W.ife A.ccepting O.pen B.affle.
Long story short, it's an open baffle that uses the TV as an extension to the baffle. Yes, for open baffles they are a bit close to the wall, but as you all know, no enclosure is perfect.. it's all a balancing act.
Listening impressions: These speakers REALLY shine with acoustic music. I played the "Evening Acoustic" playlist on Spotify and melted in my seat at the realism and pure tonality. The SS10F's measure as flat as a ruler- better than most multi-ways, and are already accurate, but with the lack of enclosure resonances, it takes realism to the next level imo. My dogs actually stormed into the room in a barking inferno because they thought the music were intruders! Low bass on bass guitars and cello are at the perfect level imho. Not "barely there" nor overpowering. Much better than a dedicated sub trying to blend SQ wise.
I wasn't expecting a very large soundstage due to the proximity to the back wall, and the speakers are only probably 43" apart, but the soundstage surprisingly extends around 4.5ft outwards of the speakers with the right tracks!
Honestly, this is end level for me imho. Take into consideration though, I'm a purist. I don't like DSP; I don't like passive crossovers. I take a true minimalist approach to speakers- which is why I bought such expensive full rangers (nothing to mess with, they measure flawlessly). Plus I'm residing in an apartment- so no subs for me.
Hopefully this encourages someone to at least give my design a shot- I've never seen anyone else do this before. Plus it only took 3/4 of one sheet of foamboard.😛
http://m.imgur.com/rKG9YD5
http://m.imgur.com/NaIfeoI
Long story short, it's an open baffle that uses the TV as an extension to the baffle. Yes, for open baffles they are a bit close to the wall, but as you all know, no enclosure is perfect.. it's all a balancing act.
Listening impressions: These speakers REALLY shine with acoustic music. I played the "Evening Acoustic" playlist on Spotify and melted in my seat at the realism and pure tonality. The SS10F's measure as flat as a ruler- better than most multi-ways, and are already accurate, but with the lack of enclosure resonances, it takes realism to the next level imo. My dogs actually stormed into the room in a barking inferno because they thought the music were intruders! Low bass on bass guitars and cello are at the perfect level imho. Not "barely there" nor overpowering. Much better than a dedicated sub trying to blend SQ wise.
I wasn't expecting a very large soundstage due to the proximity to the back wall, and the speakers are only probably 43" apart, but the soundstage surprisingly extends around 4.5ft outwards of the speakers with the right tracks!
Honestly, this is end level for me imho. Take into consideration though, I'm a purist. I don't like DSP; I don't like passive crossovers. I take a true minimalist approach to speakers- which is why I bought such expensive full rangers (nothing to mess with, they measure flawlessly). Plus I'm residing in an apartment- so no subs for me.
Hopefully this encourages someone to at least give my design a shot- I've never seen anyone else do this before. Plus it only took 3/4 of one sheet of foamboard.😛
http://m.imgur.com/rKG9YD5
http://m.imgur.com/NaIfeoI
Last edited:
Two obvious improvements.
Put some panels on the side facing away from the TV. That should be totally ok, and not result in anything but more extended bass without any humps, as long as the other three sides are not constrained. Do them in acrylic if you want, to keep the light look.
Put some caulking between the TV frame and the side of the baffle. That could be a rubber lib or felt. But I think the best would be gaffer tape if you are willing to put that on your TV. Any glue residue will come off with alcohol and a little patience.
That would also, apart from further improving the bass also stiffen and damp the baffle even more.
You could improve dispersion, like Manger does with their acrylic contraption (Holoprofile) with a 45 degree wing halfway over the driver. Do it in foam or acrylic, either is good.
Put some panels on the side facing away from the TV. That should be totally ok, and not result in anything but more extended bass without any humps, as long as the other three sides are not constrained. Do them in acrylic if you want, to keep the light look.
Put some caulking between the TV frame and the side of the baffle. That could be a rubber lib or felt. But I think the best would be gaffer tape if you are willing to put that on your TV. Any glue residue will come off with alcohol and a little patience.
That would also, apart from further improving the bass also stiffen and damp the baffle even more.
You could improve dispersion, like Manger does with their acrylic contraption (Holoprofile) with a 45 degree wing halfway over the driver. Do it in foam or acrylic, either is good.
Nice work! You certainly did not mess around with any budget drivers and cannot go wrong with the 10F/8424's. Although for OB, perhaps the less expensive 8214 with circa 0.67 Qts could have worked as well or better and saved some cash for more amps?
As pointed out above, a "wing" that is angled from top to bottom can improve bass extension as well as stiffen the baffle even more. The angle on the wing reduces diffraction from a constant width baffle.
Although your TV acts as a wide baffle on one side, the other half essentially has not baffle due to how narrow it is. I am guessing your frequency response starts falling off around 800Hz given how narrow it is. If you can add another 6in depth at the driver location with a tall triangular wing glued on at 90 deg going back from baffle that will bring bass extension down quite a bit - maybe 400Hz. It will sound much fuller on vocals.
Also, consider doubling up the baffle with a second layer glued on with latex caulking (stays soft after curing). This will dampen vibrations and reduce secondary noise generation for a cleaner sound with less distortion and better imaging. Part of your sympathetic vibrations of the baffle may be contributing accidentally as a DML and giving deeper bass than a stiff baffle so check to see if that is something that you like or don't like before gluing on second layer.
Good luck. 🙂
As pointed out above, a "wing" that is angled from top to bottom can improve bass extension as well as stiffen the baffle even more. The angle on the wing reduces diffraction from a constant width baffle.
Although your TV acts as a wide baffle on one side, the other half essentially has not baffle due to how narrow it is. I am guessing your frequency response starts falling off around 800Hz given how narrow it is. If you can add another 6in depth at the driver location with a tall triangular wing glued on at 90 deg going back from baffle that will bring bass extension down quite a bit - maybe 400Hz. It will sound much fuller on vocals.
Also, consider doubling up the baffle with a second layer glued on with latex caulking (stays soft after curing). This will dampen vibrations and reduce secondary noise generation for a cleaner sound with less distortion and better imaging. Part of your sympathetic vibrations of the baffle may be contributing accidentally as a DML and giving deeper bass than a stiff baffle so check to see if that is something that you like or don't like before gluing on second layer.
Good luck. 🙂
Last edited:
I'd think about reconsidering your resolve against subs.
Your drivers are quite opposite of what one would normally consider suited for OB (low Qts, small size, high Fs).
That doesn't mean that they will sound bad, but I'll bet that you will begin to miss a bit more bottom in time when you have acclimatized to the great quality of mids and highs of the drivers.
A sub doesn't mean booming unsophisticated sound. It can and should be subtle and well integrated with the main drivers. Also, you can adjust the output entirely to your liking.
Look at X's foam subs in the relevant forum.
It doesn't need to be something big or expensive. You could easily fit one in the bench your TV is resting on, or even behind the TV.
Your drivers are quite opposite of what one would normally consider suited for OB (low Qts, small size, high Fs).
That doesn't mean that they will sound bad, but I'll bet that you will begin to miss a bit more bottom in time when you have acclimatized to the great quality of mids and highs of the drivers.
A sub doesn't mean booming unsophisticated sound. It can and should be subtle and well integrated with the main drivers. Also, you can adjust the output entirely to your liking.
Look at X's foam subs in the relevant forum.
It doesn't need to be something big or expensive. You could easily fit one in the bench your TV is resting on, or even behind the TV.
Last edited:
Hey everyone, thanks for the responses!
Driver used is the 10F/8414 variant. Measures a bit better than the older version, cheaper, and has a QTS of .51
Sense in OB/IB Qts=Qtc, I actually prefer a published Qts of .5 over .7. First reason is because actual driver QTS is usually higher than published, and I don't want to go over QTS of .7 personally. Secondary, It's a bit theoretical as applied to speaker drivers, but here's why- "Critical damping results in the fastest response (approach to the final value) possible without overshoot."
Driver size is so small for directivity/ reasons. Many have reported that smaller drivers image better, I contribute that to a larger constant directivity bandwidth. Imaging is my #1 design goal, so I don't use large drivers.
I'll give the triangle wing a try, and I'll look into the holoprofile and try a crude mockup. This is the first I've ever heard of the holoprofile actually.
Driver used is the 10F/8414 variant. Measures a bit better than the older version, cheaper, and has a QTS of .51
Sense in OB/IB Qts=Qtc, I actually prefer a published Qts of .5 over .7. First reason is because actual driver QTS is usually higher than published, and I don't want to go over QTS of .7 personally. Secondary, It's a bit theoretical as applied to speaker drivers, but here's why- "Critical damping results in the fastest response (approach to the final value) possible without overshoot."
Driver size is so small for directivity/ reasons. Many have reported that smaller drivers image better, I contribute that to a larger constant directivity bandwidth. Imaging is my #1 design goal, so I don't use large drivers.
I'll give the triangle wing a try, and I'll look into the holoprofile and try a crude mockup. This is the first I've ever heard of the holoprofile actually.
That is most likely an artifact of where the numbers are taken from the T/S curves than any real difference.
Those look nice, i don't expect you are getting any bass from them.
dave
- Status
- Not open for further replies.