I live in England, the land of small rooms. One option I have tried was to have an upward firing speaker up against the a wall, with a deflector at approx 45 degrees mounted slightly in from the part of the driver frame nearest to the wall (so not all the sound from the main driver hits the deflector{just seems to sound better like this}). It is definitely best to use a full range or coaxial driver. Also needs a design for wall mounting (no BSC). Works particularly well in mono.
@ chazdrumzalot
I have the same problem but have not fully committed to mono (single speaker) yet, guess I'm not brave enough. But I have messed around with my current stereo and previous stereo set ups listening to only one of the speakers with summed signals to mono and in some ways find it better, find more enjoyment and more relaxing. Might be the brain doesn't need to process the stereosignal (stereo triangle with all it faults) that "pretends" to be realistic. Hope I'll find the curage and time soon to commit to a mono speaker system since I have al the parts needed.
I really think you should try to listen to a mono speaker if you haven't already, a good one that is.
Both Elias Pekonen and Graaf have a contributed with a lot of testing and thoughts in several threads here on DIYAUDIO where they discuss flooder speakers among other type reproducers, highly recommended to follow and read those threads.
I have the same problem but have not fully committed to mono (single speaker) yet, guess I'm not brave enough. But I have messed around with my current stereo and previous stereo set ups listening to only one of the speakers with summed signals to mono and in some ways find it better, find more enjoyment and more relaxing. Might be the brain doesn't need to process the stereosignal (stereo triangle with all it faults) that "pretends" to be realistic. Hope I'll find the curage and time soon to commit to a mono speaker system since I have al the parts needed.
I really think you should try to listen to a mono speaker if you haven't already, a good one that is.
Both Elias Pekonen and Graaf have a contributed with a lot of testing and thoughts in several threads here on DIYAUDIO where they discuss flooder speakers among other type reproducers, highly recommended to follow and read those threads.
Member
Joined 2009
Paid Member
True about bad stereo, but mono can sound thin and uninvolving on a lot of material. (there are good reasons why) Closely spaced stereo almost always works for me, retaining much of the richness of wide stereo and even some of the right/left effect. If you are unable to do proper stereo, then narrow stereo makes a good cheat.
It can be interesting to compare the two solutions (i'm using both) because one is using the room reverberations at his advantage and the other is at his disadvantage.
Member
Joined 2009
Paid Member
I believe that the type of speaker you want for stereo is NOT the type of speaker you want for mono. And possibly vice versa. With stereo there is a whole bunch of advice about the best way to achieve good separation and sound stage depth etc. based on speaker directivity, dispersion uniformity, cross-overs etc. etc. With mono your goals a different and for me, it's about playing to the listening room instead of recreating a recording venue. My experience is limited in this area, but I have not found traditional stereo speakers, used doubly or singly, to be the best solution for mono. For mono I have been happiest with a Boffle design but plan to do some experiments with more omni.
Member
Joined 2009
Paid Member
I've been using my 15" in U-shaped open baffle, boffle, and closed back with 'ports'. Right now I have the back on to keep it tidy but it's better with the back off I think. As for the Boffle, I placed old clothes inside the cabinet to generate something similar. This seems to be the best way. What I see, is that the absorbing material in the case of the Boffle reduces the back-wave without generating reflections that would be in danger of exiting back out through the cone. And in reducing the back-wave I suspect it does more for the higher frequencies so that more of the bass exits from the back than the treble.
well the aperture walls are actually thick wool felt and provide some resistance. As far as I understand it makes it possible to use a low to mid q driver and get OB quality bass that would not be possible on a flat or open back dipole with the same low to mid q driver sans lots and lots of eq.
Member
Joined 2009
Paid Member
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.