I believe slam is a function of drivers used not the configuration like Open Baffle.
Drivers with poor CSD(waterfall) ouput will not give you slam you are looking even in box setup.
Drivers with poor CSD(waterfall) ouput will not give you slam you are looking even in box setup.
ttan98 said:
OB specific woofers usually have high Qts (Qts > 0.8). Dont know if their waterfall plots are affected by this high Q.
After a while I don't like the looks of H-frame. It's an eyesore 
so I quickly returned to OB configuration, only this time I use a new woofer from Jaycar with Qts of 0.7... I think it sounds better than H-frame although little loss of lower frequency. This perhaps will be my final system for a long time until I can afford a planar that is 😉
so I quickly returned to OB configuration, only this time I use a new woofer from Jaycar with Qts of 0.7... I think it sounds better than H-frame although little loss of lower frequency. This perhaps will be my final system for a long time until I can afford a planar that is 😉
H or U frame gives you more bass.
Possibly from good looks point of view and improved bass you may like to try using U frame, just add more wood around and behind the woofer and then pad it down with standing wave absorbing pad.
I have tried them on mine. You would be pleasantly surprised.
Cheers, happy listening.
Possibly from good looks point of view and improved bass you may like to try using U frame, just add more wood around and behind the woofer and then pad it down with standing wave absorbing pad.
I have tried them on mine. You would be pleasantly surprised.
Cheers, happy listening.
ttan,
Thanks you were right
... at first I was afraid that U-frame will add some coloration like boxed speaker as it is not a perfect dipole... but I was quite stunned with the result.
Improved bass, improved slam (still not quite like box though), and most importantly the dipole character is untouched.
Amazing.
Thanks you were right
... at first I was afraid that U-frame will add some coloration like boxed speaker as it is not a perfect dipole... but I was quite stunned with the result.
Improved bass, improved slam (still not quite like box though), and most importantly the dipole character is untouched.
Amazing.
with such limited space I would get another pair of woofers and attach them back to back with existing ones and get rid of baffle completely.
gainphile said:ttan,
Thanks you were right
Improved bass, improved slam (still not quite like box though), and most importantly the dipole character is untouched.
Amazing.
In most cases, not all, you need to do some sort of equalization if you just use pure open baffle if you require more bass, H and U frame can give you more bass without passive or active equailzation.
Only you get away without using H or U frame if your woofer has very high Qts, ie greater than 0.7, and definitely at Qts>= 1.0 whick MK is using. Most Woofers not all sold in Australia are usually around 0.4 or lower. What is yours?
Hi gainphile, are you using those cheap Jaycars as purchased?? I believe that the treatment of the paper cone with th standard 50/50 mix of PVA woodglue and water a few times would improve those woofers. They do have the benefit of being cheap. How much power are you giving them before they break-up??
Regards Ted
Regards Ted
The jaycars are 0.7 Qts which is nice.
Yes I am using it as it is. They're allright and the paper feels very stiff already. But not much xmax available especially since I'm equalising the low freq.
For example, the original recording of Queens' Radio Ga Ga gives me PLENTY of slam but not able to achieve chest-banging slam.
Yes I am using it as it is. They're allright and the paper feels very stiff already. But not much xmax available especially since I'm equalising the low freq.
For example, the original recording of Queens' Radio Ga Ga gives me PLENTY of slam but not able to achieve chest-banging slam.
Re treatment of the paper cone, In the past I've treated old paper cones with Dammar, which is good for restoring cones and stiffening them, but measurements with Synrta showed that the stiffening gives rise to a peak, similar to metal cones, although on the 8" units I did, this was at around 1.5KHz, right where it can be really noticable.
IOW, I'd be wary of doing it unless the cone is really knackered, you're using the speaker for guitar, or using a steep xover slope and crossing low....
IOW, I'd be wary of doing it unless the cone is really knackered, you're using the speaker for guitar, or using a steep xover slope and crossing low....
some die-hard audiophile I heard even spray the cone with a thin layer of cement based product!, like other material it will stiffen up the cone...
I don't recommend unless you want to experiment.
I don't recommend unless you want to experiment.
Unusual bookshelf speakers
Is there an alternative to the standard two-way bass reflex speakers? I need a pair for my new workplace, they will be placed on a shelf on the wall across the table, cca 80 cm from listening position and ca 60 cm apart, tweeter/fullranger at ear height. I would like to try any of the other configurations except from bass-reflex (dipole, horn?). As an alternative, I can use the whole shelf for a speaker in a size of an ordinary floorstander, it would have to contain both enclosures at once - then it could be placed on the bookshelf holders without the shelf. As an amp, I have an almost vintage 2x20 W Sansui integrated amp (4 ohms capable).
Is there an alternative to the standard two-way bass reflex speakers? I need a pair for my new workplace, they will be placed on a shelf on the wall across the table, cca 80 cm from listening position and ca 60 cm apart, tweeter/fullranger at ear height. I would like to try any of the other configurations except from bass-reflex (dipole, horn?). As an alternative, I can use the whole shelf for a speaker in a size of an ordinary floorstander, it would have to contain both enclosures at once - then it could be placed on the bookshelf holders without the shelf. As an amp, I have an almost vintage 2x20 W Sansui integrated amp (4 ohms capable).
CLS said:
The distance D between two drivers (point sources) can be sufficiently simulated by a circular baffle with the radius D.
Thanks for the hint🙂
If so, that would be pretty close to a fit/small U-frame with a depth of "D". So, in the back to back arrangement, the D should be large to justify the additional driver.
Then I guess if the distance of the 2 drivers is larger than a certain point, the relevance with "virtual circular baffle" should be diluted, no?
And, the accoutic center of this assembly should be at the middle point between the 2 drivers. That'll be both insteresting and odd.
I'm thinking of messing with 2 x 18inchers by this arrangement, using mininal baffles for each and keeping them 2~3ft apart.....
If so, that would be pretty close to a fit/small U-frame with a depth of "D". So, in the back to back arrangement, the D should be large to justify the additional driver.
Then I guess if the distance of the 2 drivers is larger than a certain point, the relevance with "virtual circular baffle" should be diluted, no?
And, the accoutic center of this assembly should be at the middle point between the 2 drivers. That'll be both insteresting and odd.
I'm thinking of messing with 2 x 18inchers by this arrangement, using mininal baffles for each and keeping them 2~3ft apart.....
- Status
- Not open for further replies.