You can absolutely use different dimensions providing you keep certain parameters the same. The first issue is diffraction, this causes frequency response abberations and is controlled by the size of the front baffle relative to the position that the drivers are mounted on it. To this end you want to make sure that you keep this the same, in other words choose the same baffle width and mount the drivers so that they are the same distances away from the top and the sides of the enclosure.
The second issue is baffle step and this is largely controlled by the smallest dimension of the loudspeaker as viewed from the front. This is almost always the width, so to ensure compatibility with a different cabinet all you really have to do is again, keep the width the same.
Given all of that you are basically free to make the loudspeakers as tall/deep as you'd like. Yes increasing the height will alter the diffraction off of the bottom edge of the cabinet, but this tends to vary anyway depending on how people mount the loudspeakers.
If you are mounting them close to a wall or putting them on a desk then the reduced bafflestep option would make more sense and as has been mentioned above, making them tall and skinny, with a port, will turn them into an MLTL. This will lower the effective vent tuning, for the same sized port, when compared to a standard ported cabinet, so you, in effect, would need a slightly shorter port to compensate.
The second issue is baffle step and this is largely controlled by the smallest dimension of the loudspeaker as viewed from the front. This is almost always the width, so to ensure compatibility with a different cabinet all you really have to do is again, keep the width the same.
Given all of that you are basically free to make the loudspeakers as tall/deep as you'd like. Yes increasing the height will alter the diffraction off of the bottom edge of the cabinet, but this tends to vary anyway depending on how people mount the loudspeakers.
If you are mounting them close to a wall or putting them on a desk then the reduced bafflestep option would make more sense and as has been mentioned above, making them tall and skinny, with a port, will turn them into an MLTL. This will lower the effective vent tuning, for the same sized port, when compared to a standard ported cabinet, so you, in effect, would need a slightly shorter port to compensate.
I might have some time this week to design something to look at (3D CAD). In the meantime, and I understand this is the wrong category, I am contemplating my amp need.
My initial idea was to buy a SureElectronics 100W/channel amp via ebay - not one in an enclosure, the basic board that still requires you to solder the input/output terminals. However, I was wondering about them and whether they are any "good". Kind of a stupid question cause my good and your good could be completely different. My other idea was to build a basic amp via the LM series. Any advice? Since I need items with small footprints, the Class-D route seems appropriate.
P.S. Then again, merely an enclosed Class D SureElectronics amp for now solves a lot of problems. Again, opinion on the SureElecronics amps is welcomed.
P.S.S. Using my MK1 eyeball, the LM amps looks easy to build. Do they require special rotary encodes if I want volume control? (Asking the wrong board I know).
My initial idea was to buy a SureElectronics 100W/channel amp via ebay - not one in an enclosure, the basic board that still requires you to solder the input/output terminals. However, I was wondering about them and whether they are any "good". Kind of a stupid question cause my good and your good could be completely different. My other idea was to build a basic amp via the LM series. Any advice? Since I need items with small footprints, the Class-D route seems appropriate.
P.S. Then again, merely an enclosed Class D SureElectronics amp for now solves a lot of problems. Again, opinion on the SureElecronics amps is welcomed.
P.S.S. Using my MK1 eyeball, the LM amps looks easy to build. Do they require special rotary encodes if I want volume control? (Asking the wrong board I know).
Last edited:
I've never heard a classD amp but I would use a 100 W class D only for subwoofer . I like very much the discrete amps of the 70-80-90s from 20 to 50 W
The LM series 3875-3886 are good, the little brothers 1875/6 have too little power but could be ok for a fullrange😱😱😱😱😱
With a LM 3886 you just need a rotary potentiometer -or sliderrrrrr !! - stereo or double mono ( to have also an elegant balance control ) from 10 to 22 K Ω ( 47 KΩ is ok )before the input
The LM series 3875-3886 are good, the little brothers 1875/6 have too little power but could be ok for a fullrange😱😱😱😱😱
With a LM 3886 you just need a rotary potentiometer -or sliderrrrrr !! - stereo or double mono ( to have also an elegant balance control ) from 10 to 22 K Ω ( 47 KΩ is ok )before the input
Last edited:
OOOOO, now you brought up something - vintage electronics......love em. Thanks for the input picowallspeaker.
Well...I do use the latest Kenwood and Sansui with modern devices, the ones you can find
for 100-200 ¥€$. Often by removing the nasty input and preamplifier section -if any-
improves much the sound . many use just the potentiometer for being cheap or low segment, and that would not harm the sound . Usually it's 100 KΩ potentiometer , with an extra leg for making the Loudness feature adjustable together with the Volume .
for 100-200 ¥€$. Often by removing the nasty input and preamplifier section -if any-
improves much the sound . many use just the potentiometer for being cheap or low segment, and that would not harm the sound . Usually it's 100 KΩ potentiometer , with an extra leg for making the Loudness feature adjustable together with the Volume .
- Status
- Not open for further replies.