hi i agree It is a challenge Boxyness at least up to a price is the norm in commercial speakers more than exception
but in my mind this is a very good thing to have and the basis for an excellent rendition of the virtual soundstage (the room remains a variable of course)
the post about OB speakers sounding boxy for me is the core of the discussion But i am feeling alone in this belief
If we can locale the problem in the front baffle it's done Game over
Just make a solid front two corner brackets to hold it up bolted to a solid base and the other panels can be a cardboard box to exaggerate
Obviously with some kind of seal
furthermore if this were true it would sound strange to me that for example when Stereophile magazine takes measurements of cabinet vibrations it places accelerometers everywhere except on the truly critical panel. Strange, isn't it?
I hope to have the opportunity I see OBs like planar I worried about the bass response I like the bass of closed box Controlled
maybe it is just the matter of using the right amp with a high damping factor ? i understand that there must be some kind of eq for the bass
Moreover OBs tend to be big This is a problem for me The speakers should not be wider than 50-60 cm possibly At least for now
i am looking for a country house
good to know It is not easy to find OB around It is more an exception I am sure they can be sound spectacular but they are not very popular
All acoustic suspensions or bass reflex I will look around anyway
Hi ! i guess that a speaker cabinet could be made cubic and still it will not sound boxy ? just asking Imho is not a problem of shape
but i am trying to understand
very interesting http://www.troelsgravesen.dk/JA8008_DTQWT.htm
http://www.troelsgravesen.dk/JA8008_DTQWT_cabs.htm
i see 32mm MDF for front baffle Quite a lot indeed
i am trying to buying these to check the importance of the baffle Fwiu their baffle is quite state of the art
i love horns too But the ones i listened to were huge and too expensive Avangarde and Acapella
I remember listening Carmina Burana - O Fortuna on Acapella wow !!!
the sensation of liveness was mesmerizing
Last edited:
It's not necessarily the front panel, many other plausible reasons already presented by the community : )
My 3way system bass box front panels are almost non-existent and sound felt boxy at least at the beginning. It has calmed down since, either I've got used to them or my xo is better than at first, there is also huge plank of wood crossing atop now, positioning is different, I changed the innards some and so on. But I didn't do anything to the front panel. Just an example that there is rarely any single thing that makes sound something. Sometimes there might be, but often times when one fixes a "single thing" something else gets wrecked as trade-off and it didn't actually improve things, just changed them around. So, always think trade-offs, prepare to do at least one prototype box before committing to piano lacquer because it is a chance to improve your initial attempt. Make two prototypes and you'd likely have so much better system which you can prove by the data you collected and improved upon with every proto.
I mean, you can make hypothesis that front panel makes boxy sound, and then reason how to reduce that. You can practice this kind of imagination play of various speaker concepts in your head and what their strengths and weaknesses are. For example, to mitigate sound of front panel you could minimize the front panel area so that volume displacement goes way down. Or, you could decouple the driver / panel so they never touch, dampen it, brace it, make it thick, what ever you feel like is necessary. Connect the driver from magnet instead of the rim, use force cancellation, what ever you come up with. But please also consider what the trade-offs are for each of the options you came up with to be able to determine which one is worth it and not against your other "requirements" for the project.
For example, if you make very thick front panel it increases mass, perhaps stiffness. But what else? You could now utilize the thickness to do big roundovers to mitigate some edge diffraction issues as well, thats good thing. What are the problems then? It's likely quite expensive / laborous to make so can you do that? It makes a heavy box so can you reliably measure that in a spinorama? Also back side of thick panel needs processing, otherwise the drivers are in a tube basically, and whether that matters or not depends, but might be one trade-off in sound. It would also reduce inside volume compared to outside volume, be more costly and laborous in general, and so on. So, why not make the front panel just very small instead? So small it's perhaps few percent of the cone area and basically cannot radiate sound that would make any difference? Well, this makes the box volume very small, what's the trade off with that or is there any, can you make this trade-off disappear just by system design like adding another bass box? Big roundovers don't fit to small panel, but does it matter? It's easy to manufacture at least, because there is about nothing one needs to do. And so on. Find questions, then answers to those, and soon you'll have huge catalog of various techniques to solve various "issues" in your head.
To help come up with questions: What ever problem (like boxy sound) and solution you come up with (like thick front panel), think what you did not consider while doing this? Find at least one trade-off, like cost and complexity, and consider if it's worth taking. Often, considering / obsessing for one thing we tend to forget other things, or not see bit further in the future that our early decision now prevents doing something even more important and the system endsup with a bad compromise, a wrong trade-off taken. For example why do you need a front panel in the first place, or a box?
For example, if you chose the very small front panel route to mitigate any box noise of front panel, it would make very different loudspeaker system, as one with big 60cm wide front panel. And to make any sense to endless possibilities you now have in your hand, you must first and foremost set good and realistic goal for your project, figure out some fundamental properties of the system that must be fulfilled, a priority list, and then align every small detail compromise with that priority list. So, for example if cheap cost and small size are highly important to your project, then some simple baffle it is, perhaps add extra bracing. If sound is priority above all else, no tight cost or size constrains, then by all means go ahead and brute force a front panel if you wish.
Have fun!🙂
My 3way system bass box front panels are almost non-existent and sound felt boxy at least at the beginning. It has calmed down since, either I've got used to them or my xo is better than at first, there is also huge plank of wood crossing atop now, positioning is different, I changed the innards some and so on. But I didn't do anything to the front panel. Just an example that there is rarely any single thing that makes sound something. Sometimes there might be, but often times when one fixes a "single thing" something else gets wrecked as trade-off and it didn't actually improve things, just changed them around. So, always think trade-offs, prepare to do at least one prototype box before committing to piano lacquer because it is a chance to improve your initial attempt. Make two prototypes and you'd likely have so much better system which you can prove by the data you collected and improved upon with every proto.
I mean, you can make hypothesis that front panel makes boxy sound, and then reason how to reduce that. You can practice this kind of imagination play of various speaker concepts in your head and what their strengths and weaknesses are. For example, to mitigate sound of front panel you could minimize the front panel area so that volume displacement goes way down. Or, you could decouple the driver / panel so they never touch, dampen it, brace it, make it thick, what ever you feel like is necessary. Connect the driver from magnet instead of the rim, use force cancellation, what ever you come up with. But please also consider what the trade-offs are for each of the options you came up with to be able to determine which one is worth it and not against your other "requirements" for the project.
For example, if you make very thick front panel it increases mass, perhaps stiffness. But what else? You could now utilize the thickness to do big roundovers to mitigate some edge diffraction issues as well, thats good thing. What are the problems then? It's likely quite expensive / laborous to make so can you do that? It makes a heavy box so can you reliably measure that in a spinorama? Also back side of thick panel needs processing, otherwise the drivers are in a tube basically, and whether that matters or not depends, but might be one trade-off in sound. It would also reduce inside volume compared to outside volume, be more costly and laborous in general, and so on. So, why not make the front panel just very small instead? So small it's perhaps few percent of the cone area and basically cannot radiate sound that would make any difference? Well, this makes the box volume very small, what's the trade off with that or is there any, can you make this trade-off disappear just by system design like adding another bass box? Big roundovers don't fit to small panel, but does it matter? It's easy to manufacture at least, because there is about nothing one needs to do. And so on. Find questions, then answers to those, and soon you'll have huge catalog of various techniques to solve various "issues" in your head.
To help come up with questions: What ever problem (like boxy sound) and solution you come up with (like thick front panel), think what you did not consider while doing this? Find at least one trade-off, like cost and complexity, and consider if it's worth taking. Often, considering / obsessing for one thing we tend to forget other things, or not see bit further in the future that our early decision now prevents doing something even more important and the system endsup with a bad compromise, a wrong trade-off taken. For example why do you need a front panel in the first place, or a box?
For example, if you chose the very small front panel route to mitigate any box noise of front panel, it would make very different loudspeaker system, as one with big 60cm wide front panel. And to make any sense to endless possibilities you now have in your hand, you must first and foremost set good and realistic goal for your project, figure out some fundamental properties of the system that must be fulfilled, a priority list, and then align every small detail compromise with that priority list. So, for example if cheap cost and small size are highly important to your project, then some simple baffle it is, perhaps add extra bracing. If sound is priority above all else, no tight cost or size constrains, then by all means go ahead and brute force a front panel if you wish.
Have fun!🙂
Last edited:
i see But i have to start from somewhere If my feelings will be confirm it is done as i said many times i see the cabinet design and construction as challenging as making a horn sound wonderful But horns have to wait for now My final speaker will have a horn for sure
i see it is complex but i have to try this way as i said above this Thiel should have a pretty state of the art baffle 2" thick aluminum ?
and aslo other sides are not thin at all about 30lbs each quite massive i will cannibalize some drivers from existing speakers
clearly the bass will not optimized but i am interested in box sound
the post about boxy OBs gave me this idea They have only the front baffle 😀
at this point i would speak of vibrations There is no need of accelerometers to check these vibrations in a qualitative way
just sticking a small mirror on the baffle aiming a laser pointer at it and see if the reflected point moves It should not
thanks a lot and this is indeed the second step after established the cause of some effects But first the cause Like in medicine
what promotes the illness
yes i agree this is why i am going to buy the two cabinets for some 100 euros If i understand well the baffle is cnc machined aluminum with a max thickness of 2" ? i would say impressive
to be more precise this is the original speaker
https://www.stereophile.com/floorloudspeakers/663/index.html
if it sounds boxy i will surrender To boxyness i mean
again i see I can only say that i listened to speakers absolutely not boxy I mean i know what i am looking for
when the boxiness is low the speakers seem like disconnected from the amp The sound is completely detached from the enclosure
i cannot put in words But the sensation is wonderful i have to try and listen
the idea was bass box below a mid high section The foot print can be small OBs are too wide in my situation
but i have to carry out some experiments
In fact, why not make the panel completely round? That angled line is what causes diffraction. Nowadays there are cabinets without sharp edges and supposedly with "zero diffraction" ....
The best thing about Carmina Burana were the meetings of the monks hidden in the catacombs, and nobody mentions it, but I imagine that the nuns from nearby convents attended the meetings...😉
https://vinilosargentinos.com/producto/fritz-mahler-carl-orff-varios-carmina-burana/?v=c582dec943ff
Attachments
this is very interesting If i understand well the edges become point of secondary emission with some sort of delay with the direct emission ?
but the question is still are there speakers with very shap edges that do not sound boxy ? if so this means that boxy sound cannot be correlated to that diffractions
however there is a very simple way to deal with diffractions placing some some long pile carpet aorund the drivers
i have to try something Incidentally the cabinets i am buying do noy have sharp edges Unfortunately they can accomodate only 6.5" woofers
There will not be much bass i am afraid 8" would have been great for a small room
🙂 i was mainly referring to the power of choirs and also the very live effect
it was a very exciting listening Maybe possibile also with more conventional drivers I like also lenses and waveguides like those often used in studio monitors
I think what you describe as your goal is simply a problem free speaker, and I think any reasonable speaker could be optimized relatively problem free. So, it's down to your listening skill and ability to measure and do testing, experimenting, to be able to find issues and finally arrive to a problem free speaker. For one speaker system the issues might be different than for another, so solutions would differ.
if for problem free speaker you mean without faults well that is practically impossible
but this boxyness that plagues many speakers is indeed a very bad thing
when there is boxyness the speaker sounds Without boxyness the space around sounds The boxyness breaks everything Unbearable
What i am planning to do is to gut a decent speakers pair and transplant drivers and xover in a cabinet better on paper at least I know quite well the sound of the speaker Decent but nothing remarkable I am curious
For sure those Thiel have an impressive baffle I could never build something like that
By problem free I mean the system doesn't take your attention from music, problem free to you perceptually. If you have boxy sounding system it is obvious distraction to you so thats the first thing to address. Manage fix that, you might be happy for a while at least, because some next thing might emerge. For example room modes might start to distract and the you'd address that somehow and you'd be problem free again.
Last edited:
Good morning ! perfect i understood rightly I agree completely this is why i am so eager to understand what makes a speaker disappear
If i switch off the lights i cant see them but i could be able to hear them for their boxyness
I still think that a listening should be done in the dark Like at a concert by the way
But i see a direction now To study the design principles and construction methods of Open Baffle Baffles 🙂
starting now
Thank you very much for the precious advice
p.s. i think that some planars manufacturers should put more attention on the frames of their products
an idea could be to make a frame with square section steel tubes filled with sand ? obviously with a great pedestal
I am not sure if you can reduce this to the "boxyness" of speakers. what about the room and it's reflections?
Indeed, it's very difficult to discern and that's why early reflections/diffractions are responsible for listening fatigue. Your brain is working hard to separate the mess.
It's actually much easier to hear it when it isn't there. You walk up to a speaker staring at it, it's silent but the music is loud around you. This is not something you easily forget.
One time I had a fish tank on a stand between my speakers. One day I moved it away and only then could I hear it's absence. I could hear the shape, the sharp edges. Until then I really hadn't realised I'd heard anything.
It's actually much easier to hear it when it isn't there. You walk up to a speaker staring at it, it's silent but the music is loud around you. This is not something you easily forget.
One time I had a fish tank on a stand between my speakers. One day I moved it away and only then could I hear it's absence. I could hear the shape, the sharp edges. Until then I really hadn't realised I'd heard anything.
^ Listening skill in action, if one does experiments like that, almost any really, it makes you aware of perception and sensitive to similar things. By listening skill I mean understanding what one perceives, what's in the perception. Moving things around, or any kind of AB testing where something can be changed at will, is great for this.
Sometimes some "issue" makes one feel that something is not right, but it's hard to pinpoint what it actually is unless one starts to experiment with it, find a test that toggles something on / off from perception allows to find it and eventually fix it.
Sometimes some "issue" makes one feel that something is not right, but it's hard to pinpoint what it actually is unless one starts to experiment with it, find a test that toggles something on / off from perception allows to find it and eventually fix it.
Ok here is fun test for what diffraction might sound like:
Put your mobile phone play some midrange sine wave, say 1000Hz, or something. Put the mobile on your kitchen table for example, say 20cm away from the table edge or something. Now, just move the mobile with your hand closer and further from the edge and listen what happens. Obviously, sound is way louder when the phone is away from the edge, and gets weaker as you move it closer to the edge. Can you notice any change in localization of the tone? Try higher or lower frequency as well.
Might be just consequence of how I tried do this but the sound localizes very well to the phone / table when the phone is away from the edge, but the closer the phone is to the edge at some point the localization disappears. This might be just that the sound is louder masking any reflections making it localize, or, brain uses the edge diffraction as cue to localize it, perhaps both, perhaps something else. Anyway, just another nice perception experiment with mobile, cjanging sound at will to hear perception change 🙂
ps. it would be very hard to listen effects of edge diffraction with loudspeakers as AB testing is almost impossible, the speakers would sound way different for many reasons. Here you have just one sound source, which you move at will, and listen what happens, study your perception.
Put your mobile phone play some midrange sine wave, say 1000Hz, or something. Put the mobile on your kitchen table for example, say 20cm away from the table edge or something. Now, just move the mobile with your hand closer and further from the edge and listen what happens. Obviously, sound is way louder when the phone is away from the edge, and gets weaker as you move it closer to the edge. Can you notice any change in localization of the tone? Try higher or lower frequency as well.
Might be just consequence of how I tried do this but the sound localizes very well to the phone / table when the phone is away from the edge, but the closer the phone is to the edge at some point the localization disappears. This might be just that the sound is louder masking any reflections making it localize, or, brain uses the edge diffraction as cue to localize it, perhaps both, perhaps something else. Anyway, just another nice perception experiment with mobile, cjanging sound at will to hear perception change 🙂
ps. it would be very hard to listen effects of edge diffraction with loudspeakers as AB testing is almost impossible, the speakers would sound way different for many reasons. Here you have just one sound source, which you move at will, and listen what happens, study your perception.
Last edited:
You are very right
But my impression is that some speakers very good at soundstage show their abilities even in untreated room
I also am convinced that a great room helps a lot
And only were badly designed speakers tend to sound always boxy
Saturday I will get the scheletons of the Thiel cs1.6
I have just to find a good 6.5 woofer
I have already some seas tweeters pairs that could be quite decent
Tweeters are never a real problem
Woofers are and the very good ones have reached very high prices
Quality is expensive
Hi me again and sorry but i really have to ask If i had learned one thing is how important is the behaviour of the front baffle when excited by the woofer vibrations
The comment on how decisive is the design and construction of the FB expecially for open baffle speakers has canceled any doubt
Then why at Stereophile Mr Atkinson uses to place accelerometers everywhere but on the front baffle ?
https://www.stereophile.com/content/aerial-acoustics-20t-v2-loudspeaker-measurements
The comment on how decisive is the design and construction of the FB expecially for open baffle speakers has canceled any doubt
Then why at Stereophile Mr Atkinson uses to place accelerometers everywhere but on the front baffle ?
https://www.stereophile.com/content/aerial-acoustics-20t-v2-loudspeaker-measurements
Hmm. The amplitude of vibration is probably of secondary importance compared to it's spectrum and distortion.
A few members mention the importance of the axial direction of bracing. It seems preferred if the braces radiate out along the same vector as the wave propagation, not criss-crossing. If you think of ripples on a pond, you don't want hard 'impacts' and reflections as the sound wave suddenly hits a brace glued at right angles.
I guess that the further you go from the driver, the more resonances are likely to be picked up.
A few members mention the importance of the axial direction of bracing. It seems preferred if the braces radiate out along the same vector as the wave propagation, not criss-crossing. If you think of ripples on a pond, you don't want hard 'impacts' and reflections as the sound wave suddenly hits a brace glued at right angles.
I guess that the further you go from the driver, the more resonances are likely to be picked up.