Sorry, I forgot to mention that my post was in response to post 20, specifically this sentence: "There seems to be some terminology issues." So, I ask again, "Does anyone know what a round sound is ? " 🙄
The term ’sound is round' means it naturally expands in all directions.
Yeah, I'd put it in a similar category as a "pan" sound, a "jar" sound, a "chest" sound, a "tub" sound, a 55 gal barrel sound, a table sound, a stair sound, a door sound - lots of common sounds, sound like that due to "design and construction".
Y'all need to chuck a few cabinets off your rear deck onto the concrete driveway 12' below, to bust 'em up for the garbage can. They definitely have a box sound when the corner hits.
I believe the material used to make the box "flavors" the box's sound. Cheap MDF sounds different than expensive multilayer plywood. Molded plastic sounds different than wood.
An OB whose baffle is simply clamped at the bottom edge is called a tine. Just like those things in a Fender Rhodes piano the hammers hit. Obviously, a speaker cabinet should be constructed to not have any identifiable sound of its own. Like the opposite of building a musical instrument. I realize some manufacturers build speakers in the same construction style as one would make an acoustic guitar. I suppose it would be possible to get that to work; I've never heard one...
I was pretty right then, thanks!
Last edited by a moderator:
Something similar can be noticed with some multi-way speakers, where there are 2, 3 or more different radiation patterns echoing around the room at various angles. The interference patterns colour the reflected sound, and there's pressure to fix the error by adding sound-absorbing material everywhere, which is not always a desirable or convenient thing to do.
Possibly related to that, multi-way HT speakers are often put on 'blast'. It's usually claimed that FR speakers are more limited in output level due to high IMD, but multi-way can be "less easy" to listen to, and I've noticed cases where the volume seems to be turned up solely to shout over it's own off-axis noise.
then i do not understand how dipoles work But i do not like dipoles in particular Like i do not like OB
as i said my only real interest is now cabinet designs You know why ? because some exotic cabinets have a spectacular impact on sound
the challenge is to build one with common materials It is not easy at all
Imho most of commercial speakers (not high endly priced) suffer of boxyness
interesting thank you
since I still have some DIY ambitions I would like to stay on conventional speakers
it's not that I pretend to go to the moon with a helicopter
for example I was struck by the GR Research site
There is practically no commercial speaker even of the rather expensive ones that cannot be improved for example in the xover or in the treatment of the cabinet or cables and connectors
In particular I would like to know if it is possible to substantially and easily reduce the boxyness of a cabinet
For me the post where it is said that even an open baffle speaker can sound boxy was enlightening
Since there is obviously only the front baffle it means that the only responsible of boxyness can be it
But I see that no one expresses themselves on this fundamental fact
By extension the front baffle becomes the critical panel also for a closed speaker
This is a fundamental point
I have to find someone who can weld me some square iron tubes
that's already my idea
A parallelepiped metallic frame with a crazy front baffle and the other walls of thin plywood attached with magnets to the metal frame
if the front baffle is the only one that counts
i see still i think that an effort should be done to use scientific terms
if only because they are objective
if the design of a driver or a speaker did not have a scientific basis it would make no sense to see how companies equip themselves with very expensive measurement systems
Now I do not want to sound presumptuous or arrogant but for me it is essential to develop adequate measurement protocols
Every now and then I read things that undermine my belief in the supremacy of science Like famous designers who select drivers by ear
I am sorry but with all the effort possible I cannot accept this
They say that the sound depends on the material of the cone Ok fine
But there must be a test that correlates an electrical measurement to the accuracy in the sound
IMD THD CSD FR SWR there must be something I am sure of it
Once a measurement set has been developed you can design with your ears closed
that is clear if not there would no reason to discuss
we hear the effect we should study the causes
i can tell if the coffee is hot or cold But only a thermometer could tell how hot or cold it is And with very good precision as well
i see Today my main interest is to understand how select cone drivers on the basis of measurements
I said it before that for instance in Harbeth they use specific tracks of recorded human voices to check the cone materials
After many experiments they have arrived at a certain formulation of composite that is secret of course
I am more than sure that this assessment process can be carried out with instruments and specific testing signals Sure of this
I just do not know how
Just think when this procedure will be available It will be an extremely powerful tool In a matter of minutes a driver can be accepted or rejected
Without even listening to it A good sound can be not accurate But an accurate sound can be only sublime
After that only the cabinet will be a problem
hi i see I just read something in an interview with a designer from Snell However i do not plane to make holes in the wall
this is sure Also because are thin
Hi thanks for the valuable advice and absolutely Boxes made out MDF plywood concrete aluminum steel fiberglass slate marble granite multilayers glass etc. will all have a sound signature They will sound extremely different And the commercial products show
studying OB could provide extremely valuable information
now I venture a hypothesis If as someone has observed even an OB speaker can sound boxy since an OB speaker has only the front panel it could mean that the boxyness is correlated to vibrations of the front panel that mix with the musical signal
If this were true it is the end of the story It would be enough to take obsessive care of the design and construction of the front panel only This would be a fundamental step forward in solving the problem But really At least for me
I have found some Thiel speakers from which the drivers have been removed
Thiel speakers are an example of speakers with particularly well-designed baffles Never listened to them unfortunately
i still think that one thing is to generate sound Another one to play it back Maybe i am wrong
an acoustic guitar must sound boxy It is designed and built for that The more boxy the better
I agree with you on the value of scientific research, and on it's place. However I think you presume too much. This isn't the reason that some members find a subjective approach to be of more value and use to them, but it may explain how expectation isn't meeting reality.
I'm not in the habit of passing judgement on things I don't know.. but I'd ask you, how do you know what happened? There are no measurements and it is a secret. Were you there?
hi i agre of course Very good idea
As someone very rightly stated above there can be answer with not a clear and conclusive answer This can cause a neverending discussion i agree
imhe the boxyness destroy almost completely the listening experience
for instance for me the difference between a bad speaker and a good one is that the bad speaker shakes
the good speaker makes the room shake
most members use excellent parts to build their projects This is a safe and very sane approach
to be more specific i need some 6.5" and 8" woofers to place in not particulary boxy cabinets i have at hand
If i look for instance on online catalogue i see units varying from 20 to 600 USD to say some prices
i cannot relate quality and price in a rational way Ok the 600 USD is probably very good
in the datasheets i see FR TS parameters useful for design But really nothing that can be correlate to the sound quality
I have to buy and listen ? when i buy almost any other product looking at the specs is enough
lets not compare wines to drivers One huge mistake that is usually very common is compare products of completely different kind
Drivers are an industrial product Not food or parfumes where the selection is clearly done only with senses
Even if also for food some measurements are carried out
of course not But i have no reason to believe that Mr Harbeth is not sincere He said quite clearly that the sound of a cone depends on the material from which the cone is made That they have tried many materials and selected what they think the best through listening tests of human voices recordings Listen at 12:19 he is very clear on the issue
the challenge is to assess the sonic properties of a material with instruments
Instruments are so more precise and sensitive of human ear My ears listen only up to 12k i guess More or less
Nobody is saying that anyone is being dishonest. Let's start by making it clear that a violin is a producer of music and a speaker is a reproducer. Very different things. You know we already try to avoid cone breakup in a speaker..
..and you can measure cone breakup.
Another thing, and I suspect it's likely was heard, is the response. They didn't mention fixing it. The response is shaped by resonances. If you get a response that is different with one cone material you can produce the same sound on a different cone material by equalising.. and you can measure that too.
..and you can measure cone breakup.
Another thing, and I suspect it's likely was heard, is the response. They didn't mention fixing it. The response is shaped by resonances. If you get a response that is different with one cone material you can produce the same sound on a different cone material by equalising.. and you can measure that too.
It ain’t easy McGee to get the speakers to perform a disappearing act. If it was easy everyone could do it. A bottom up approach is required to get the soundstage to blossom into a huge soundstage and make the speakers disappear. You have to take care of business. It’s not an on and off switch, it takes mucho effort on many fronts. It’s a system thing. If you’re not careful the speakers can sound boxy, boomy, rolled off, two dimensional, strident, thin, and irritating.
Last edited:
i see and fine with this But what about the idea that is the front baffle the main responsible for boxyness ?
i get this idea from reading that even OB speakers can be plagued by boxyness And they have only one panel
if this is true for me it is a very important conclusion A fundamental one Like issue closed
(drivers selection will be still an open issue anyway )
Ok, you've asked for my opinion here and I may not have all the answers. Boxiness is a matter of resonances and resonances can happen many ways. Some may not even be produced by the box or the panel.
Another type of resonance is diffraction. This can also give you a spatial impression of the shape of the panel.
Of course a box doesn't have to sound like a box, it may not have a sound at all..
Another type of resonance is diffraction. This can also give you a spatial impression of the shape of the panel.
Of course a box doesn't have to sound like a box, it may not have a sound at all..
Good ! if it is true that some OBs sound boxy for me the conclusion is more than obvious
Problem is that i have no experience of OBs sound
Moreover if this is true also the design and construction of the frame to which the planar are attached become critical
I mean you take a Magneplanar diaphragm and you secure it to a very non resonant frame and the speaker could sing much more
I would put accelerometer on the stock frame and see Maybe it acts like a bell
Stereophile did not do it Maybe it is not feasible
There is a good possibility that the frame design and construction holds back speaker performance ?
Problem is that i have no experience of OBs sound
Moreover if this is true also the design and construction of the frame to which the planar are attached become critical
I mean you take a Magneplanar diaphragm and you secure it to a very non resonant frame and the speaker could sing much more
I would put accelerometer on the stock frame and see Maybe it acts like a bell
Stereophile did not do it Maybe it is not feasible
There is a good possibility that the frame design and construction holds back speaker performance ?
Why?
aaha, ok!
I really suggest you listen to an OB (which is a dipole, by the way). Only listening for yourself will give you the right experience.
Dipoles don't need to be exotic planars and can be cheap (but they need some diaphragm surface).
Very simplified a dipole will have a more even energy output than a variable directivity monopole, which is the case for (almost?) all speakers in boxes.
Anyway I can only say that for me listening to a dipole was a revelation.
So the "boxy" sound is not just attributable to a box-shaped cabinet? What about labyrinths, folded horns, etc? Everything inside the box (I don't mean bracing) serves a function to conduct the back waves of the diaphragm, get them into phase with the front wave, etc. I built the Troels DTQWTII and the walls don't shake even at high volumes, and the sound floats in the air. Theoretically, it is a horn and has the same virtue as when Ginetto61 puts his wind-up music box in front of a speaker cone and discovers that everything sounds better... cup your hands behind your ears when you listen, and everything changes dramatically too! If you conclude that I am a horn fanatic, you are right.....😉
