R-S-dhar,r_s_dhar said:
Almost every speaker design decision is a compromise as is the case in the speaker box shape. The tower shape is used mostly for esthetics to sell more speakers, or vertical driver placement configurations or both. There are, of course, other reasons to use a tower shaped box, but these are the most prevalent.
Rodd Yamashita
Quite a few 2 way tower speakers simply use the tower as a built in stand. As such - they have a divider that completely separates the speaker enclosure from the rest of the tower (acting as the stand). the golden ratio can therefore apply "within" the tower (above the divider).
planet10 (Dave) can no doubt comment on transmission line / labyrinth speakers and tower type enclosures (a bit beyond me at this point!).
Dave.
planet10 (Dave) can no doubt comment on transmission line / labyrinth speakers and tower type enclosures (a bit beyond me at this point!).
Dave.
The question is whether the tower box shape was necessary to sonic performance of the speaker or used for its esthetic qualities. I think you’ll find the tower shaped box to be a compromise in most cases.
Clearly in the cases of tall ribbons, line arrays, or WMTM configurations, the driver arrangement dictates the box shape. El-Pipe-O is another situation where the tower shape is important to the sonic function of the speaker, but I can’t think of any other case where the tower is the best sonic choice.
There are ways to overcome the shortcomings of not adhering to the “Golden Ratio”. The use of stuffing, damping pads, dividers (as you mention), and curved surfaces, can all counter the problem of standing waves in lieu of the golden ratio. Using these methods to help improve the sonics of a tower shaped box doesn’t change the fact that the tower shape was most likely chosen for esthetic purposes in the first place. Folded horns and TL’s are folded into shapes (often towers) that your wife will allow you to bring into the living room, not because the folds makes the speaker sound better.
Rodd Yamashita
Clearly in the cases of tall ribbons, line arrays, or WMTM configurations, the driver arrangement dictates the box shape. El-Pipe-O is another situation where the tower shape is important to the sonic function of the speaker, but I can’t think of any other case where the tower is the best sonic choice.
There are ways to overcome the shortcomings of not adhering to the “Golden Ratio”. The use of stuffing, damping pads, dividers (as you mention), and curved surfaces, can all counter the problem of standing waves in lieu of the golden ratio. Using these methods to help improve the sonics of a tower shaped box doesn’t change the fact that the tower shape was most likely chosen for esthetic purposes in the first place. Folded horns and TL’s are folded into shapes (often towers) that your wife will allow you to bring into the living room, not because the folds makes the speaker sound better.
Rodd Yamashita
There is nothing mysterious about the golden ratio......
... except it happens to look good to the eye (look how much he romans etc used it for their buildings) and the mathematical fact that there are no common multiples between the sides. There are many other irrational ratios that would work the same way.
... except it happens to look good to the eye (look how much he romans etc used it for their buildings) and the mathematical fact that there are no common multiples between the sides. There are many other irrational ratios that would work the same way.
and r_s_dhar....
4:3:2 is probably not a good approximation to use..... see the 2 and the 4, big no-no !!!
the actual ratio no. is (sqrt(5)+1)/2 which is approx 1.618.....
Bass Box 6 uses this ratio for the sides in its "optimum" cabinet, but there actually a common ratio between the ratio of the sides, which may or maynot be good. I read somewhere that close to
1: 1.618: 2.3xx (can't remember) , was even better, but where that comes from I really don't know.
4:3:2 is probably not a good approximation to use..... see the 2 and the 4, big no-no !!!
the actual ratio no. is (sqrt(5)+1)/2 which is approx 1.618.....
Bass Box 6 uses this ratio for the sides in its "optimum" cabinet, but there actually a common ratio between the ratio of the sides, which may or maynot be good. I read somewhere that close to
1: 1.618: 2.3xx (can't remember) , was even better, but where that comes from I really don't know.
Nasty, you would get some real standing waves in that...
Ideally, no dimension should be a multiple of any other in an enclosure, for instance, my HT centre, ( the only rectangular box I have ), measures 584mm x 244mm x 334mm internally, and the internal dividers are set up so as not to be symetrical either.
The following thread discusses this issue and gives the dimensions for several different Golden Ratios:
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=732&highlight=golden+ratio
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=732&highlight=golden+ratio
pinkmouse said:
This is the key. Use irrational numbers to determine your ratios and you will be in the ballpark.
Be careful thou. sqrt(2) is a good irrational number but don't use it twice or you end up with a smallest to largest ratio of 1:2.
Of course non-rectangular boxes will usually have an edge. Even just a pr of non-parallel walls can make a big improvement.
dave
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.