The interesting thing is how the insight in open baffles has changed and for what I can see improved. I am looking forward to the next one. This mini series is the best one yet in my opinion.
An audiophile, electrical engineer, speaker designer in an AC/DC t-shirt teaching us about open baffle speakers... it doesn’t get any better. On to part 3.
Nice job of reversing your hand motions (from your perspective) when pantomiming the frequency response graph! Most presenters forget to do that for their audience. Of course I shouldn't be surprised that Danny Ritchie is paying attention to details that are highly beneficial yet often ignored.
Another great video, Danny! I've seen the OB7 sitting in the background of many of your videos & I thought it was an unfinished X-Statik... lol but it's all great information, looking forward to part 3! 👍
Hey Gary, I have a question about open baffle design. Why not just suspend the speakers from some posts or something? No wood, no edges, just two speakers facing in opposite directions and wired opposite. You could connect the two speakers with metal posts that are threaded on the ends. So the two drivers would be held together with a few posts. Then mount them on some pedestal for height. Just thinking about minimal material and edges around them. Thanks. Paul
@@dannyrichie9743 hadn’t thought of that. I’ve always wondered about a 3D polynomial shape, like octagon, with holes in each face for speakers. I suppose you would need to worry about separation of like speakers for coherence, but the idea is to create an Omni-directional speaker that appears to come from a quasi point source. I’m sure you have thought of it. I have a patent on a point to line generator for optics, not acoustics. One of the designs is identical to the BO Beo 5 speaker that looks like a spaceship. It converts a single speaker (point) into a 180 degree arc (line). Another version converts a point source to a vertical line with horizontal dispersion. I wish I could send you pictures. But if you have a source at the focal point of a parabola, the waves are collimated. Now, take that parabolic profile and rotate it about a vertical axis that goes through the focal point. Looking at it from the side you have a source in the focal plane of a parabola. Looking at it from the top, you have a source at the center of curvature of a sphere. Both are perfect imaging for a point source. I call it a parabolic spheroid. So a speaker as a source would be imaged into a vertical like above it, with the sound spreading out horizontally. If you could provide me with an email address I could send you some drawings. I promise not to harass you. But your knowledge of acoustics is the best I’ve seen and I’d like your opinion. Thanks, Paul
I have purchased the madisound ob3 kit , has alot of crossovers , 1 for the woofer, 1 dual board for the mid, 1 for the tweeter, looking for a streamlined way to connect it all
Beautiful speakers. I try to absorb as much knowledge as I can from your videos. I know your equipment is far superior to mine, but I'm in the process of bringing my first pair of speakers back to life (don't laugh ) realistic mach 2. Curious if you might have any experience or ever worked on some. Have had them since new as a Xmas gift from my parents so hold alot of memories and want them singing to me again.
Thanks for the explanation over how the speaker/tranducer behave on various type of baffle mount or placement. As we all know that all loudspeaker are designed to replicate the sound produced by the original source which are voices of humans; musical instruments etc. The thing is, that speaker cannot truly/accurately replicate all type of sound source because each source are unique in the way it vibrates and the way the vibrated air is propagated to the listener. Some of the source radiates a dipolar sound pattern(string; cymbal etc), while other source are producing bipolar/monopolar sound patern(human voice; trumpets etc). A good bipolar/monopolar loudspeaker sound, might not accurately replicate dipolar sound source, or the other way arroud. Open baffled loudspeakers will have the same characteristics as electrostatic planar sheet loudspeakers(which is a dipolar speaker) but have the advantage of greater driver's travel over the electrostatic planar's. The dipolar speaker will accurately reproduce the sounds of dipolar sound source compared to boxed baffled loudspeaker. As on the other hand, boxed baffled loudspeaker have advantage on producing mono-/bi-polar sound source. The point here is that we have a pair of ears(binaural) that are so advance and capable to tell the difference between any type of sound perceived and processed in our brain. Therefore the term of "WiFi" or "Audiophile" is just an attempt to put the sound reproduction of any sound system as realistic as possible, but never can achieve the accurate reproduction of the true source. Thank you....
I really appreciate your videos Danny. I built the X-Statix and they sound great. I had a problem with a big dip in the bass response between 100 Hz and 200 Hz. but with all your help it was determined that it was a room or floor bounce problem. I see the price went up on these because you ran out of the original crossovers and are now supply much higher quality crossovers. Are these Crossovers already assembled? Will you be offering the new crossovers to those of us that might want to upgrade and if so what would the cost be? Thanks again for your expertise and videos.
Yes, the room can be ab issue. The new crossovers are not assembled. They have to be point to point wired. If you have the older crossovers then the best way to upgrade and get the most for your money is to upgrade the parts quality of some of the parts on the board. Shoot me an email and I can get you some prices.
@@dannyrichie9743 Servo correction work well below 200Hz, but taking accurate repeatable measurements of room modes in the khz region is very messy indeed, they fluctuate depending where the microphone is placed, and even changing its position by a few mm might cause large db swings, you try measuring, and if you work out how, publish the paper, because it is the golden egg of audiophile dreams
@@dannyrichie9743 Many newbies, think audio waves are nice mathematical constructs, predictable, repeatable and so on, in reality, they are chaotic, frequency response, phase, damping etc can vary wildly, even temperature and moisture can effect the parameters.
With open baffle you stop any negative problems caused by speaker cabinet, but create new ones, like bass roll off. The best option is a brilliantly designed TL. Absorb that backwave as much as possible.
@@Coneman3 An 8 foot folded pipe is just asking for resonance issues that we can easily avoid with open baffles. And our 12" open baffle woofers play flat to 20Hz, hit minus 3db points in the teens, and stop on a dime. What more do you want?
If open baffle are so good why have speaker manufacturers built speaker cabinets for decades? You can’t cheat physics, open baffle, unless massive, I.e bigger than room, the bass roll off is bad. They may sound good in some ways, ie no cabinet resonances and dynamic sound but lose too much bass or have it muddied. I actually have a pair of non-resonant TLs made from 8 foot folded pipe using vibration absorbing material and there are 0 resonances I can hear.
Multiple amplifiers to drive different drivers is problematic only in the sense that it takes up a lot of space. But quality-wise, nothing can beat the effortlessness of a multi-way, multi-amped system without any passive crossovers.
@@dannyrichie9743 I agree with Coneman3. You don't see them because it's not a "hifi system" anymore, it's a whole installation. I have 5 power amps just for my two main speakers - it's not something that you can sell to people who just want to buy a system and play music. All active does not mean all digital, by the way, the crossovers can be analog.
Even in an all active (not digital) system, you still have to deal with op amps in the crossovers, power supplies, A/C noise, lots of additional connectors and connections, etc. All of that additional crap in the signal path doesn't make it sound better. So even cost factor aside, it is not a better solution.
Hi. I’ve been watching your videos for about a year. You blow me away. I have a pair of Siegfried’s Orion’s that I built in 2004. It has the two tweeters facing opposite directions and the brace to hold the midrange. What can you suggest for improvement? You once mentioned the diffraction off the sides. Also, I’m thinking of a stereo system for my shop. Maybe a mid/high DML panel and an open baffle woofer. This would have a two way Xover at about 800 hz. Any thoughts on this? I just don’t have room for a 2 x 4’ panel for the low end. Thanks, Paul
What do you think about the tech in the new KEF LS50 Meta? Steve Guttenberg talks about it sounding like an open baffle. They now have this patterned metal plate at the back of the driver. In the last version of that speaker they had a lot of foam inside, which they've now decided to remove, seemingly with good results.
Maybe they have something and maybe they don't. If the crossovers are still full of cheesy parts then it really won't matter. They should probably fix the big problems before chasing the little tweeks.
@@chaddraizin6616 one big example is the use of way too big baffles thus not having a true dipole dispersion pattern. Basically the high and midrange don’t cancel out properly because they can’t wrap around and the big baffle make the highs and mids more directional which results in a smaller dispersion/soundstage. They also use full range units which have limited high frequency quality/response, and use woofers without much compensation for the dipole loss thus low amount of bass will be the result.
You really can't explain OB's physics without touching on the concept of dipole distance . For a flat circular infinitely thin baffle with the driver mounted in the middle , the dipole distance D would be the radius R of the baffle . For rectangular baffle the calculation is more complicated as the use of integrals is necessary I think . What you also don't mention is that these dipole peaks occur more than once .In general: SPL peaks occur at all frequencies, where wavelength is an uneven multiple of D/ 2: 1/2 D, 3/2 D, 5/2 D, etc. SPL dips occur at all frequencies, where wavelength is an even multiple of D/ 2: 1 D, 2 D, 3 D, etc Also not mentionned is that off-axis behaviour worsens a lot when approaching a dipole peak . For an ideal figure of 8 , constant directivity dispersion , you should ideally stay under D/lambda=0.25 and certainly under 0.5 . And that is why I am sceptical of those side wings . I cannot imagine that you respect that rule . In reality only (near) naked baffleless dipoles have a chance of respecting that rule in the mid range , and yes it needs a lot of electronic correction , but for me that is a price I am willing to pay for constant directivity
I'm as baffled by open baffles as I was when I first heard of flat earth. I thought, well that's just nonsense, but now I _understand_ the truth, after years of research and critical listening
2 adds at beginning and then add every 4 minutes make this unwatchable. Would rather you have a sponsor and turn adds off. RUclips is killing instructional videos.
The interesting thing is how the insight in open baffles has changed and for what I can see improved. I am looking forward to the next one. This mini series is the best one yet in my opinion.
An audiophile, electrical engineer, speaker designer in an AC/DC t-shirt teaching us about open baffle speakers... it doesn’t get any better. On to part 3.
Nice job of reversing your hand motions (from your perspective) when pantomiming the frequency response graph! Most presenters forget to do that for their audience. Of course I shouldn't be surprised that Danny Ritchie is paying attention to details that are highly beneficial yet often ignored.
This is better than binging on netflix!!
This talk contains useful info. Thks.
Donnington....I was there,AC/DC!
Thanks for doing this series Danny. I'm really interested in building an open baffle speaker. So I'm eagerly anticipating every video.
Another great video, Danny! I've seen the OB7 sitting in the background of many of your videos & I thought it was an unfinished X-Statik... lol but it's all great information, looking forward to part 3! 👍
Excellent explanation Danny , really nice discussion on those issues !!! Thanks for the great detail !!
When? When?!! WHEEEEEENN!!! Is the next video gonna drop!
I’m just gonna sit here by the channel and wait....😶.
Wings are really cool. Solve all the problems with some design and a bit of MDF...
Great Analogies, for explaining baffle step loss.
Excellent series.
At 8 min : Use a triangle baffle surface to make these waves non coordinated ?
Hey Gary, I have a question about open baffle design.
Why not just suspend the speakers from some posts or something? No wood, no edges, just two speakers facing in opposite directions and wired opposite. You could connect the two speakers with metal posts that are threaded on the ends. So the two drivers would be held together with a few posts. Then mount them on some pedestal for height.
Just thinking about minimal material and edges around them.
Thanks.
Paul
Then you would have no front to back wave separation and a really jacked up response.
@@dannyrichie9743 hadn’t thought of that. I’ve always wondered about a 3D polynomial shape, like octagon, with holes in each face for speakers. I suppose you would need to worry about separation of like speakers for coherence, but the idea is to create an Omni-directional speaker that appears to come from a quasi point source. I’m sure you have thought of it.
I have a patent on a point to line generator for optics, not acoustics. One of the designs is identical to the BO Beo 5 speaker that looks like a spaceship. It converts a single speaker (point) into a 180 degree arc (line). Another version converts a point source to a vertical line with horizontal dispersion. I wish I could send you pictures. But if you have a source at the focal point of a parabola, the waves are collimated. Now, take that parabolic profile and rotate it about a vertical axis that goes through the focal point. Looking at it from the side you have a source in the focal plane of a parabola. Looking at it from the top, you have a source at the center of curvature of a sphere. Both are perfect imaging for a point source. I call it a parabolic spheroid.
So a speaker as a source would be imaged into a vertical like above it, with the sound spreading out horizontally.
If you could provide me with an email address I could send you some drawings.
I promise not to harass you. But your knowledge of acoustics is the best I’ve seen and I’d like your opinion.
Thanks, Paul
@@paulmanhart4481 info@gr-research.com
Great stuff Danny!
I have purchased the madisound ob3 kit , has alot of crossovers , 1 for the woofer, 1 dual board for the mid, 1 for the tweeter, looking for a streamlined way to connect it all
Beautiful speakers. I try to absorb as much knowledge as I can from your videos. I know your equipment is far superior to mine, but I'm in the process of bringing my first pair of speakers back to life (don't laugh ) realistic mach 2. Curious if you might have any experience or ever worked on some. Have had them since new as a Xmas gift from my parents so hold alot of memories and want them singing to me again.
Looking forward to part 2.
Thanks for the explanation over how the speaker/tranducer behave on various type of baffle mount or placement.
As we all know that all loudspeaker are designed to replicate the sound produced by the original source which are voices of humans; musical instruments etc. The thing is, that speaker cannot truly/accurately replicate all type of sound source because each source are unique in the way it vibrates and the way the vibrated air is propagated to the listener. Some of the source radiates a dipolar sound pattern(string; cymbal etc), while other source are producing bipolar/monopolar sound patern(human voice; trumpets etc).
A good bipolar/monopolar loudspeaker sound, might not accurately replicate dipolar sound source, or the other way arroud. Open baffled loudspeakers will have the same characteristics as electrostatic planar sheet loudspeakers(which is a dipolar speaker) but have the advantage of greater driver's travel over the electrostatic planar's. The dipolar speaker will accurately reproduce the sounds of dipolar sound source compared to boxed baffled loudspeaker. As on the other hand, boxed baffled loudspeaker have advantage on producing mono-/bi-polar sound source.
The point here is that we have a pair of ears(binaural) that are so advance and capable to tell the difference between any type of sound perceived and processed in our brain. Therefore the term of "WiFi" or "Audiophile" is just an attempt to put the sound reproduction of any sound system as realistic as possible, but never can achieve the accurate reproduction of the true source.
Thank you....
im looking forward to your next video. thx!
I really appreciate your videos Danny. I built the X-Statix and they sound great. I had a problem with a big dip in the bass response between 100 Hz and 200 Hz. but with all your help it was determined that it was a room or floor bounce problem. I see the price went up on these because you ran out of the original crossovers and are now supply much higher quality crossovers. Are these Crossovers already assembled? Will you be offering the new crossovers to those of us that might want to upgrade and if so what would the cost be? Thanks again for your expertise and videos.
Yes, the room can be ab issue.
The new crossovers are not assembled. They have to be point to point wired.
If you have the older crossovers then the best way to upgrade and get the most for your money is to upgrade the parts quality of some of the parts on the board. Shoot me an email and I can get you some prices.
Good explanation, problem with open baffle correction is you then have to drive it harder on those dips meaning larger excursion and more distortion.
Or, you could use servo control and have no issues with any of that.
@@dannyrichie9743) servo correction has its own set of problems, even if you do use a twin coil setup.
@@dannyrichie9743 Servo correction work well below 200Hz, but taking accurate repeatable measurements of room modes in the khz region is very messy indeed, they fluctuate depending where the microphone is placed, and even changing its position by a few mm might cause large db swings, you try measuring, and if you work out how, publish the paper, because it is the golden egg of audiophile dreams
@@dannyrichie9743 Many newbies, think audio waves are nice mathematical constructs, predictable, repeatable and so on, in reality, they are chaotic, frequency response, phase, damping etc can vary wildly, even temperature and moisture can effect the parameters.
@@engjds All of that is true and the reason that well treated rooms are important.
With open baffle you stop any negative problems caused by speaker cabinet, but create new ones, like bass roll off.
The best option is a brilliantly designed TL. Absorb that backwave as much as possible.
I have designed several TL designs. They have their place, but the best that I have every heard have been open baffle.
@@dannyrichie9743 I guess you haven't tried an 8 foot folded pipe TL then. Most TL are badly designed.
@@Coneman3 An 8 foot folded pipe is just asking for resonance issues that we can easily avoid with open baffles. And our 12" open baffle woofers play flat to 20Hz, hit minus 3db points in the teens, and stop on a dime. What more do you want?
If open baffle are so good why have speaker manufacturers built speaker cabinets for decades?
You can’t cheat physics, open baffle, unless massive, I.e bigger than room, the bass roll off is bad. They may sound good in some ways, ie no cabinet resonances and dynamic sound but lose too much bass or have it muddied.
I actually have a pair of non-resonant TLs made from 8 foot folded pipe using vibration absorbing material and there are 0 resonances I can hear.
I’m going to make my own speakers which will probably be better than any you make.
Multiple amplifiers to drive different drivers is problematic only in the sense that it takes up a lot of space. But quality-wise, nothing can beat the effortlessness of a multi-way, multi-amped system without any passive crossovers.
All active or all digital systems have their limitations and bottlenecks. That is why you don't see that in any of the top level speakers.
I disagree. You don’t see them often because they are harder to market due to their increased complexity.
@@dannyrichie9743 I agree with Coneman3. You don't see them because it's not a "hifi system" anymore, it's a whole installation. I have 5 power amps just for my two main speakers - it's not something that you can sell to people who just want to buy a system and play music. All active does not mean all digital, by the way, the crossovers can be analog.
@@Coneman3 Exactly
Even in an all active (not digital) system, you still have to deal with op amps in the crossovers, power supplies, A/C noise, lots of additional connectors and connections, etc. All of that additional crap in the signal path doesn't make it sound better. So even cost factor aside, it is not a better solution.
When I first came in DIY world was not convinced with OB but a friend guided me and changed the perception. Now I am totally OB fan.
Vintage computer under the desk
The OB7, our very first open baffle speaker. The OB5 came before it. ?????????
Hi. I’ve been watching your videos for about a year. You blow me away.
I have a pair of Siegfried’s Orion’s that I built in 2004. It has the two tweeters facing opposite directions and the brace to hold the midrange.
What can you suggest for improvement? You once mentioned the diffraction off the sides.
Also, I’m thinking of a stereo system for my shop. Maybe a mid/high DML panel and an open baffle woofer. This would have a two way Xover at about 800 hz. Any thoughts on this? I just don’t have room for a 2 x 4’ panel for the low end.
Thanks,
Paul
We did design an upgrade for them.
Great training in acoustics, start to understand a bit from this complex topic, thanks a lot , super interesting
Learning every time. What about theoretical infinite baffle? Isn't that what KEF LS50 Meta is doing on its tweeter?
What they are doing is equivalent to nothing more than rear way diffusion rather than absorption.
What do you think about the tech in the new KEF LS50 Meta? Steve Guttenberg talks about it sounding like an open baffle.
They now have this patterned metal plate at the back of the driver. In the last version of that speaker they had a lot of foam inside, which they've now decided to remove, seemingly with good results.
Maybe they have something and maybe they don't. If the crossovers are still full of cheesy parts then it really won't matter. They should probably fix the big problems before chasing the little tweeks.
I think it's to early to answer this question seriously. They just came out. Let's give it a few weeks. And i think the tech is totally new also
I trust Steve Guttenberg's ears. Remember he's not trying to sell us anything.
@@lynnpoole7830 Steve needs a new reference.
So the takeaway here is: use open baffle subs.
How did I do?
Guttenberg says the new KEF LS50 META sound like an open baffle speaker. Is it META? Something like that.
Yeah, that is funny.
Pure audio project has the right idea. Can be easily duplicated for reasonable $.
Actually that is the best example of what not to do.
@@dannyrichie9743 oooh! don't leave us hanging. Please elaborate!
@@chaddraizin6616 Watch the videos and you'll get it.
@@chaddraizin6616 one big example is the use of way too big baffles thus not having a true dipole dispersion pattern. Basically the high and midrange don’t cancel out properly because they can’t wrap around and the big baffle make the highs and mids more directional which results in a smaller dispersion/soundstage. They also use full range units which have limited high frequency quality/response, and use woofers without much compensation for the dipole loss thus low amount of bass will be the result.
If open baffle are best, why aren’t more people making them?
OMG. A Texas style cliffhanger. It's like brisket with no fat.
You really can't explain OB's physics without touching on the concept of dipole distance . For a flat circular infinitely thin baffle with the driver mounted in the middle , the dipole distance D would be the radius R of the baffle . For rectangular baffle the calculation is more complicated as the use of integrals is necessary I think . What you also don't mention is that these dipole peaks occur more than once .In general:
SPL peaks occur at all frequencies, where wavelength is an
uneven multiple of D/ 2: 1/2 D, 3/2 D, 5/2 D, etc.
SPL dips occur at all frequencies, where wavelength is an
even multiple of D/ 2: 1 D, 2 D, 3 D, etc
Also not mentionned is that off-axis behaviour worsens a lot when approaching a dipole peak . For an ideal figure of 8 , constant directivity dispersion , you should ideally stay under D/lambda=0.25 and certainly under 0.5 . And that is why I am sceptical of those side wings . I cannot imagine that you respect that rule . In reality only (near) naked baffleless dipoles have a chance of respecting that rule in the mid range , and yes it needs a lot of electronic correction , but for me that is a price I am willing to pay for constant directivity
Yay, part two!!! Niice!
Come on! SL blows this guy so far out of the water, if he fell, he'd never land. (and that's a full stop)
What’s SL?
Sorry, but our open baffle designs perform at levels well beyond any of the SL designs.
If open back speakers are so good, why doesn't everyone use them??
If Ferraris are so good, why doesn’t everyone drive one?
@@thatwaseasy9299 Stupid comparison!
@@EdBenji not as stupid as yours 😂🤣😅
I'm as baffled by open baffles as I was when I first heard of flat earth.
I thought, well that's just nonsense, but now I _understand_ the truth, after years of research and critical listening
Why is this guy in the owls video?
No worries Danny. Just another problem to solve. You’ve done that plenty of times. Stay safe mates!😊👍🏻😷
Would be more understandable if less interruptions from useless commercials not even related to video.
2 adds at beginning and then add every 4 minutes make this unwatchable. Would rather you have a sponsor and turn adds off. RUclips is killing instructional videos.
consider using an adblocker, works like a charm.
That is an unusual large number.
@@dannyrichie9743 Its just RUclips's ploy to get us to buy the pay version w/o ads.
Because I watch so many youtube videos I pay the $10.00 a month and don't see adds. It worth it to me.
I’ve paid my dues to RUclips several years now...no ads. It’s wonderful.
Still talks about only frequency response, knows nothing about the spatial response