Is a Deep Speaker Box Better? Tested with Surprising Results
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 13 พ.ค. 2023
- The traditional wisdom says that if the driver is close to the back panel of the speaker box, you'll get very obvious reflections back through the cone that colour the sound. While this is now widely accepted as true, I thought it would be interesting to actually test it and see first-hand how much of an impact it has.
The two boxes are nearly identical internal volume of 12 liters (the deep box is very slightly bigger). That volume works best for the driver I'm using for the test, a Seas coax H1144.
The deep box is 8" from the back of the front baffle to the inside face of the back of the box, while the shallow box is 4" deep. I used the same driver (I only have one of these), crossover and test setup for each box. The shallow box is just deep enough for the driver to fit - the back is just 1/4" from the back panel.
Measured first without stuffing, the tall shallow box shows a disturbance in the 300Hz range. This can be the "back through the driver" reflection mentioned above or it can be a standing wave.
Adding stuffing (I used the same piece of rockwool in each box) shows no significant change for the deep box, but has smoothed out that 300Hz wiggle in the shallow box, proving that it is a standing wave problem.
The standing wave happens up in the shallow box because it is taller and the distance from top to bottom is great enough to support a standing wave in that 300Hz region. The rockwool is damping material that absorbs sound energy, breaking up that standing wave.
Tangentially, this also demonstrates that standing waves are only a problem when the box is big enough inside to support a standing wave in the lower midrange frequencies. Note that the deep box shows no improvement when stuffed, indicating that there are no standing waves of any significance to damp.
So making a small speaker box with rounded or angled sides won't be effective for preventing standing waves, when they wouldn't be there to begin with.
Finally a listening test using both boxes. The mic is set up around 20" from the speaker on tweeter axis for both boxes in my listening room.
I deliberately withheld which box is which, leaving you to decide based on listening only. Give it a try and leave a comment, and I'll reveal the results in a future video.
You can help support the work I do in making these videos:
Project plans for sale: ibuildit.ca/plans/
Join the ibuildit community on Loacals: ibuildit.locals.com
Support this channel on Patreon:
www.patreon.com/user?u=865843...
#diyspeakers
#johnheisz
#audio
My "Scrap bin" channel:
/ ibuilditscrapbin
My main channel:
/ jpheisz
Website: ibuildit.ca/
Facebook: / i-build-it-25804801424...
Instagram: / i_build_it.ca - แนวปฏิบัติและการใช้ชีวิต
![[TH] 2024 PMSL SEA W1D1 | Summer | เริ่มโดดแรก ระเบิดความมันส์](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/fnPAjQmWzWE/mqdefault.jpg)
The traditional wisdom says that if the driver is close to the back panel of the speaker box, you'll get very obvious reflections back through the cone that colour the sound. While this is now widely accepted as true, I thought it would be interesting to actually test it and see first-hand how much of an impact it has.
The two boxes are nearly identical internal volume of 12 liters (the deep box is very slightly bigger). That volume works best for the driver I'm using for the test, a Seas coax H1144.
The deep box is 8" from the back of the front baffle to the inside face of the back of the box, while the shallow box is 4" deep. I used the same driver (I only have one of these), crossover and test setup for each box. The shallow box is just deep enough for the driver to fit - the back is just 1/4" from the back panel.
Measured first without stuffing, the tall shallow box shows a disturbance in the 300Hz range. This can be the "back through the driver" reflection mentioned above or it can be a standing wave.
Adding stuffing (I used the same piece of rockwool in each box) shows no significant change for the deep box, but has smoothed out that 300Hz wiggle in the shallow box, proving that it is a standing wave problem.
The standing wave happens up in the shallow box because it is taller and the distance from top to bottom is great enough to support a standing wave in that 300Hz region. The rockwool is damping material that absorbs sound energy, breaking up that standing wave.
Tangentially, this also demonstrates that standing waves are only a problem when the box is big enough inside to support a standing wave in the lower midrange frequencies. Note that the deep box shows no improvement when stuffed, indicating that there are no standing waves of any significance to damp.
So making a small speaker box with rounded or angled sides won't be effective for preventing standing waves, when they wouldn't be there to begin with.
Finally a listening test using both boxes. The mic is set up around 20" from the speaker on tweeter axis for both boxes in my listening room.
I deliberately withheld which box is which, leaving you to decide based on listening only. Give it a try and leave a comment, and I'll reveal the results in a future video.
I could hear no real difference
@@doctorscoot Same here, but I am old.
New to HiFi, but have a physics & engineering background: Is the standing wave precisely the same as what others call edge diffraction or baffle step? Does the RockWool essentially dephase the initially-coherent standing waves? How far can we push this? Can we stop worrying about long and narrow subs and engineer in-wall pancake enclosures?
@@dcuccia I'm not an engineer, but I do know that Monoprice has a selection of in wall speakers. You could probably get some measurements from their site.
@@dcuccia I imagine the box as a pool with water: you can make waves in a pool; depending on the size of the pool and the frequency of the waves you can make them standing wich amplifies the peaks.
Of course in audio the variability of the frequencies make it hard to desingn a speaker that doesn't resonate at afrequency but end up resonating at a different one. Sound systems have so many variables playing that are almost chaotic systems Think about butterfly effect.
I'm so jealous of that workshop
I think for those kind of tests it might be fun to have A, B, C and D, two of them being identical just to triple check people can *actually* hear a difference (let alone which is superior)
I love that I couldn't hear a difference.
This is a great channel btw. Thank you
Use your ears idiot
Man, short and absolutely straight to the point
My "Guess" speaker B is the shallower box.
I'm listening on my tablet, but I agree with you.
My first though was "A is the deep one.", so it seems we agree. B sounded "boxier" to my ears, like those cheap speakers they used to put on Lloyed's all-in-one compact stereos of the 1970s.
My guess is both at different frequencies and
Which is it ? What a waste of 6 mins of my time. Thanks buddy🤦♂️
@@SoldierJ613 To my knowledge John has not followed up on this video. He is the only one that and tell us as he asked us to guess. If he did follow up in another video it has been months if he posted it in this comment section please let me know.
Seriously I could enjoy just watch you build boxes all day :) You are like the Bob Ross of speaker cabinet building.
I did the same thing many years ago with a guitar speaker cabinet using a single 15" musical instrument speaker. I was looking to fit a space at a local venue. The only thing I noticed was off axis performance was noticeably different. To use an analogy, the shallow cabinet was like a floodlight while the deep cabinet was more like a spot light. This was observed at the other side of a large room.
good info
Sound fantastic I can't tell
Thank you for testing the theory
Well, for me is A shallow and B deep. A has more high-frequencies and distortion it seems to me. B has a more reaxed sound. So you can caculate the distance behind the speaker by formulas from Bailey and Rogers they used in their TLs since the sixties.
I can hear the same differences even with my android phone. I agree with your conclusion and I love the deeper box sounds.
My ears mimicked your guess as well.
I built a set of speakers a few years back that have very shallow boxes, and have a passive radiator as well. I've been really enjoying them but now I want to get out the measurement mic and see how even the response really is! I was going to do that after designing and building crossovers but they sounded really flat to my ears and I called that good enough at the time. Really enjoying these simple tests of commonly held beliefs, and very cool to see how much of a difference stuffing made (looks like I have a place for the leftover rockwool from renovations)
just put white noise through them one at a time. You'll soon hear the difference.
I'm confused; putting stuffing in a closed back speaker won't hurt the sound. but does it help it? Let's say a 20" X 20" single speaker (12) cabinet.
This thing is for my bass guitar, or subwoofer
I once built speaker cabinets that were several feet deep in the back. A 5 and a half inch driver needed no sub. More cabinet volume does result in deeper bass. What is more important than what cabinet it is, is that if the cabinet edges, especially the ones near the tweeter, be rounded. You don't see really serious speakers anymore being made without that rounding off of the corners. Many noted speaker designer say how adversely it affects the sound if they're not.
Rounded or 45 degree router cut. Both will yield similar results especially as the volume goes up!
I noticed a difference in bottom end one had a slight loss to the bottom end which screems the shorter but longer box. Now if you glued small 45 degree angles on the back of the thiner box behind the speaker wouldn't that help from reflections?
Love hearing them Nail Gun barrages, very very informative vid!
What will really blow ur mind is positioning the driver a 3rd into the length of the long box and how it can null out nodes and such.
Interesting. Thanks for this. I have a personal interest in this because I have been thinking about subwoofer build in my (too) small home theater. And the reason for shallow box is obvious: there is no room for large boxes. Tried to search something on the topic but pretty soon found out that no one is builind shallow woofer boxes. Thought there would be some reason for it. So this got me thinking, if reflection is the problem, I guess it would be easy enough to put a angled wall behind the speaker element to reflect the waves up.
hello i am no one, i built a shallow subwoofer box. 6" deep for a 10" shallow mount subwoofer driver.
i got great results, below 200hz its fine.
i also ran it up to 2000hz a little while, i liked that also but i would not recommend that.
@JaniLahtinen Shallow subwoofer boxes are fine. Use some absorption on the back wall to help diminish reflections. The wider the baffle the better. As long as you have enough room behind the driver motor's rear vent (hole in the magnet structure) you won't have any problems. Roughly 2"to the absorpbtion material is a decent guess The length of the sound waves from a subwoofer are so long that reflections thru the cone aren't really a problem with smearing the sound. That happens in the upper octaves.
The trouble is thou because the baffle is different, the baffle step has changed, and that will overshadow the reflection u hear, plus by adding extra damping to the back reduce the reflection in a shallow box anyway. I think the shallow box may sound a bit better in this test as the baffle is longer, hence more sound directed towards the mic at front at lower frequencies.
This is incredibly interesting and had fun just watching you build the box, but got the added bonus of trying to hear the difference between the 2 speaker boxes.
If I had to guess, it would be that B is the shorter/deeper box. When I get home, I'll give another listen as my speakers are home are much better than the ones I'm using currently.
Generally speaking the deeper speakers are better (to a point). Most important is that the cabinets are dense enough to not vibrate. I have built my share of speakers over the years. The speakers I have right now cost very little to make and the sound stage is incredible. It's fascinating that so many are into horn type speakers now (had some a few decades ago and would not have them now). A good system will sound good no matter what the sound level is. It's interesting how audio (as other things) seems to have gone full circle. Who would have thought that records would make a come back (still have some Sheffield Lab albums in storage).
I listened using regular headphone and I didn't hear any difference at all. But I do believe there must be differences!! Good test. Thank you for the opportunity !! Alberto
Box A sounds a tiny bit more open and wider
The bass wasn't as sharp on A. The voice sounded a little bit colder on B but sounded better with a bit more detail in the high med in the voice sound. Everything was a little bit more muddled together on A and on B everything sounded more separate (especially the voice sound). I heard it on my made 5" open FR driver plus 6" boxed woofer speakers.
both sound good and to me the same, I couldn't tell the difference at all, in fact your transitions were so good if not looking at the screen I wouldn't know that it happened.
Same with me, I think that there was simply no switching at all.
Good work man!! To make it a more fair test it would be cool if you could strap a 'fake' baffle extender on thr shorter deep cabinet. The baffle itself will affect the LF range
Agree! I was thinking the same thing. The shape ans size of the front baffle can have a very large effect, all other things being equal
For sure. Can please you argue in short how the longer or greater size baffle will affect the sound?!
Thanks sir ❤❤❤
B has less harsness in the sibiliance range and the brass sounds better. Which box it is will be interesting to see.
Infinity reference and kappa were very good and used shallow boxes.
Like a few others said, I think “A” is the shorter, deeper box. Looking at the frequency response, it had slightly more output in a lot of the low end range, and I could hear that the kicks sounded more meaty on speaker A. So that’s my guess.
Either way, I thought both sounded good and there really wasn’t a significant difference to my ears, on my equipment, on this content.
I think A is the deep box and B is the tall shallow box, as most others also think. This lines up with the graphs , with the deep box having more low frequency output and the tall shallow box stronger in the mid range. I think the 2 different boxes together would sound good but most people wouldn't like the look of this.
Equipment lust! I feel it!
Standing wave reverberation can be reduced in a shallow box by using random size foam diffusers on the back panel.
diffusers are the answer to many problems
Listening to this on my headphones I thought that A had a slightly fuller bass. I guess that A is the deep box but it is almost impossible to hear a difference.
A has fuller bass but B has more detailed bass with a sharper attack.
I built some subs in boxes that were very tall but very shallow to get within the depth of LCR. The ports are so far away from the drivers that it's like spreading subs around the wall to excite different nodes instead of crowding them all in a similar location. I initially wasn't going to bother with stuffing until I calculated that a quarter wave within the low pass tail off range could stand up within the box. Alright fine, have some denim fluff.
A longer dimension also means that you may have to deal with standing waves and use stuffing regardless.
The two sound very close to each other in my headphones, but A has a little better sounding bass, and I would guess that it's the deep box.
A is my guess also, deeper box. Cheat: how many good speakers have shallow boxes?
B seemed to have a clearer top end, odd though considering the measurements weren't altered up that end. Unless, efficiency is maybe slightly increased in whichever box that was, presumably the shallow box as possibly had an effect on the loading maybe...🤔
Interesting. This reminded me of something I came across 40ish years ago. It was stating a certain size speaker needs a certain volume of box and then the dimensions ought to be 0.6 units deep, 1 unit wide, and 1.6 units tall, then acoustic insulation on the back, one side and bottom. Now, this was 40ish years ago and I am relying on a memory that can't recall names and birthdays, so take it at that. I may be totally out to lunch...lol.
The golden ratio is supposed to reduce standing waves in the box, but that's something else I'd have to try before I add it to my list of hard and fast rules.
Dipole is the golden ratio!
I am pretty sure that the idea is/was to limit standing waves to one dimension and thereby reducing resonance peaks etc. by using these recurring fractional ratios or derived dimensions.
(0.618...1...1.618 is the mathematical sequence). In this context people also considered the cabinet resonance to correspond to a musical frequency to hopefully potentially enhance harmonics - or not. It seems lot of it had to do with driver response.
IIRC by contrast the pythagorean ratios (3...4...5) are susceptible to standing waves and harmonic resonances. The basic idea is to avoid the ratios of scale harmonics, ie avoiding dimensions that correspond to the proportional wavelengths. Some cabinet ratios produce crazy wolf tones or other anomalies for no apparent reason, which adds to the fun.
Is the voice coil vented on the back of the speaker magnet? If so, allowing only a 1/4" space would also be a factor.
A more wider.. Just a bit tiny diff.. But still A for me... Nice information I got from u.. Thanks for sharing.. Love from malaysia
I’m 79, wear in-ear (larger) hearing aids. I closed my eyes listening to your test. I could not hear a transition, and indeed saw A and B items. I would like to hear TV and Movies / Netflix as well as might be possible, and suspect I need not get audiophile quality speakers. I live near Toronto. Can you provide a recommendation? Pretty sure I’m not alone in this quest. Recent Sony receiver plus PSB speakers from about 1990 .
I think this is a good starting point but it's what you do with the back wave from the back of the speaker that counts. I found that with quality acoustic foam on the side walls combined with real wool yields very good results for deep clean base.
you are the king
.
Guessing B is the tall one, and A is the deep one!
When I started in Audio retail some 50 years ago I was selling the Rectilinear III speaker. They then introduced the "Low Boy" version of it. As I understood it, same drivers and cubic cabinet space. Just different cabinet dimensions. While they shared the same general characteristics, they did sounded noticeably different. I preferred the original Tall Boy. But that could have been familiarity.
The only way of isolating this test is to make a large box with same identical outside dimensions and baffle, but have sliding internal panels that change the depth but keep the same volume of chamber inside to see if you can hear the difference, consider looking at stored energy response and try the adding damping to back to see if you can get both deep and shallow to perform the same. Make sure the panels are solid with bracing, as any vibration of the box walls will overshadow the tests. This is actually very very hard to do.
-Whats you favorite song?
-Graph.
Just a quick question re cabinet design, if i may. After watching a few videos, i notice the drivers are always recessed. I understand this may be for aesthetic reasons, however would the full thickness of the cabinet not be better right where the driver is supported?
A = Deep/short box
B = Shallow
My guess
At the beginning B sounded quieter, but it could just be the section of music that was played on it. In the graphs the deep box was slightly lower in the midbass, so maybe that was B. Although 650-750Hz is higher on the shallow box, and that may be where the singer's voice is. They're so close, it would take a lot more listening to know if there was a significant difference and whether one was better. From what I read, the outside of the box can be seen as a waveguide and deeper boxes show better directivity in the midbass. Shallow boxes have a more abrupt transition from 1/2 space to full space.
great video , i've wondered about this for a while. why did you put the crossover inside the box ?? would be better out side
Amy Lynn & the Honey Men. Good choice for test music!
I have heard a lot of speaker box design best practices and all of them are for a ported or vented design... when looking at sealed, 'same volume' designs the speaker should have the same results. Knowing you don't want to go thin on the material, brace or frame areas that might flex with large low frequencies... but for the most discerning ears it will be the same. Great channel by the way!
What happens if you put the stuffing directly behind the speaker ? It looks like you put it up in the topside of the box ? Would be cool to see how much of a difference more or less stuff makes
Seas of Norway! Didn’t know they still operate. Pretty close from where I work.
I figured that a slower sweep of the audio might allow more "settling" time for standing waves to really get going .. Thx...🇨🇦in🇩🇪
I noticed that you have one of the cool "remote arbor tightener" tools...
Something to consider is that the crossover for the shallow box is mounted right next to the driver, possibly interfering with the air space at that end
Does not appear it was revealed in a future video, or we are not yet far enough into the future. My guess was A was the deeper box. Which one was it?
I thought you always had standing waves and I suspect the deeper box just has them at higher frequencies and more grouped together, because the three dimensions are more similar
I thought I may have heard slightly more compression in the low mids on B, although I was listening on my phone 😆
Wow what a great royalty free song. What is it?
Trying to determine which speaker sounds better by the sound that was crunched up by YT compression and then reproduced by my somewhat questionable audio setup is not an easy task. To me they sounded almost the same.
BTW what would be the perfect speaker box shape? Spherical? I understand why it's not common - manufacturing becomes way more difficult. I heard that some speakers are designed to avoid 90 degree angles (by making side panels trapezoidal instead of rectangular) - supposedly this reduces standing waves. Would be interesting to see a comparison.
Yes in physical theory spherical would be the best shape for the inside of the box.
B sounds like it claps a bit more and a sounds more reverby imo. Like a sounds "normal" or "warm". Im only saying b because it had the different quality out of the two. Very very hard to tell though.
I like A more, but I'm hoping it's the shallow box. When will you release the results?
Nine months later I guess we'll never know. Does this guy respond to questions??? 3/10/24
I am very jealous of your shop too. Love your videos! Would you make some baffles for someone (me)? I would pay for wood and time and wear and tear etc
The sound doesn't resonate as well in the box B. Perhaps forcing the sound waves to the opposite side of the box from the speaker
Could also be because of the different resonance of the much larger front and back panel.
But also the shape/lenght of the volume matters. The box is not only more shallow but also significantly higher/longer. I think the orientation of the shape in relation to the speaker doesn't matter as much, at lower frequences ? Needs proof though by tip the box over and mounting the speaker in the head panel. ;)
Thank you for this very interesting audio experiments though !
🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation:
00:00 📦 *Speaker Box Construction*
- Constructing two speaker boxes with different depths but the same internal volume.
- Using half-inch MDF for construction and the same coaxial driver in both boxes.
- Gluing joints with polyurethane construction adhesive and reinforcing with 18 gauge Brads.
01:24 🎛️ *Crossover Setup and Initial Measurements*
- Building the crossover for the speaker driver.
- Drilling holes and securing wires for amplifier connection.
- Conducting initial frequency response measurements for the shallow speaker box.
02:16 📊 *Frequency Response Discrepancy*
- Noticing a flatter response in the shallow box around 300 to 400 Hertz.
- Exploring two possibilities: sound reflection off the box's back or a fixable standing wave issue.
- Overlaying measurements to highlight differences, particularly in the mentioned frequency range.
03:10 🧠 *Testing and Fixing Standing Wave Hypothesis*
- Testing the standing wave hypothesis by inserting rock wool in the shallow box.
- Comparing frequency response measurements before and after rock wool insertion.
- Confirming that the standing wave hypothesis seems plausible and fixable.
04:05 🎶 *Sound Test in Listening Room*
- Taking both constructed boxes to the Listening Room for sound testing.
- Recording a track with a microphone placed 20 inches from the speakers.
- Challenging viewers to guess which speaker box produces the sound in the blind test.
Made with HARPA AI
I need to listen to this again with a better set of headphones. I suspect the ones I'm using here in the office aren't hifi enough to discern a difference.
I like the sound of B. It's tighter and more focused. A is a bit.......just a bit on the boomy side.
A sounds like its been compressed. my guess this is the shallow box since the driver has a stiffer air suspension i think you will get a bigger difference with sub base frequencies .. this recording on the mic suggest it had little to no base .hence most frequencies would not create a standing wave in a deep box ..you will find 50 hz and lower will be far more detailed and louder in a deep box ..i made studio grade monitors that can go well below 25 hz and are very responsive .i heard no base what so ever on this mic examples the lowest was 80 hz ..that will work and any enclose size even open baffles . i suggest using sub woofers for this experiment .i find using Fs wave length of the driver and fit it or divide perfectly by 2 /4/8/ or 16 times ,you can get the depth of the deep box with the best results then adjust the other sides to fit the volume needed
Just a guess but wouldn’t the deep box be what you want in a sub and a shallow but tall for the upper range equipment?
Speaker A has a more open and rich sound which make me guess it is the deep cabinet but I might be wrong hence the “surprising results” John mentioned in the video
My guess is b is shallow. It has a slightly fuller low mid that my guess is due to the resonance of the large front face. A sounded more like a typical point source pa speaker to me. More projected mids but not as deep
I know your not supposed to use real wood for speaker enclosures but I plan on building new, same cubic foot, same shape enclosures for my Cerwin Vega VS-150 15 inch 3ways out of real walnut with a thick "bar top " like clear coating all iver them buffed to a deep shine.Inside i will brace and use some kind of sealant like a bed liner roll on without the grit in it Think the real wood will work or will it dry out, shrink and split?
The bigger the box is, the greater the chance that the wood will split if you don't make allowances for wood movement. You really need to know how to work with solid wood to make those allowances.
@@IBuildIt yeah, ill figure somethin out.
sir which type microphone used to measure the speaker parameters
Is that some sort of a full range? If so why the crossover? Is that a mid woofer? What kind of a speaker is that? Talking about the driver.
I be more worried about the dip at 10K and peak at 12K but its a great test!
It took a very close comparison to find a difference but I prefer A.
I have found that the optimal rectangular box shape is a half cube with the driver centered on the square face. Why? My goal was to have all the reflections travel the same distance so the lowest box mode frequency would be as high as possible. Damping material is more effective at higher frequencies, so this mode is easily damped by filling the box with rock wool or fiberglass producing a resonance free result. Selecting drivers that need the smallest volume helps push this frequency higher, which is great. With this construction it is possible to low pass filter the woofer at or below the lowest cabinet resonance and have zero audible box sound. The free Hornresp software will model box internal resonances so you can try this concept before building anything. To extend the bass use woofers with sufficient displacement and equalize the system with a Linkwitz transform ( asymmetric second order shelf filter). Nice video, but without more stuffing I fear the listening result is not conclusive. The lowest mode of that long cabinet will likely color the sound even with lots of stuffing. It would be audible with a slow sine sweep or some vocal in that frequency range.
B sounds like a more controlled sound, whereas A sounds more lively to me. I would pick A for my speaker build.
I don't know which one is which, but "A" has a very, very small (almost indistinguishable) bit tighter bass. But for all intents and purposes they sounded the same to me.
A is the one that measured to have a tad more low end?
Used a headset. And believe that B was the shallow box, because of the booming 200-300hz that overshadowed the deeper sound.
B all day long. Don't care which is which. I prefer B (I think B is the deeper box b/c the low bass extension) Side note the highs in this song were very harsh and distracting.
Did you ever plot the difference between the two freq responses?
i heard for bass reflex subwoofers optimal depth is 60 cm because of the wave length of the bass frequencies. i wonder if that’s true
I listened to this experiment using an open baffle pair midrange and treble combined with a sealed midbass pair with no sub. Based on the graph provided and the listening experience I had, Box A has a very slight bump in the deeper bass notes and B has more kick timbre. My interpretation is box A is the deep box and box B the shallow one from what I was able to detect through my listening source.
Very good video John, and interesting results. Taking it any further would make a good follow-up and perhaps a "mythbuster".
Having a personal attraction to the vintage mass market speakers, which also have the "shoebox" style shape because that was a common design philosophy in that era, it's a relief to know that my builds are likely not impaired all that much, despite their shape.
It seems to me that a few decades ago, I recall the purposeful practice of not making speaker enclosures too deep. I can't recall the "why", (likely in books that I've stuffed away in moving boxes somewhere). It seems like it had something to do with a theory that in a speaker cabinet that's overly deep could actually defeat bass response due to internal cancellations or some such thing. The one thing I know for sure, is that nearly ALL cabinets for a very long time had variations on the golden ratio and shoebox shape cabinets. Even high end brands employed this philosophy, albeit a bit more proportional looking than department store speakers.
This was very cool experimentation. I think the only way to take it further would be to do varying amounts of dampening, ported vs sealed, and Woofer placement on the baffle.
I listened to the A/B tests and the music sounded almost identical. If I had to guess, I'd say the shallow box was "A", but only from watching the sound level meter, and assuming the SPL of the deeper box was spiking due to lack of woofer control in areas, but by the end of the listening both showed some spikes so maybe it was the song or the timing of the song as it played on each speaker.
Either way though, cool experiment, that one could take further, but you already proved that in that instance, with that speaker in a sealed box, there was negligible difference.
It seems to me, (and my memory isn't always reliable), if I remember correctly, the deeper cabinets started trickling into the mainstream speaker designs, when the woofers started to get smaller and smaller, (in an effort to cleanup baffle diffraction). Whenever I look at my energy RC 70 towers, they always remind me of the 180 degree shift in box methodology.
Great videos, keep up the good work!
I think taking it further would just muddy the water.
Having it a simple "is there a significant difference" test like this should convince anyone who's open to the possibility that a shallow box doesn't have a major impact on the sound quality And that the idea that the sound bounces back through the cone MORE in a shallow box is incorrect.
@@IBuildIt Yup!
Curious about the inverted config on each?
What if you put the driver so it fires down the longer demension of the shallow box?
Then it would be a very deep box…
Did we get which one is A/B ?
"A" is the Shallow Box. If the Deep box has a more level response, than The shallow has less in the mids and it creates the sound of a slight "V". And that's what I think I heard in "A" (I think)
A is the shallow box that has lower volume that dint sound as good.
Didn't hear a single different anywhere 👍✨🙂 BUT GREAT VIDEO
Do it bump doe?
Couldn't really tell. But if I had to pick one, I choose B as the shallow box.
Listening to this video with a pair of DT770 Pros, and I'm struggling to tell this diff between the 2 speakers.
This video reminds me of the pair of B&W SCM1 speakers currently sitting on my desk. They are supposed to be the equivalent of the better known B&W 805 speakers, but are flatter in shape and designed for wall mounting. Legend has it that the deeper shaped 805 has better bass response. B&W simply tells me that positioning the SCM1 closer to the wall elicits similar bass.
I don't care. I simply bought the SCM1 because it sounded and looked good and were a bargain compared to the 805.
In my car audio days. You could buy a silcone type round piece with lots of 45 degree concentric circles that you stick on the back if the bass box to difract sound away from passing back through the cone imagine a rubber lp with deep ridges. Was this snake oil? Dont know never bought one.
A sounds like it packs a bigger punch. Was that the thin box?
Once properly stuffed they should sound very similar. There might be some difference in FR because of baffle shape and size, again very small.
yes its different because of the baffle not internal volume. so many dont realize the wavelength of that region that is changing is several meters lol. there is not enough box space to have it bounce back and cancel. its literally baffle difference and stuffing placement. rockwall absorbs sound and it WILL make the base strong or weak. proper stuffing would be indistinguishable .
I prefered B for upper midrange/vocals and think it's the shallow box.