I am a firm believer in 1 x 1.618 ratios………….
So let’s make a box, say 33” tall x 20” wide x 13” deep………….
Has anyone measured or heard a difference when the driver is roughly 1/3 from the top dimension versus at the top ?
On more of a pencil, or mltl design, absolutely, anything column-like, where 2 dimensions are fairly close, then the 3rd dimension is 2-3 (or more) times larger, pipe-ish basically, I can see offsetting the driver, even seen the measurements.
My thoughts are it wouldn’t matter much on this big sealed 1 x 1.618 x 2.62 ratio box.
Whatcha think ?
So let’s make a box, say 33” tall x 20” wide x 13” deep………….
Has anyone measured or heard a difference when the driver is roughly 1/3 from the top dimension versus at the top ?
On more of a pencil, or mltl design, absolutely, anything column-like, where 2 dimensions are fairly close, then the 3rd dimension is 2-3 (or more) times larger, pipe-ish basically, I can see offsetting the driver, even seen the measurements.
My thoughts are it wouldn’t matter much on this big sealed 1 x 1.618 x 2.62 ratio box.
Whatcha think ?
Attachments
I don’t think placement (as long as not too close to a wall) will have little affect inside, but outside it will.
Not sealed but why not place driver also using the golden ratio?
This one not as big as yours (17 litre net, maybe 18-19 if it was sealed)
http://www.planet10-hifi.com/planset/fatCGR-extents.pdf
Bur i am working on a 35 litre one for things like Alpair 12pw, maybe CHN-110.
dave
Not sealed but why not place driver also using the golden ratio?
This one not as big as yours (17 litre net, maybe 18-19 if it was sealed)
http://www.planet10-hifi.com/planset/fatCGR-extents.pdf
Bur i am working on a 35 litre one for things like Alpair 12pw, maybe CHN-110.
dave
I agree, why not offset it, but....................
It is nice to not have a driver centered 20" off the floor also.
Especially if it will be occasionally used for tv...........
It is nice to not have a driver centered 20" off the floor also.
Especially if it will be occasionally used for tv...........
the raven 3 seems to be at the top too .............
https://parttimeaudiophile.com/2022/01/30/fern-and-roby-raven-iii-loudspeakers-review/
or even the recommended box by seas for the sealed f8 exotic............
https://www.tnt-audio.com/casse/seas_exotic_e.html
I'm not saying it's better, just thinking it may not be a deal breaker if you want the driver off the floor (without stands).....
https://parttimeaudiophile.com/2022/01/30/fern-and-roby-raven-iii-loudspeakers-review/
or even the recommended box by seas for the sealed f8 exotic............
https://www.tnt-audio.com/casse/seas_exotic_e.html
I'm not saying it's better, just thinking it may not be a deal breaker if you want the driver off the floor (without stands).....
Attachments
That is probably too much tilt-back. It takes little. 5° is sufficient for these (which are sealed and close to the dimensions in your example.
dave
From what I've read, I'm aware of three notable ratios for an enclosure...the so-called Golden ratio 0.618/1.0 /1.618 the ever present 0.707/ 1.0/ 1.41 and another 0.7937 / 1.0/ 1.2599 Now, I've been told this last one is mathematically derived & should not be used.
As to driver location upon a panel say X by Y, 0.618(19.776 inches) and 1.0 (32 inches) ...the folks at the baffle step camp I'm thinking will say NO to an exact center as frequencies will be multiplied together because of the same distances to the edges .. But I'm betting these fractions 0.618, 0.707 and 0.7937 should make for good locating points on a front baffle. My two cents...
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Rick...
As to driver location upon a panel say X by Y, 0.618(19.776 inches) and 1.0 (32 inches) ...the folks at the baffle step camp I'm thinking will say NO to an exact center as frequencies will be multiplied together because of the same distances to the edges .. But I'm betting these fractions 0.618, 0.707 and 0.7937 should make for good locating points on a front baffle. My two cents...
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Rick...
Last edited by a moderator:
The use of irrational numbers is a good starting point, but this particualr one is equivant to 1:1.429:2. You shouldn’t use root(2) twice.
dave
It comes from an old industrial design ratio for rectilinear proportions -they don't appear visually 'pleasing' until one ratio is at least 1.414x that of the other. What I've often thought is that the 'at least' bit can get overlooked. That said, in many instances the wavelengths involved are relatively short and easily damped out so it's often not too big a deal, though better avoided or slightly modified, as Dave says, which usually isn't too difficult as it doesn't need much of a change.
In a typical box ratio that presumes a ~uniform particle density the optimal offset is 0.42, though all it amounts to sound wise is least damping required.
Yeah, the longer I've been an audio playback design related 'talking head', the more I've appreciated being blessed of having been tutored by the pioneers.