Are cardboard enclosures any good?

These drivers were meant for enclosures...

An aperiodic enclosure is pretty forgiving in terms of driver type and enclosure volume, so is worth experimenting with.

Cut a series of narrow slots in the back of an otherwise sealed cardboard enclosure and cover them internally with soft felt.

For the 7 litre enclosure you mention, I suggest 6 slots, each 100 mm x 6 mm, placed 40 mm apart.

Scale up as necessary for larger enclosure volumes, which may give better results.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Thanks. Never heard of these before, but there is a thread I am looking at.

https://www.diyaudio.com/community/threads/show-your-aperiodic-speakers.378740/page-2

Will it improve bass response? I am thinking of experimenting with a slot at the front of the speaker.

Interesting: https://diyaudioprojects.com/Technical/Aperiodic/

The purpose of an aperiodic design is to allow a smaller enclosure size than would normally be possible in a sealed box. If a driver is placed into a sealed box that is too small, the result will be a high Q, which will cause a peak in the lower frequency response and a high impedance peak. By allow air to leak from the enclosure, both the frequency response and impedance peaks are tamed. This results in clearer, better defined bass, with more amplifier power and control into the lower frequencies. The impedance response of a sealed versus an aperiodic enclosure is shown in Figure 01 below.
 
Last edited:
Will it improve bass response?

The ventilated back reduces the amplitude of the Q of the single bass resonance hump of a sealed enclosure, which can reduce 'boominess'.

The bass performance may be described as resonant free, resulting in good transient response and an 'open' sound.

The limiting factor is the cardboard of course - the enclosure must be as rigid as possible.

I am thinking of experimenting with a slot at the front of the speaker.

A front slot would have to be carefully dimensioned to tune the enclosure in accord with the driver's resonant frequency and other parameters.

The ventilated back avoids the need to tune the enclosure. It permits experimentation rather than relying on mathematical precision.
 
I am thinking of experimenting with a slot at the front of the speaker.

When you look at the link you mentioned, you will see front slots which are packed with fibreglass. This is another method of aperiodic loading.

Just like in the Dynaco A 25 whose image I have attached.

The single large front slot should have an area equal to the sum of the areas of the multiple narrow slots in the rear of the enclosure that I dimensioned earlier.

EDIT: This method does require a decent thickness of front baffle to contain the wad of fibreglass.
 

Attachments

  • Dynaco A 25.jpg
    Dynaco A 25.jpg
    465.8 KB · Views: 63
diyAudio Moderator
Joined 2008
Paid Member
BasicHIFI1, you have quoted the following.
By allow air to leak from the enclosure, both the frequency response and impedance peaks are tamed. This results in clearer, better defined bass, with more amplifier power and control into the lower frequencies.
This is not exactly what happens.

The aperiodic enclosure simply acts like it is a larger closed box. This is because the vent is not a leak but is resistive, causing damping. This causes a reduction in the resonance Q factor. The idea of better controlled bass is nothing more than the result of this, and as we know, that isn't always what we want. Rather, we want to reach some specific value to suit our application. That said, aperiodic is a way to save space.
 
I think I understand: the resistive effect of the air mass in a larger box is replaced by the reisistive effect of a port with air resistance due to a porous blocking material. That was quoted from a website.

Another constraint, if I have not mentioned it earlier, is that I am playing these speakers at < 70 dB at 1 metre, I like music loud, however the present situation does not allow it. Either its too loud or I can't hear other people calling, however I can set aside separate listening times.

Sometimes I also listen at very low sound levels when I am working on something so as not to distract me.

All in all, a sub-woofer or doing the bass first may be a good idea. Next.
 
diyAudio Moderator
Joined 2008
Paid Member
That's not right either. The air mass is reactive, not resistive.

However another way to use resistance to make the box seem larger is to stuff it. It needs to be stuffed enough to begin having this effect, but not so much that the stuffing takes up too much space and makes the enclosure smaller.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
EDIT: This method does require a decent thickness of front baffle to contain the wad of fibreglass.
I haven’t actually pulled the woofer to confirm, but I believe the inside of the baffle has the same grill stapled in place to retain the fibreglass so you’re right about the baffle. I don’t know if there is any depth to the port.
 
How did you arrive at your entry for the "tuning frequency"?

I selected the lowest frequency that would give me a manageable vent length 10 cm. I have tried it out with another cardboard speaker, sealed this time or semi-sealed, and it does make a difference, gives bass boost, however it does not have enough of an effect to be worth the effort. It is easier to use an open baffle with wings and use EQ. The larger speaker is better even with the rear panel uninstalled, so lots of variables.

Cardboard speakers are as good as you can make them.
 
U-shaped enclosure. Cardsonde 3U. With EQ it is quite listenable, also with bass manipulation of +15 dB. 10 should be enough. 3 is recommend.
The unit blends in well in the subdued indoor light. Also, some mp3 files need to be normalized they somehow have been distributed with very low volume.

1675691627275.png