I guess this could be the right sub forum to post.
Could someone tell me would it make sense to produce bass drivers which are oval, almost rectangular in size let's say 10x15,20 or 30?
Would such speakers lack something in comparison to regular bass drivers?
The idea is to have an open baffle speaker, but which is not so wide. So something with surface of 15" or 18" driver, but in a kind of narrow version.
Thanks.
Could someone tell me would it make sense to produce bass drivers which are oval, almost rectangular in size let's say 10x15,20 or 30?
Would such speakers lack something in comparison to regular bass drivers?
The idea is to have an open baffle speaker, but which is not so wide. So something with surface of 15" or 18" driver, but in a kind of narrow version.
Thanks.
they are called magnepans 🙂
but yeah for open baffle a round speaker is kind of stupid surface wise 🙂 you need more surface area go square, but dynamic speaker tend to have a round voice coil thats the only thing. but the BF139 i believe it was from kef is oval. there are some ugly car speakers subs that are square to. and some really old phillips and technics
but yeah for open baffle a round speaker is kind of stupid surface wise 🙂 you need more surface area go square, but dynamic speaker tend to have a round voice coil thats the only thing. but the BF139 i believe it was from kef is oval. there are some ugly car speakers subs that are square to. and some really old phillips and technics
Last edited:
Thanks for the reply, but the idea behind the speaker was to be used for bass only, 120-150Hz and down. I just wondered if this would work at all, benefit being the profile of the baffle remained as narrow as possible.
yeah still the lower you go the more air you need to move so surface area helps. so yeah going square gives you more surface area. the smaller the baffle more compensation is needed. but surface area helps. you could go either huge Xmax and compensate or more surface area and less xmax and compensate
As much as I disparage the century-old Rice-Kellogg cone driver, quite natural to favour a cone shape. Otherwise, with a central voice coil impeller, the "sounding board" would go all squirrelly. But with a cone shape as the sounding board, easy to mould ribs, easy flexing surround, spider, etc and otherwise to achieve low mass with rigidity (or controlled flex).
Ben
Ben
Hi,
Narrow and open baffle simply don't mix well at all.
However twin vertical drivers is by defintion narrow,
and much easier than any bespoke sort of design.
A vertical 2x15" is equivalent to a 21" driver.
A vertical 2x12" is equivalent to a 17" driver.
A vertical 2x10" is equivalent to a 14" driver.
A vertical 2x8" is equivalent to a 11" driver.
rgds, sreten.
Narrow and open baffle simply don't mix well at all.
However twin vertical drivers is by defintion narrow,
and much easier than any bespoke sort of design.
A vertical 2x15" is equivalent to a 21" driver.
A vertical 2x12" is equivalent to a 17" driver.
A vertical 2x10" is equivalent to a 14" driver.
A vertical 2x8" is equivalent to a 11" driver.
rgds, sreten.
Hi,
True but generally a pretty expensive idea, as the square
driver only has 4/pi = 1.3 times more area than circular.
rgds, sreten.
Square woofers are rare. You can easily find much cheaper conventional circular cone shape woofers with bigger surface.
Width of the baffle defines how low it will go (together with woofer Fs and Qts), so that is not a good idea.
Hi,
Modern drivers are assembled from standard parts from various specialists.
A bespoke square driver with non standard parts would be just far too much.
rgds, sreten.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.