I was making a boombox many years ago and used a 12" sonotube and 1 in thick baffle with a pair of vifa 4" drivers.When I was test fitting the drivers and wiring, I decided to test it quick but hadn't made the back piece yet so it was pretty much open. I was blown away by what I heard. It had effortless vocals , and bass was "fast" with lots of impact. I finished the back and it was underwhelming to say the least. From that moment on I was sold.
A fellow audiophile family member has open baffle,, he loves it. Regrettably I havent been able to hear it, but he loves the sound! This has re sparked my interest in the design, thanks for the video.
I purchased some Magnepans. . And I can tell you one thing off the bat. YOU NEED ROOM. The fact they sounded Better OUTSIDE and even had bass? I was AMAZED. Brought them inside, just set up one of them in the center of the room. AMAZING. I kind of get why some people really liked hanging their speakers on the ceiling back in the day. The only problem with many people today is that they JUST don't have the room to make that happen anymore. Most folks today live in small boxes themselves. I know in my room, as much as I love the way they look, they just don't work for my room.
Hey Danny, Question about placement. I can understand the 3+ ft needed behind the Open Baffle speaker, but what of the side walls? So say the NX-Otica is placed 4 ft from the wall behind it, what would you like to see for the Min/Max Distance between the speakers, as well as the desired minimum distance to the side walls? Thanks so much for your Help.
What you were saying about increasing pressure when using a closed or vented box .. well, in a car, this will be true to some extent, but in a living room.. no. It's about standing waves, not about pressure. On walls you have the maximum of pressure, always, because there can be no velocity, the wall prevents moving air, while the velocity is maximum in the middle of the room, because the freedem to move for the air is maximum (while the pressure there is minimum). This is true as long as the wavelength is bigger than half the longest possible way in the room (Lambda half).
@GR Research Highly informative! And hey, RCA77 and other ribbon recording mics are basically this - a diaphragm in an open baffle - cancelling at the sides, listening out the front, but also, out the back (where these of course do not listen, but play) - so for fidelity, if not listenability, open baffle could be where it's at Plus I do find them listenable, lots of artifact & excitement IMO, & volume on the cheap - easy to rig a baffle that play at ear height, or higher, in the room. Fair to say I listen for performed bass & drum tone in pop & jazz, EG Prestia & Garibaldi of ToP, Brown & Shrieve, of Santana, Gant & Suleiman with Ahmad Jamal, Clark & Jackson with Headhunters, Ellicott & Birch with Coldblood, Bootsy and Clyde with the JBs. Maybe only Amrstrong & Walden with Mahavishnu would get me to add subs. Upside, subs leave you free to reset open baffle top end drivers, to taste
What are the advantages/disadvantages of a U shaped open baffle sub (12" woofers on front baffle with 15" wings to the rear) as opposed to an H frame open baffle sub? Anyone chime in if you have info on this
Danny, if you were to do a video about transmission line speakers, and the variant with the transmission line tapered smaller toward the opening - I would be very interested in that!
Nah. I've built open baffles (dipoles) for near wall and corner placement too. Ensure the wall space right behind the speaker drivers is not highly reflective. Which usually means it should be treated with a sandwich of 4" thick fiberglass + foam + perforated wavy wood panels. Preferably treat the entire back wall if that's an option. The thing to look out for, if you place the open baffles really close to a wall, some of the wall reflections will come out through the cone, although those reflections are still MUCH lesser than in any kind of box. Treating the back wall minimises the amplitude of those reflections. Open baffles are extremely forgiving with the right drivers. If you use coaxials instead of separate woofer/tweeters, the imaging and openness of the cheapest open baffles beat 1000$ boxes easily. They do lose out in terms of max-spl due to cancellation, but thats a positive in my opinion. For 100db to 110db listening inside an untreated or semi-treated room, dipoles/open baffles are simply a better design.
What you were saying about Q and the requirement of an airload behind the driver to function properly .. not true. It's only about a higher drop in low frequencies if you lower the Q. The control even increases when lowering Q, because the damping increases likewise. This is, why Linkwitz always used drivers with a Q below 0,5 in open baffles designs while levelling the response electronically. I assume, that you did not yet understand fully the physics behind the loudspeaker-specs (Thiele-Small-Parameters).
No lack of understanding here. A lower Q driver requires the box to be part of the total Q of the alignment and are not suitable for open baffle applications. This is why low Q drivers used in open baffle applications, like those used in the Orion, bottom out quite easily.
@@dannyrichie9743 As I said, Linkwitz did it electronically. There is something else, I need to say: a lower Resonancefrequency means, that above tha Fs the control is better, because the current will be higher - resonance means high Impedance, no control. It's better, to use a low resonance driver, translating in a lower Q if the motor did not change. You can hear it - and you did. your fast bass application uses a open baffle subwoofer concept. Now you know, why this makes sense.
@@dannyrichie9743 and, by the way, if you enhance the suspension of the driver, you can enhance the Q without a box - but you will lose control. Linkwitz was a pactitioner, extremely experienced, and he additionally understood complex equations, in time and frequency domain - you can trust him, you really should.
@@ahnenpost5237 Add in our servo control system and we can change the total Q of the whole system electronically and on the fly. It offers unparalleled control over the whole range. It also maintains a linear response that is flat to 20Hz and -3db down in the teens.
Danny did an upgrade on the Linkwitz Orion speaker back in Sept 2020. Linkwitz did a lot of early research on Open Baffle design. For example, search YT for "Burning Amp 2017 - Siegfried Linkwitz".
definitely one of the best open baffle knowledge drops ever
I was making a boombox many years ago and used a 12" sonotube and 1 in thick baffle with a pair of vifa 4" drivers.When I was test fitting the drivers and wiring, I decided to test it quick but hadn't made the back piece yet so it was pretty much open.
I was blown away by what I heard. It had effortless vocals , and bass was "fast" with lots of impact. I finished the back and it was underwhelming to say the least.
From that moment on I was sold.
A fellow audiophile family member has open baffle,, he loves it. Regrettably I havent been able to hear it, but he loves the sound! This has re sparked my interest in the design, thanks for the video.
Always clear, no snake oil, no hype. Thanks.
I purchased some Magnepans. . And I can tell you one thing off the bat. YOU NEED ROOM. The fact they sounded Better OUTSIDE and even had bass? I was AMAZED. Brought them inside, just set up one of them in the center of the room. AMAZING. I kind of get why some people really liked hanging their speakers on the ceiling back in the day.
The only problem with many people today is that they JUST don't have the room to make that happen anymore. Most folks today live in small boxes themselves. I know in my room, as much as I love the way they look, they just don't work for my room.
Good discussion , nice over view on the elements of baffle size and step. Anyone paying attention should learn a lot from this Tech Talk !! Nice Job
Very informative. Thanks for taking the time to share detail about the baffles and design of the Oticas.
Agree, for this being my first exposure to open baffle speakers and therefore a much-needed explanation. Thank you!
Well, that was fun! I kept hoping nobody would try to open that door. ) Interesting stuff here, like we're sitting talking. Nice.
Hey Danny, Question about placement. I can understand the 3+ ft needed behind the Open Baffle speaker, but what of the side walls? So say the NX-Otica is placed 4 ft from the wall behind it, what would you like to see for the Min/Max Distance between the speakers, as well as the desired minimum distance to the side walls? Thanks so much for your Help.
What you were saying about increasing pressure when using a closed or vented box .. well, in a car, this will be true to some extent, but in a living room.. no. It's about standing waves, not about pressure. On walls you have the maximum of pressure, always, because there can be no velocity, the wall prevents moving air, while the velocity is maximum in the middle of the room, because the freedem to move for the air is maximum (while the pressure there is minimum). This is true as long as the wavelength is bigger than half the longest possible way in the room (Lambda half).
Thank you. You have a great deal of patience here.
awesome video
pro tip: watch series at Flixzone. I've been using it for watching a lot of movies during the lockdown.
@Baker Rodney Yea, have been watching on Flixzone} for since december myself :D
great discussion.
Ever since I heard Danny us doing open baffle, I have sworn allegiance to GR. It's a smart design if your an engineer so it makes sense to me.
@GR Research
Highly informative! And hey, RCA77 and other ribbon recording mics are basically this - a diaphragm in an open baffle - cancelling at the sides, listening out the front, but also, out the back (where these of course do not listen, but play) - so for fidelity, if not listenability, open baffle could be where it's at
Plus I do find them listenable, lots of artifact & excitement IMO, & volume on the cheap - easy to rig a baffle that play at ear height, or higher, in the room.
Fair to say I listen for performed bass & drum tone in pop & jazz, EG Prestia & Garibaldi of ToP, Brown & Shrieve, of Santana, Gant & Suleiman with Ahmad Jamal, Clark & Jackson with Headhunters, Ellicott & Birch with Coldblood, Bootsy and Clyde with the JBs. Maybe only Amrstrong & Walden with Mahavishnu would get me to add subs.
Upside, subs leave you free to reset open baffle top end drivers, to taste
Veey interesting video never never knew how oppen baffle works now i got it
so what about doing what allison accoustics did mount one woofer backward? one forward the AL 130's etc pls advise your opinion !
are the allison accoustics convex tweeters the best solution ? thx !
Hi sir can you discuss Bose modules?thanks
What are the advantages/disadvantages of a U shaped open baffle sub (12" woofers on front baffle with 15" wings to the rear) as opposed to an H frame open baffle sub? Anyone chime in if you have info on this
Hello Danny,i have a pr of Lansche 3s with a 1" Plasma Dome Tweeter and a 8"mid woofer and a 9"woofer down fire,any chance of upgrading them.
Could adding thick absorption panels behind open baffle speakers in a small room give them more of a large room sound?
It helps. Diffusers really help too.
I just watched this and was wondering the same thing.
How bout baffle with 4 sides and open back? And square or rectangle?
H still gets me upright vertical or horizontal as in a H looking down presumably horn loaded back and front.
Danny, if you were to do a video about transmission line speakers, and the variant with the transmission line tapered smaller toward the opening - I would be very interested in that!
@@edwardbalboa5528 Well ... on an OB the back and front waves cancel each other and there are no waves at the sides?
so if max i can get away from the wall is about 18-20" should i just forget about open baffle?
Nah. I've built open baffles (dipoles) for near wall and corner placement too.
Ensure the wall space right behind the speaker drivers is not highly reflective. Which usually means it should be treated with a sandwich of 4" thick fiberglass + foam + perforated wavy wood panels. Preferably treat the entire back wall if that's an option.
The thing to look out for, if you place the open baffles really close to a wall, some of the wall reflections will come out through the cone, although those reflections are still MUCH lesser than in any kind of box. Treating the back wall minimises the amplitude of those reflections.
Open baffles are extremely forgiving with the right drivers. If you use coaxials instead of separate woofer/tweeters, the imaging and openness of the cheapest open baffles beat 1000$ boxes easily. They do lose out in terms of max-spl due to cancellation, but thats a positive in my opinion. For 100db to 110db listening inside an untreated or semi-treated room, dipoles/open baffles are simply a better design.
Filters are so outdated. DSP is amazing ! I'll never go back.
What you were saying about Q and the requirement of an airload behind the driver to function properly .. not true. It's only about a higher drop in low frequencies if you lower the Q. The control even increases when lowering Q, because the damping increases likewise. This is, why Linkwitz always used drivers with a Q below 0,5 in open baffles designs while levelling the response electronically. I assume, that you did not yet understand fully the physics behind the loudspeaker-specs (Thiele-Small-Parameters).
No lack of understanding here. A lower Q driver requires the box to be part of the total Q of the alignment and are not suitable for open baffle applications. This is why low Q drivers used in open baffle applications, like those used in the Orion, bottom out quite easily.
@@dannyrichie9743 As I said, Linkwitz did it electronically. There is something else, I need to say: a lower Resonancefrequency means, that above tha Fs the control is better, because the current will be higher - resonance means high Impedance, no control. It's better, to use a low resonance driver, translating in a lower Q if the motor did not change. You can hear it - and you did. your fast bass application uses a open baffle subwoofer concept. Now you know, why this makes sense.
@@dannyrichie9743 and, by the way, if you enhance the suspension of the driver, you can enhance the Q without a box - but you will lose control. Linkwitz was a pactitioner, extremely experienced, and he additionally understood complex equations, in time and frequency domain - you can trust him, you really should.
@@ahnenpost5237 Add in our servo control system and we can change the total Q of the whole system electronically and on the fly. It offers unparalleled control over the whole range. It also maintains a linear response that is flat to 20Hz and -3db down in the teens.
@@dannyrichie9743 I know - exactly what I said - no contradiction seen yet.
Hi Danny! I wonder if you've heard of the late speaker designer Siegfried Linkwitz. He passed away about a year and a half ago. Did you know of him?
Probably not, he’s a flat earth thinker.
Danny did an upgrade on the Linkwitz Orion speaker back in Sept 2020.
Linkwitz did a lot of early research on Open Baffle design.
For example, search YT for "Burning Amp 2017 - Siegfried Linkwitz".
Wrong. Q is damping (at resonance). But it is an inverse number. Higher Q drivers have less damping.
Bass suffers immensely in ob speaker
Thats what I said on another video. I think they sound better cause you hear both pressures instead of one.