I have a scenario that seems to be somewhat unique: I want a monitor stand with built-in speakers. I don't have a lot of width to work with beyond the monitor itself, so I want to try to fit the speakers mostly "under" the monitor. I also want a setup that I can slide forward and back as a unit — when I work, it will be pushed back, but when I play flight sim games and need to scoot my chair away from the desk (to accommodate flight stick/throttle mounts) I want to slide it forward 12-18" so the screen isn't too far from my face, and allow the monitor to slightly come over the keyboard/mouse. And I want the speakers to come with it.
These do not need to fill the room with sound; for one thing, it's a small room (11x12) and for another, I have a pair of MTM Overnight Sensations I built five years ago that are hooked up to the real stereo/TV. The speakers on this stand will just be used for PC audio, either for my MacBook Pro during meetings or my gaming when I'm only sitting two feet away.
I have a significant amount of depth to work with (I sit in the corner of a desk), but as I said not a lot of width. So my idea is to take Paul Carmody's Sprite and adapt it to a split design that is more deep than tall/wide, so they can fit under the monitor. However, other than building the MTM Overnight Sensations — which I did from a kit — I really know very little about speaker design. I've tried to read about it but it's overwhelming.
So I would appreciate feedback on my design from people who are better versed. I've done a quick model in Sketchup of what I'm thinking...just rough dimensions, I may need to tweak the boxes slightly if I proceed with this design but as shown they're pretty close to the Sprite specification of 4L. I added the angled sides just for more visual interest, inspired by the one other person I've found on the entire Internet who's done something like this.
As long as I keep the box volumes near 4L and have a port on the back, is it reasonable to assume the principles and performance of the Sprite will largely hold over into my adaptation? Should the port be offset from the driver, or maybe use a curved tube? What else should I be thinking about? How crazy is this idea?
Thanks for your input/feedback.
These do not need to fill the room with sound; for one thing, it's a small room (11x12) and for another, I have a pair of MTM Overnight Sensations I built five years ago that are hooked up to the real stereo/TV. The speakers on this stand will just be used for PC audio, either for my MacBook Pro during meetings or my gaming when I'm only sitting two feet away.
I have a significant amount of depth to work with (I sit in the corner of a desk), but as I said not a lot of width. So my idea is to take Paul Carmody's Sprite and adapt it to a split design that is more deep than tall/wide, so they can fit under the monitor. However, other than building the MTM Overnight Sensations — which I did from a kit — I really know very little about speaker design. I've tried to read about it but it's overwhelming.
So I would appreciate feedback on my design from people who are better versed. I've done a quick model in Sketchup of what I'm thinking...just rough dimensions, I may need to tweak the boxes slightly if I proceed with this design but as shown they're pretty close to the Sprite specification of 4L. I added the angled sides just for more visual interest, inspired by the one other person I've found on the entire Internet who's done something like this.
As long as I keep the box volumes near 4L and have a port on the back, is it reasonable to assume the principles and performance of the Sprite will largely hold over into my adaptation? Should the port be offset from the driver, or maybe use a curved tube? What else should I be thinking about? How crazy is this idea?
Thanks for your input/feedback.
As you change baffle size/shape it alters its polar response and typically any advanced XO designs and as you go deeper it adds, increases in amplitude, any internal eigenmodes, so may need more internal damping, potentially audibly rolling off the bass higher, so maybe a different port tuning and/or yet more XO tweaking/redesign.
In theory the vent's output is well below any issues WRT in box placement, though local boundaries can make audible differences, especially if up close & personal, so YMMV, etc.
.
In theory the vent's output is well below any issues WRT in box placement, though local boundaries can make audible differences, especially if up close & personal, so YMMV, etc.
.@GM I only tracked about every other word there, but if I understand what you’re saying correctly…you‘re saying “no”, just keeping the box the same volume doesn’t guarantee it will work well. The depth/angles are going to change the properties too much.
What do you think is the best way to achieve this? Would a transmission line design work well when I have so much depth to work with? I’m really new at this but trying to learn.
What do you think is the best way to achieve this? Would a transmission line design work well when I have so much depth to work with? I’m really new at this but trying to learn.
'Well' is in the ear of the beholder and relative to how much you change the design, so all I did was answer your questions, not pass judgement per se and yes, no guarantee either way.
Personally would do what I wanted and deal with any obviously audible changes and IME they must be at least 36" deep to think in terms of treating them as a TL or vented variant (ML) TL.
Personally would do what I wanted and deal with any obviously audible changes and IME they must be at least 36" deep to think in terms of treating them as a TL or vented variant (ML) TL.