Welcome! Need support, you got it. Or share your ideas and experiences.
Return to Planar Speaker Asylum
204.10.132.7
In Reply to: Wings not fins... posted by Scott 2.6/R on October 27, 2006 at 09:39:39:
The key is to make the baffle size as large as possible. Whether this is to the side or 90 degrees does not make much difference at bass frequencies, as the bass waves warp around and cancel the wave on the other side- the lower the frequency the more they warp. Baffle extensions should actually avoid blocking the reflected wave off the back wall, as this will cause the speakers to loose the dipole "airyness" (kind of like placing something bulky between the speakers). Folding the baffle back will make it less visually intrusive (and add stability) while providing the same effective baffle area. Look up dipole subwoofers (linkiwitz, etc.) for more open baffle designs. Another benefit of having the wings go to the back is the reflected high frequency sound from the back wall will be less impeded.
Follow Ups:
"The key is to make the baffle size as large as possible" ... surely there must be some science here? :-))If my IIIAs are 5 1/2 ft out from the front wall then I suspect running baffles right back to the wall would not, in fact, give a goos sound. Whereas, say, 12" baffles could well be a reasonable extension ... but maybe 18" is better??
And what do you think of Scott's triangular idea? Again, that kinda has a good feel about it but is there any scientific basis to back up the idea?
Regards,
Well, in terms of the "large as possible" comment, that was a bit of an exaggeration- you wouldn't want it to take up the whole room.In terms of the triangle concept- I think there is a lot of merit to having the baffle narrower at the top than the bottom. At the bottom, the floor would be used as a boundary to increase the effective baffle area and improve bass response. In addition, the narrower baffle extensions at the top would interfere less with the high frequency dispersion and reflected sound at ear level (especially with line sources and their very controlled high frequency dispersion). This lack of high frequency boundary interference would preserve the "open" and "airy" sound.
I was thinking had a few thoughts and ideas:
• Curve around to the back from the flat front of the panel (limit any diffraction from sharp edges on the front and early reflections on the back), with the top being narrow and the bottom wider.
• Integrated into the frame/baffle structure rather than just tacked on.
• Asymmetrical profiles to match the asymmetry of the driver placement
Thanks ... good thinking, Charley Brown! :-))Regards,
Andy
Haven't experimented with baffle size but did experiment with positioning and wings to sides as opposed to fins running back from the speaker proved to be much better results for me.
I know you are having Orion desire so try this cheap tweak for your bass!!
Yes, I posted that I had listened to some Orions and was mightily impressed by their bass!! :-))However, if I ever sell my Maggies and go down the cone dipole path, I will build all-active NaOs (same twin Peerless bass drivers & XO point) rather than Orions as I think a 2,500Hz XO between mid/treble is preferable to a 1,500Hz XO point.
I'm not sure my wife is tolerant enough to let me try out your wing tweak, but I'll try and give it a go, sometime!! :-))
Regards,
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: