the "golden ratio," but the most baffling fact is that I've found several ratios out there that claim to be "golden." On the Index of Resources section on their website, Parts Express says that it is 2.6/1/1.6 (h/w/d). But according to an old Radio Shack book, it's 1.6/1/0.6 (h/w/d). They do look different, don't they?
I generally want the depth of my enclosures to be considerably larger than the width, so I trust PE more. (After all, who's to believe the Shack?) However, PE's ratio seems to apply only to dualwoofer or MTM designs (the Joe D'Appolito configuration). I mean, for a twoway with a tiny midbass, following that ratio means you can't even fit the darn midbass on the front!!! Surely no tower or floorstander follows that convention. And with the advent of plasma, some HT speakers are now designed to complement them. (The ratio doesn't matter as long as it's not deep!) So, for the time being, I'm using average dimension ratios from "normal" commercial systems as a starting point. (Count out the B brand!) I'm really looking for a good ratio suitable for a small twodriver twoway. Comments? 
11th January 2004, 11:26 AM  #2 
R.I.P.
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Brighton UK

They are the same with the width and depth interchanged,
i.e. "2.6 to 1 to 1.6" is the same as "1.6 to 0.6 to 1". If you dont like this shape then you play around by halving one ratio : giving h=1.6, w=1, d=1.3, suitable for a two way. sreten. 
11th January 2004, 01:13 PM  #3 
diyAudio Member
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Sweden

This is about the golden ratio only, I know next to nothing about
speaker design. The golden ratio is just a numeric constant, but an irrational one so it can't be written down exactly. Hence, it is usually approximated by a rational number, that is as a ratio between two numbers. 2/3 is a crude approximation, 3/5 a sligthly better one, 5/8 yet a better on. In fact, you can get arbitrarily close to the golden ratio by taking the ratio of subsequent pairs of numbers in the Fibanacci number series which starts as 1,1,2,3,5,8,13,21,... and where each number is the sum of the two preceeding ones in the series. You see from this series where the approximations I gave above come from. The golden ratio has a strange tendency to pop up in various situations as diverse as art, optimizing certain data structures for computer programs and, obviously, loudspeaker design. BTW, Fibonacci invented his number series in an attempt to find a mathematical model for how quickly rabbits multiply. Back to the speakers then. I don't really know, but I suppose what you want is a box dimension AxBxC s.t. B/A is the golden ratio and C/B is the golden ratio. So in the case of 1.6/1/0.6 you referred to we have 1/1.6 = 5/8 which is a "standard" approximation of the golden ratio, and we have 0.6/1= 3/5, which is also a standard approsimation, but a cruder one. If you really want golden ratios, you should probably adjust at least one of these ratios so they have the same "degree" of approximation, ie. both being 5/8 for instance. While the increasingly refined approximations given by the Fibonacci series give increasinly lower error, they do have a tendency to alternate between positive and negative error. Hence, if you use different ratios for the approximations of the box dimensions you increase the error unnecessarily. Then what precision you need, or if golden ratios are even good for speaker design, that you have to ask somebody else. 
11th January 2004, 04:22 PM  #4 
diyAudio Member
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: The Wilds Of Canada

Anything beyond 2 decimal points of accuracy tends to be swamped by other issues in the construction of the loudspeaker.
It is best to use that minimum of two decimal points in the design/measurements/cutting of the design, otherwise errors do increase.
__________________
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."  Carl Sagan. Sometimes the claims aren't extraordinary. Sometimes the weakness of men's minds are the culprit. Mass mentality has nothing to do with obviousness or truths. 
11th January 2004, 05:21 PM  #5 
diyAudio Member
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Canada

According to the radio shack book i have you can use either
.6 : 1 : 1.6 or .79 : 1 : 1.25
__________________
The End 
11th January 2004, 06:34 PM  #6 
diyAudio Member

Thanks for the interesting info here, everyone. Maybe I'll have to look into devising my own ratio for each type of speaker (i.e. mini monitor, dualwoofer, etc.). About that Radio Shack book, sardonx, I probably have the older edition...

11th January 2004, 06:38 PM  #7 
diyAudio Member
Join Date: May 2002
Location: The great city of Turnhout, BE

Christer,
If I can pick your brain a bit more, the reason for the use of golden ratio's in speaker dimensions is that it would avoid standing waves appearing of the same wavelength or multiples of it in more than one dimension. Meaning that there should not be a standing wave in the width of say L, while at the same time there would be a standing wave of 2L in one of the other dimensions, L of course being determined by the fact that it would be an integral of the dimension. Do you agree that this golden ratio in speaker dimensions is a good one to avoid these multiplewavelength standing waves? Could there be a better one? Jan Didden 
11th January 2004, 06:58 PM  #8 
diyAudio Member
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: The Netherlands

Fibonacci
Christer,
I like your clarification of the golden rule with the link to Fibonacci. This is based on the simple mathematical equation b:a = (b+a):b. Some fiddling around with this equation shows that b:a = 2/(sqrt(5)1) which is 1.6180339887498948482045868343656. This requires an highly accurate sawingmachine and skills. Steven 
11th January 2004, 06:59 PM  #9 
R.I.P.
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Brighton UK

The ratios are much more applicable to room modes in acoustics.
In speakers you can damp the internal modes into insignificance. sreten. 
11th January 2004, 07:03 PM  #10  
diyAudio Member
Join Date: May 2002
Location: The great city of Turnhout, BE

Quote:
Jan Didden 

Thread Tools  Search this Thread 


Similar Threads  
Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
The Golden Ratio Stage  Stee  Solid State  7  22nd February 2009 08:46 PM 
question regarding "golden ratio"  JebD.  Full Range  3  28th May 2006 10:39 AM 
W41320SB Golden Ratio BR  sharpi31  Full Range  4  8th December 2005 09:50 PM 
Golden Box Ratio  Important or not?  Ornlu  Subwoofers  5  27th May 2005 06:52 AM 
Golden ratio  Example?  icebear  MultiWay  5  17th April 2004 08:40 PM 
New To Site?  Need Help? 