Opinions and tips on Open Baffle Speakers - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
 
Thread Tools
post #1 of 7 Old 04-30-2013, 08:40 PM - Thread Starter
Advanced Member
 
keager's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 653
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 17
I started a thread on the DIY forum asking why we don't see many OB builds. I was given input from ArnyK and BFM (thanks gentleman), and a couple others with the pros and cons. thought over here in the audio theory land would be a place to gather more objective and subjective input. In my case, I have a very capable sub, so low bass would not be needed from the speakers, and I aould be using a mini dsp and a four channel amp. Comments, questions, and critisizm please.....
keager is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 7 Old 05-01-2013, 08:48 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Bigus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: The South
Posts: 4,258
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 50
OB sets out to address a very specific problem: uncontrolled directivity in conventional speakers. Briefly, this refers to a typical box speaker radiating sound in all directions at low frequencies and only radiating sound forward at high frequencies. You hear more than just the direct, forward radiated sound. You hear the contribution from room reflections as well. If those reflections from side walls, front wall etc do not have similar frequency response to the direct forward radiated sounds, our brains recognize the mismatch and this can be interpreted as skewing the perceived frequency response, or worse a contradiction that diminishes the realism of reproduction. Another way to state this problem is that the power response is not even, ie the energy radiated at all angle is not smooth and flattish wrt frequency.

You can attack this problem in three ways... correct the way the speaker radiates sound, alter the way your room reflects sound, and hold your head in a vice while nonlinear corrections are applied to the signal before amplification by a dsp to "undo" the speaker and room deficiencies. While the latter two can be done in theory, the first is preferred with results being applicable go a larger seating area, the room next in preference, and the digital correction fun but IMO best suited for single listeners and/or modest manipulations.

So a dipole is one way to tackle speaker directivity. The out of phase sound front and rear cancels at the sides, leaving a null. In ideal circumstance, this cancellation is uniform regardless of frequency and the directivity is perfectly constant with frequency having a somewhat narrow figure of eight pattern. Real world is not ideal, drivers have real and varying size and geometry, and the cancellation is not perfectly uniform. But its pretty danced good, the problems mostly happening in the upper frequencies (several kHz) where program content is dropping and these cues are less important psychoacoustically.

One obvious tradeoff is efficiency. The cancellation lowers output in a frequency dependent way, so low frequencies drop like a rock. Building a bass dipole is difficult... a true dipole sub typically impractical. To achieve reference levels to workable frequency, say down to 80hz or so where integration with monopole sub is eased by change in room behavior, will probably require a three or four way with multiple drivers covering lower midrange and bass frequencies. So you get a large, expensive speaker.

You would think the backwave is a nuisance, but it isn't. Even with the backwave, a dipole emits less total sound into the room for a given on axis spl than a comparable monopole box speaker, so thee is less contribution to the sound from room reflections, not more. If you want to absorb the backwave high frequencies that isn't difficult, leaving you still with less rear radiated low frequency information than a monopole but a better controlled front radiation. Still a win. Some also cite the reduced sound that is reflected from a box internally and is radiated back through the speaker cone as a source of improved sound quality. IMO this is a minor factor.

Since there is less sound radiated into and reflected from the room for a given on axis spl, room treatment requirements may be reduced. This might be particularly helpful in a casual environment with lots of reflective surfaces. On the other hand, there is research showing many people like side wall reflections, and dipoles produce less of that, so this could be a negative rather than a positive depending on your personal preference. That research also says people prefer reflections with frequency response similar to the on axis response rather than far different as is common with many box speakers, which dipoles certainly improve greatly on. These are conflicting forces that are preference driven. In a multichannel system, less reliant on and influenced by lateral reflections, IMO he potential downside of narrow dispersion is reduced.

Speaking of narrow dispersion, some also cite that as negative if you want to have multiple seating positions. Perhaps. It is often possible however to toe in dipoles so that the on axis lines cross in front of the main listening position, which then becomes "off axis" to both left and right speakers. Interestingly, now the left of center seats are further from the right speaker but on axis, and closer to the left speaker but more off axis, which due to the narrow dispersion can compensate some of the volume imbalance from being nonequal distances to left and right and reduce skew of imaging. This is the same technique advocated by geddes for his speakers which have a similarly narrowed dispersion. Note that this is only possible if dispersion is narrow, and only advised if off axis response is similar to the on axis response since the primary listening position is off axis somewhat to both left and right. That is common for good dipoles, uncommon even for good monopoles.

The primary alternatives for controlling speaker power response are omnipoles and horns. Omnipoles have nearly opposed tradeoffs compared to dipoles... they have the lowest direct to room reflected sound ratio, are easy to make low frequency omnipoles but difficult to make good mid and high omnipoles, and have the greatest interaction with the room. Horns can do lots of things right, offering good uniform front dispersion with no backwave, have somewhat wider front dispersion, and are very efficient which reduces some forms of distortion. They have their tradeoffs like any other design, primarily being similarly difficult to extend down low like dipoles, the physical size of the horn necessitating large driver to driver center distances causing issues with driver integration in domestic sized rooms, and the tendency for the horn to be more efficient at amplifying overtones than the fundamental in many cases.

But this isn't the thread for omnipoles or horns or finite impulse response room corrections.

Bigus is offline  
post #3 of 7 Old 05-01-2013, 09:09 PM - Thread Starter
Advanced Member
 
keager's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 653
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 17
Thanks for the thorough explanation Bigus. Which do you prefer and why?
keager is offline  
post #4 of 7 Old 05-02-2013, 12:38 AM
AVS Special Member
 
A9X-308's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Australia; now run by adults.
Posts: 5,246
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 74 Post(s)
Liked: 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigus View Post

and the tendency for the horn to be more efficient at amplifying overtones than the fundamental in many cases.
By and large, with the fundamental and the harmonics in the passband of the flare, it is not true. If referring to a multi way with there being a flare as well as a DR lower driver, it is simply a sensitivity issue that is addressed in the xover in the same manner as any other multi way with drivers of different sensitivities.
A9X-308 is offline  
post #5 of 7 Old 05-02-2013, 04:40 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
arnyk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Grosse Pointe Woods, MI
Posts: 14,301
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 690 Post(s)
Liked: 1144
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigus View Post


OB sets out to address a very specific problem: uncontrolled directivity in conventional speakers. Briefly, this refers to a typical box speaker radiating sound in all directions at low frequencies and only radiating sound forward at high frequencies. You hear more than just the direct, forward radiated sound. You hear the contribution from room reflections as well. If those reflections from side walls, front wall etc do not have similar frequency response to the direct forward radiated sounds, our brains recognize the mismatch and this can be interpreted as skewing the perceived frequency response, or worse a contradiction that diminishes the realism of reproduction. Another way to state this problem is that the power response is not even, ie the energy radiated at all angle is not smooth and flattish wrt frequency.

You can attack this problem in three ways... correct the way the speaker radiates sound, alter the way your room reflects sound, and hold your head in a vice while nonlinear corrections are applied to the signal before amplification by a dsp to "undo" the speaker and room deficiencies. While the latter two can be done in theory, the first is preferred with results being applicable go a larger seating area, the room next in preference, and the digital correction fun but IMO best suited for single listeners and/or modest manipulations.

So a dipole is one way to tackle speaker directivity.

The problem I have is that dipole speakers are a narrow solution. In fact we have technologies for building speakers with whatever directional patterns that we desire over a broad range. We can build speakers that are omnidirectional, bidirectional, 1/2 space, quarter space, 1/8 space, unidirectional, bipolar, cardioid, hypercardioid, etc. For example, column and linear planar speakers have their own families of directional characteristics.

I don't think that most audiophiles understand what can be done. Not many people know that cardioid subwoofers are emerging products in the realm of live sound. Not many people are aware of what is being done with phase-controlled line arrays for live sound.

For example:

http://www.meyersound.com/products/concertseries/psw-6/

http://svconline.com/loudspeakers/features/avinstall_steerable_arrays/

http://www.meyersound.com/support/papers/steering/

http://www.eaw.com/Subwoofer_arrays

Most of those technologies involve something other than simple dipolar radiation from both sides of the same diaphragm.

Most of these technologies are commonly implemented with drivers that are enclosed on the back side as used, or inherently unidirectional. Why get hung up on just one way of doing things?

The real problem is that the well-argued, well-documented technical paper that says that there is one best way to build speakers seems to be elusive at this time. I think it may not have been written yet. ;-)
arnyk is offline  
post #6 of 7 Old 05-02-2013, 09:16 AM - Thread Starter
Advanced Member
 
keager's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 653
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 17
what would you recommend Arney for purely music in a non dedicated fairely large room? provided I have a subwoofer system and amplification and mini dsp. Goals are large soundstage with detailed highs and mids. seating distance about 10ft. wide range of music but no rap or heavy metal. Thanks for your advice
keager is offline  
post #7 of 7 Old 05-02-2013, 09:50 AM
FOH
AVS Special Member
 
FOH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Midwest
Posts: 4,747
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 16 Post(s)
Liked: 208
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

I don't think that most audiophiles understand what can be done. Not many people know that cardioid subwoofers are emerging products in the realm of live sound. Not many people are aware of what is being done with phase-controlled line arrays for live sound.

Good post, but emerging,...not so much. Directional control of large scale subwoofer systems has been around a while.

Dave Rat has been pursuing directional options for some time, here's one such.

Be it end fire "sub cannons", or cardioid, or whatever, it's been used.

Here's a road blog, and it's all good to me. But halfway down or so goes into some detail about directional LF in practice.


This is solid stuff;
http://www.electro-voice.com/sitefiles/downloads/wp%20-%20Subwoofer%20Arrays%20v04%20.pdf

http://www.electro-voice.com/sitefiles/downloads/wp%20-%20Subwoofer%20Arrays%20v04%20.pdf


Here's the Metalica TM array, whereby the subs are center hung, with a big element spread vertically, they can cover the venue with ample LF, yet keep the mammoth LF summation off the stage below.

Here's Big Mick Hughs you tube vid describing the sub array.





As an aside, this is a fascinating look at each loudspeaker approach they built in house, it pursuit of the ideal. Very good read and anyone that's the least bit interested in designing their own stuff, would likely get a lot out of this. ... good stuff. Dave Rat has built his lil operation into a global presence.


At a big venue, big sound system, you've got to be mindful of both LF coverage ...( hot spots and lack of bass), and keeping high levels of LF off the stage. There's many tricks to deal with it when it does ... but that's another story.

------------------------------------
Flat, Deep, Clean, Linear, and Loud
------------------------------------
Active 16.8kw, 7.3 system
(3)Seaton Cat12C up front, (4)QSC K8 sides/rears
(2)Seaton SubM-HP, (4)18" IB
FOH is offline  
Reply Audio theory, Setup and Chat

User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off