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.
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.
@robertmceuen3630 nah. Relatively nice studio headphones and relatively nice studio monitors in a relatively well treated room. Piped into my relatively experienced brain via my relatively experienced ears. It is entirely possible the you are capable of perceiving a thing that I am not. Have a nice day
Have you ever trained a dog? Since jealousy is not a desirable trait, it's a good idea to train them to not be as it can lead to physical violence. It's typically an indication of emotional immaturity. If it was me I would have said, "You have a nice shop."
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
I haven't had to make a speaker box in like 30 years. Things have changed a little bit. I bought a new Ford Maverick Tremor and there is a large storage space under the back seat. The truck has an upgraded stereo but there is zero base. So I'm relearning about speaker boxes to upgrade. The space will barely fit 10s so i bought a Sundown monoblock amp and a 10 inch sundown sub, and a LC2I to hijack some signal from my door speakers since they are full range. Can't wait till its all in.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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 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?
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!
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 .
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.
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.
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.
I'm finally considering getting back into building speakers, and build my own speakers for the first time in many many years. I want to use peerless elements and i want to build a speaker that won't have to rely on a seperate subwoofer to reach the low ends, which made me look at some of their 12" subwoofer elements. My plan is to use 24mm playwood, dual layered all sides and braces to make the box completely dead, i'm also going to have 1 softdome tweeter and i might use a Scanspeak 6" with a phaseplug for that midrange. The box will be about 8" wide, as narrow as possible without choking the 12" woofer which will be placed sideways . Currently doing my research on how much it impacts the base with narrow boxes .
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
I prefer not to go so deep that the half wave reflection off the box's back isn't in the pass band - so ideally less deep than 1/4 wave of 100 Hz for a subwoofer, or 85 cm. Ideally have the distance from the driver to any internal wall be less than that. A shallow box might be better for a subwoofer as long as it's not so shallow that airflow is restricted.
Yeah! Exactly! My tablet sounds the same no matter how deep you make your box! The listening demo portion of the video is not particularly helpful as the sound reproduction is limited by the viewer's system. I was wondering if 16" vs 4" would make more of a difference?
My guess would be that B was the shallow box because the bass sounds a little less resonant. But it's hard to tell if not there. Excellent experiment, right up my allay. I wonder if perhaps the shape of the thing should follow the shape of the soundwave (like bubbles of air) to get the 'truest' representation of the actual original sound.....? 🙏🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻
🎯 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 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)
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 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 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
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.
@@Justwantahover Actually, I hear A as having a slightly higher toned tighter cleaner response, where as B was a little bit deeper but smoother which gives a duller response. To me, A hits harder and is louder but B is smoother. The problem about getting opinions is that recording a speaker and playing it on different types of speakers gives a different tone. It's a tricky comparison.
I experienced this waaaaayyy back in the 90s, built a box for a realistic 8", it was like 10x10 but really deep, like 20", think like a square bass tube, had it in my room, gave it to my cousin and built another box that was a typical truck box, woofer facing seat, very little depth, but wide. While testing it in my room, same exact spot, behind my bed, it just didn't have the low, deep bass, just lacked fullness. Sounded thumpy, hollow, no depth at all. Tried facing it all different ways, thinking it was loading in a corner or off a wall, just couldn't reproduce the first enclosures sound. Same exact volume, same tuning, this was the 90s, I was not redoing all that math and box design by hand. So, idk, guess if the short distance from the rear wall to the woofer is too little it acts like a spring and stiffens up the woofer, I have no idea.
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 !
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.
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
I've made sub boxes square and rectangle to make the biggest boards possible and rectangle boxes are always always way louder. I just made a vented box for my pair of skar vs-12s. It's tuned to 35hz i believe it was, 5 cubes internal so it ended up being 13.5x31ishx34 i think it was. 4.5x12x29.3 port, again tuned to 35hz. 800 watts coming off a skar 1500 watt (they're d2s, can't get 1 ohm). No braces whatsoever as well. I believe them long wide pieces produce a tremendous amount of sound. That's my recipe to a loud box everytime.
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.
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.
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.
Very close ...I would say the deeper cabinet gives a more spacious sound bigger sund stage, I think the deeper cabinet is A. I am preparing for my first DIY and this topic is important for me because of the space placement I would prefer taller and not so deep box but I wouldn't compromise the image and sound stage.
The factor is not the shape of the box, its the volume. Any differences have to do with box reflections and resonance which as you well figured out are remedied by dampening..
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
The correct answer here is every single detail matters. Wether you are building a speaker, a guitar, a car or a space ship. Compared one-to-one like this it doesn't seem to matter, but when added to every thing else, always does. JH has made a video that says the cabinet material doesn't matter so much and has measurement tests to show that. I have built 2 cabinets of diff material and they are wildly different playing music, using the exact same drivers and crossovers (not duplicates, the same ones). I have built guitars too. People that hear, feel and get this (and it's not everyone), realize every little thing you do matters. If you just want something to sound 'good enough'... you don't even need DIY anymore, most commercial audio products sound good enough these days at pretty much any price. Certainly a good DIY kit will do. Audio (guitar and cars too) are truly in an amazing place right now with technology and manufacturing where it is. If you want to build the best, you skimp on nothing. Overlook nothing. That's the only way you'll be able to tell you got there when you are done.
Interesting. Have you tried making two speaker enclosures with exactly the same physical spec and then measuring those? You may be surprised. Some years ago I bought two speakers from a highly reputable manufacturer. They were'nt left or right as their geometry was identical and still sold as a pair. When set up I suspected a problem and checked by running white noise through each in turn. They sounded compeletly different to each other on white noise, meaning their response was nowhere near the same. ( I swapped them around to eliminate room acoustics). I took them back and demanded they be tested. They ran the same test with various combinations of one of them and others from their stock of the same. NONE of them sounded alike. The only thing that matched was the wood veneer.
If you don't want to name them, just wondering if they were Chinese mass production, or a supposed better qc "more hands on build". My guess is poor crossovers made them sound different.
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
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.
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.
It appeared to me that the material you called 'rockwool' was a fiberglass or some other fibrous insulation, but NOT 'rockwool', which most commonly is dark gray in color, or having an appearance closer to coal. Another way to describe the appearance of 'rockwool' would be similar to steel wool with bits (or chunks) of black rock (coal). I'm not saying rockwool would conduct, or be susceptible to magnetism, but the chunky bits, inherent to rockwool, would likely cause rattling at higher sound pressures, or by increased vibration (movement) of the speaker cone.
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?
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.
The shallow box with larger baffle and rear plate needs a brace in the middle because it will flex more than the one with small baffle and rear plate. Yes the narrow box still rings but will be up higher because of the resonance of the box.. im amaised you missed the mark..here
Couldn't tell a difference on my computer, finally hooked up a decent amp and speakers to it. there's a difference, but I'm not sure which is deep or tall.
Maybe this is a silly comment, but I would have used X & Y as opposed to A & B as 'A' is sharper in appearance than 'B' and plays with our minds. For that reason, I felt 'B' had more 'B'ass and was the deeper box......? though you stated the shallow box provides more slap-back bass for a fuller bass.
Thinking you should of used that insulation directly behind the speaker on both of them then compared them. One would use insulation there anyway so not sure why you didn't.
Iam planning to build a 2 way speaker using ribbon tweeter and a 6 inch mid bass, I would love to get your assistance/advice on how to build a picture frame 🖼️ speaker
"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)
Like I'm going to hear any real difference on a speaker bar after youtubes algo's smash the sound. I did notice the differences in sound in my old Design Acoustics D-2's when I changed out the insulation batting from pink to rockwool. I eventually went back to the pink.
The point was that the difference should be obvious, if it really was a valid problem to avoid. Obvious enough that you should be able to hear that difference, even if listening on less than perfect speakers or headphones, and not have to replay it over and over and strain to hear the difference. As for TH-cam "smashing" the audio, that's largely an overblown assumption. TH-cam's compression is most obvious on video quality, since it can be more than 100X larger than the audio component. That said, if you can point the way to a reliable source that shows that TH-cam compression makes an obvious (key word here, as above) difference, I'd like to see it.
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 .
In a thin long box, put a 45 degree angle plate behind the sub firing the sound into the long half so it can’t bounce right back out the face of the cone. Send it more directions so to speak.
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.
Seriously I could enjoy just watch you build boxes all day :) You are like the Bob Ross of speaker cabinet building.
I love that I couldn't hear a difference.
This is a great channel btw. Thank you
Use your ears idiot
Do ypu think no difference is because you're not in the room; you're listening to both through your phone?
@robertmceuen3630 nah. Relatively nice studio headphones and relatively nice studio monitors in a relatively well treated room.
Piped into my relatively experienced brain via my relatively experienced ears. It is entirely possible the you are capable of perceiving a thing that I am not. Have a nice day
@@davebullard relatively snobby.
@@robertmceuen3630 😁
I'm so jealous of that workshop
Have you ever trained a dog? Since jealousy is not a desirable trait, it's a good idea to train them to not be as it can lead to physical violence. It's typically an indication of emotional immaturity. If it was me I would have said, "You have a nice shop."
@@aaaaaa6303 I also think it would've been more correct for him to way "I'm envious of your workshop".
Man, short and absolutely straight to the point
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 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
So shallow would be better for home theatre surrounds in your opinion?
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.
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.
Shakespeare has chimed in?
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.
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!
B has less harsness in the sibiliance range and the brass sounds better. Which box it is will be interesting to see.
A longer dimension also means that you may have to deal with standing waves and use stuffing regardless.
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?
Did we get which one is A/B ?
I haven't had to make a speaker box in like 30 years. Things have changed a little bit. I bought a new Ford Maverick Tremor and there is a large storage space under the back seat. The truck has an upgraded stereo but there is zero base. So I'm relearning about speaker boxes to upgrade. The space will barely fit 10s so i bought a Sundown monoblock amp and a 10 inch sundown sub, and a LC2I to hijack some signal from my door speakers since they are full range. Can't wait till its all in.
Guessing B is the tall one, and A is the deep one!
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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).
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.
Agree.
Does this mean it is NOT necessary to stuff a deep box? The graph @ 3:12 shows very difference between stuffing and not stuffing a deep box.
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?
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!
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 .
Infinity reference and kappa were very good and used shallow boxes.
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.
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.
I'm finally considering getting back into building speakers, and build my own speakers for the first time in many many years.
I want to use peerless elements and i want to build a speaker that won't have to rely on a seperate subwoofer to reach the low ends,
which made me look at some of their 12" subwoofer elements. My plan is to use 24mm playwood, dual layered all sides and braces to make the box completely dead, i'm also going to have 1 softdome tweeter and i might use a Scanspeak 6" with a phaseplug for that midrange.
The box will be about 8" wide, as narrow as possible without choking the 12" woofer which will be placed sideways . Currently doing my research on how much it impacts the base with narrow boxes .
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
I prefer not to go so deep that the half wave reflection off the box's back isn't in the pass band - so ideally less deep than 1/4 wave of 100 Hz for a subwoofer, or 85 cm. Ideally have the distance from the driver to any internal wall be less than that. A shallow box might be better for a subwoofer as long as it's not so shallow that airflow is restricted.
The size of the walls of the different boxes could introduce different resonane frequencies
Yeah! Exactly! My tablet sounds the same no matter how deep you make your box! The listening demo portion of the video is not particularly helpful as the sound reproduction is limited by the viewer's system. I was wondering if 16" vs 4" would make more of a difference?
My guess would be that B was the shallow box because the bass sounds a little less resonant.
But it's hard to tell if not there.
Excellent experiment, right up my allay.
I wonder if perhaps the shape of the thing should follow the shape of the soundwave (like bubbles of air) to get the 'truest' representation of the actual original sound.....?
🙏🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻
Sound fantastic I can't tell
A = Deep/short box
B = Shallow
My guess
🎯 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 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
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
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 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 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.
@@Justwantahover Actually, I hear A as having a slightly higher toned tighter cleaner response, where as B was a little bit deeper but smoother which gives a duller response. To me, A hits harder and is louder but B is smoother.
The problem about getting opinions is that recording a speaker and playing it on different types of speakers gives a different tone. It's a tricky comparison.
I experienced this waaaaayyy back in the 90s, built a box for a realistic 8", it was like 10x10 but really deep, like 20", think like a square bass tube, had it in my room, gave it to my cousin and built another box that was a typical truck box, woofer facing seat, very little depth, but wide. While testing it in my room, same exact spot, behind my bed, it just didn't have the low, deep bass, just lacked fullness. Sounded thumpy, hollow, no depth at all. Tried facing it all different ways, thinking it was loading in a corner or off a wall, just couldn't reproduce the first enclosures sound. Same exact volume, same tuning, this was the 90s, I was not redoing all that math and box design by hand. So, idk, guess if the short distance from the rear wall to the woofer is too little it acts like a spring and stiffens up the woofer, I have no idea.
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…
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 !
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?!
I've made sub boxes square and rectangle to make the biggest boards possible and rectangle boxes are always always way louder. I just made a vented box for my pair of skar vs-12s. It's tuned to 35hz i believe it was, 5 cubes internal so it ended up being 13.5x31ishx34 i think it was. 4.5x12x29.3 port, again tuned to 35hz. 800 watts coming off a skar 1500 watt (they're d2s, can't get 1 ohm). No braces whatsoever as well. I believe them long wide pieces produce a tremendous amount of sound. That's my recipe to a loud box everytime.
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.
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.
Interesting! I think A is deep, B shallow. Singer sounded slightly 'confined' with B; more open with 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.
Very close ...I would say the deeper cabinet gives a more spacious sound bigger sund stage, I think the deeper cabinet is A. I am preparing for my first DIY and this topic is important for me because of the space placement I would prefer taller and not so deep box but I wouldn't compromise the image and sound stage.
I feel that A is the deeper shorter box. The low frequency seemed crisper.
I could hear a difference and prefer A. But which box is it?
The factor is not the shape of the box, its the volume. Any differences have to do with box reflections and resonance which as you well figured out are remedied by dampening..
Do it bump doe?
Wasn't expecting this comment 😂 I was a Big dummy
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
The correct answer here is every single detail matters. Wether you are building a speaker, a guitar, a car or a space ship. Compared one-to-one like this it doesn't seem to matter, but when added to every thing else, always does. JH has made a video that says the cabinet material doesn't matter so much and has measurement tests to show that. I have built 2 cabinets of diff material and they are wildly different playing music, using the exact same drivers and crossovers (not duplicates, the same ones). I have built guitars too. People that hear, feel and get this (and it's not everyone), realize every little thing you do matters. If you just want something to sound 'good enough'... you don't even need DIY anymore, most commercial audio products sound good enough these days at pretty much any price. Certainly a good DIY kit will do. Audio (guitar and cars too) are truly in an amazing place right now with technology and manufacturing where it is. If you want to build the best, you skimp on nothing. Overlook nothing. That's the only way you'll be able to tell you got there when you are done.
Interesting. Have you tried making two speaker enclosures with exactly the same physical spec and then measuring those? You may be surprised. Some years ago I bought two speakers from a highly reputable manufacturer. They were'nt left or right as their geometry was identical and still sold as a pair. When set up I suspected a problem and checked by running white noise through each in turn. They sounded compeletly different to each other on white noise, meaning their response was nowhere near the same. ( I swapped them around to eliminate room acoustics).
I took them back and demanded they be tested. They ran the same test with various combinations of one of them and others from their stock of the same. NONE of them sounded alike. The only thing that matched was the wood veneer.
If you don't want to name them, just wondering if they were Chinese mass production, or a supposed better qc "more hands on build". My guess is poor crossovers made them sound different.
no they were British built bullshit.@@bigshnitzeljesse
@@lyntedrockley7295 got ya. Don't believe I've ever had the displeasure of owning any British audio
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
I noticed that you have one of the cool "remote arbor tightener" tools...
It took a very close comparison to find a difference but I prefer A.
was there a follow up vid? couldnt find it.
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.
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 sounds like it packs a bigger punch. Was that the thin box?
It appeared to me that the material you called 'rockwool' was a fiberglass or some other fibrous insulation, but NOT 'rockwool', which most commonly is dark gray in color, or having an appearance closer to coal. Another way to describe the appearance of 'rockwool' would be similar to steel wool with bits (or chunks) of black rock (coal). I'm not saying rockwool would conduct, or be susceptible to magnetism, but the chunky bits, inherent to rockwool, would likely cause rattling at higher sound pressures, or by increased vibration (movement) of the speaker cone.
Seas of Norway! Didn’t know they still operate. Pretty close from where I work.
Wow what a great royalty free song. What is it?
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?
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.
what i am in trouble is, the volume of the box because here in third world country speaker manufacturer rarely release their T/S specs..
Couldn't really tell. But if I had to pick one, I choose B as the shallow box.
great video , i've wondered about this for a while. why did you put the crossover inside the box ?? would be better out side
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?
I have two 8" subs. they're rectangular with the speakers being on the top half of the box. would'nt they be better on the bottom closer to the floor?
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 prefered B for upper midrange/vocals and think it's the shallow box.
The shallow box with larger baffle and rear plate needs a brace in the middle because it will flex more than the one with small baffle and rear plate. Yes the narrow box still rings but will be up higher because of the resonance of the box.. im amaised you missed the mark..here
Couldn't tell a difference on my computer, finally hooked up a decent amp and speakers to it. there's a difference, but I'm not sure which is deep or tall.
Conclusion it doesn't matter
I like the sound of B. It's tighter and more focused. A is a bit.......just a bit on the boomy side.
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
How is anyone able to tell on TH-cam with compressed audio?
Maybe this is a silly comment, but I would have used X & Y as opposed to A & B as 'A' is sharper in appearance than 'B' and plays with our minds. For that reason, I felt 'B' had more 'B'ass and was the deeper box......? though you stated the shallow box provides more slap-back bass for a fuller bass.
Thinking you should of used that insulation directly behind the speaker on both of them then compared them. One would use insulation there anyway so not sure why you didn't.
Not enough space. The back of the driver magnet is just 1/4" from the back panel in the shallow box.
lol... I was wondering the same thing, but while you're placing the driver in the shallow box I was assuming it was due to the limited depth.
Iam planning to build a 2 way speaker using ribbon tweeter and a 6 inch mid bass, I would love to get your assistance/advice on how to build a picture frame 🖼️ speaker
"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.
I am going with B but my hearing is affected by years of playing in bands.
Like I'm going to hear any real difference on a speaker bar after youtubes algo's smash the sound. I did notice the differences in sound in my old Design Acoustics D-2's when I changed out the insulation batting from pink to rockwool. I eventually went back to the pink.
The point was that the difference should be obvious, if it really was a valid problem to avoid. Obvious enough that you should be able to hear that difference, even if listening on less than perfect speakers or headphones, and not have to replay it over and over and strain to hear the difference.
As for TH-cam "smashing" the audio, that's largely an overblown assumption. TH-cam's compression is most obvious on video quality, since it can be more than 100X larger than the audio component.
That said, if you can point the way to a reliable source that shows that TH-cam compression makes an obvious (key word here, as above) difference, I'd like to see it.
Did you ever plot the difference between the two freq responses?
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 .
In a thin long box, put a 45 degree angle plate behind the sub firing the sound into the long half so it can’t bounce right back out the face of the cone. Send it more directions so to speak.
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
Nice work! But, i didn't so the whole for coming out air!!! 🙄
B sounds like a more controlled sound, whereas A sounds more lively to me. I would pick A for my speaker build.