Beautiful build!
Did the Peerless come with holes in the back of the motor designed for bolting it, or did you modified it?
I'm considering something along similar line of thinking and while my driver does have holes in the back of the motor they are intended for venting I think. But then I'm not going to get even close to applying the 1000W AES power it is rated for.
Very beautiful, that seems to be final build, just listen some music and enjoy living in that room too.
Lewinski: peerless drivers are very open, not much vent noises going on. not problem on this build
I wasn't referring to vent noises, but to temperature buildup because of thermal ventilation being blocked. But maybe the driver is designed to be bolted like that, or Baffless designed the holes for this purpose, or my concern is a non-issue and I can use the learning towards my build.
I think I have some woofers with threaded holes centred on the magnets. Never considered your thermal point, but assumed if you could bolt the hole, there's no reason not to.
I'm sure there's no venting hole in the back of that Peerless driver since there's a phase plug on the front of the motor.
Wouldn't worry about heat issues in an open baffle driver in this application. 🙂
Wouldn't worry about heat issues in an open baffle driver in this application. 🙂
I would agree. If the holes are threaded, the drivers were likely designed accounting for the holes being blocked, so no issue. My Faital 18HP1010 has holes that aren't threaded, so I assume they weren't designed to have the holes blocked. But maybe as Jonasz says this is a non-issue.
in ob setups thermal is not issue, bass usually run out of steam first and xxxls drivers has vent holes in cone. sure you can just turn volume up but sound is already flat mat cause its run´d out of dynamic capabilities.
every other ob problems/features comes in before drivers burn
There is no vent hole originaly at the back. So vent is not blocked. Temperature is not an issue at all.
I've tried using mine a couple times, casually. Mine in singles have quite a rising response and seem to have a big jump from around 4000- 6000 hertz. Does your baffle shape correct this, of do you fix this by other means?
That is a wonderfully designed system! Glad to see some others who are NOT using large baffles in their designs. I am sure that it sounds very, very good. Cheers.
It was supposed to read "have a big hump in them..."
Auto incorrected again, when I hit the reply button.
The lower mid baffle is effectively quite large if you consider the path length.
🙂 I like the idea, don't get me wrong, it isn't what I'd call baffle-less, that's all. I think it's a great compromise, like the torus, it controls edge diffraction, whilst lowering the dipole peak.
My rule of thumb on where "too large" lies is any (effective) baffle width that is more than twice the diameter of the driver. This is about where on and off axis responses start to "pinch together" above the dipole peak, which has also moved lower compared to a smaller baffle. If the driver is crossed over below the problem area, no problem. It's always good if the baffles are not physically large enough to block (acoustically shadow) the reflected rear wave.
If you mean the Arum Cantus, they haven't arrived yet.
Normally I do active crossovers with DSP, but this time I'm doing a hybrid system with passive crossovers, then active EQ on top of that for dipole EQ and response shaping.
I have the MiniDSP Pwr-Ice which has the EQ and amp in the one box.
That's a good point that's probably often overlooked. I wonder how much of an issue it is since reflections should ideally be diffused, do you know of any measurements or is it more an intuitive feeling? I might start a thread about the pros and cons of large/small/no baffle.
Last edited: