What can I do against 'box sound' ?

Status
This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.
@Alujoe2 That "openness" could be due to two things:

1-Driver having no cabinet so no wall resonances
2-Driver being mounted OB radiates high frequencies behind and you are picking up that as reflected energy with enough delay to perceive it as euphonic.

First you must pinpoint what is it of these two that you really like (possibly both).

-Wall resonances can be handled effectively with sandwich walls (a cabinet within a cabinet) with a layer of sand in between.
-For backward radiation you can add another driver to the back of the boxed loudspeaker to get that figure 8 radiation pattern.

That is if you insist on boxed loudspeaker after you confirmed you like the sound of unboxed one.
 
Last edited:
I line the insides with ceramic floor tiles or stone. 3/4" thick stone makes for an incredibly inert cabinet and can be stuck on simply with PVA. A cheap or sometimes free source is old fire place surrounds...usually closer to an inch thick though so weight can be an issue. The audible improvement with either is substantial. My latest 2-way build uses ceramic tiles on the inside of the cabinet which tapered towards the back where there is an aperiodic port directly behind the driver which allows most of the sound reaching it to escape. The driver response still reaches low enough to where a subwoofer takes over. The tweeter is an open backed AMT sitting on the top and the whole sound is very open and very clean.
 
Bracing and damping will remedy both of those problems, so we only hear the driver itself.
I admit bracing and damping improve things, but IMHO it is not a cure - only half way there. At least I never heard any boxed driver that came close to this 'not in a box sound'. Why do I not use a dipol, well, I like the impact of the boxed drivers :).
For a driver working 200Hz-1.2kHz in the usual closed box, are there any better enclosures like TL or aperiodic or whatever else ?

TimA said:
The tweeter is an open backed AMT sitting on the top and the whole sound is very open and very clean.
I never tried it, but I was told integration of dipol and boxed speaker is problematic. Can you please be so kind and tell me what drivers you used and how you did the crossover ?
I am also very interested in how you did the aperiodic vent.
 
Last edited:
The tweeter is a Mundorf AMT 2340 and the woofer is a Seas U22, not the standard version but a sample version with a heavier magnet but otherwise very similar. The crossover is electrical 2nd order at 3kHz designed in Xsim using real measurements from a prototype I knocked up as I wasn't sure about the hybrid approach and whether it would work. I had intended it to be a 3-way with open baffle midrange but found the crossover design, specifically the phase tracking through crossover, too difficult to achieve the results I was looking for. I'm now glad to have gone for the 2-way hybrid. Driver integration is excellent subjectivity, in fact it's the first thing my piano tuner friend commented on when hearing them.
 

Attachments

  • 2020-09-11 09.32.44.jpg
    2020-09-11 09.32.44.jpg
    192 KB · Views: 1,062
  • 2020-09-11 09.31.17.jpg
    2020-09-11 09.31.17.jpg
    356 KB · Views: 1,025
Last edited:
The vent consists of gutter mesh inside and outside with roof insulation between. In this case uncompressed to allow more sound through. Simulations of the vent were done on winISD with Ql (box losses) set to about 2.5 and later confirmed through impedance measurement looking for a lowered peak as per simulation. I have seen guidelines somewhere for a minimum vent size relative to driver radiating area but in any case adjustment is done by stuffing density.
 
Last edited:
The question is, if we hear a speaker with infinity baffle + infinity back chamber, would we feel it "boxy sound" or "open sound".

I guess it would sound neither, which means OB's "open sound" is some kind of coloration, and the true question is, if we can replicate the "coloration of OB" with boxed speaker, maybe.
 
Administrator
Joined 2004
Paid Member
As noted earlier in the thread, there are many things you can do to eliminate the boxy sound of a speaker. Many of the best methods are not easy to implement, like sand filled walls, but they work wonders in my experience.

However, box speakers with no box sound never sound as "open" as open baffle. It's a different thing. There are advantages over OB, tho.
 
Why do I not use a dipol, well, I like the impact of the boxed drivers :).
For a driver working 200Hz-1.2kHz in the usual closed box...

So if you like "impact" but dont like the boxy sound of drivers "working 200Hz-1.2kHz", why not try OB in that range, while boxing something for 200 and below? Or 100 and below?

I give up the chest-thumping gutteral "impact" of a sealed enclosure by going OB all the way. However I can understand getting that aspect back by using a different cabinet for the lower frequency range, where the 100's of Hz cabinet wall resonances are simply not happening. Maybe 50 Hz wall resonances; but does that add its own color to the sound in the same way? I wouldnt think so...

I'm a cabinet tapper and I love to knock on cabinet walls of various speakers I run into at sales. What utter garbage 98% of everything consumer level is, regarding this aspect. Must just be too expensive to make / ship profitably. It's so ubiquitous, something that actually sounds right probably sounds wrong to most consumers! (I'm not hearing any cabinet resonances...where's my cabinet resonances?)
 
Last edited:
Status
This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.