|
|
Post by John on Jun 8, 2016 9:43:19 GMT
What Vic has done with the bass is created an Isobarik chamber for the bass It helps keeps the bass nice and tight Here is Vic page on Open baffle that talk a bit about the experiment and how this has improved sq Vic not using an Isobarik chamber and uses the Daytons as his bass drivers which are better than my Neos for bass I am also doing minor adjusting to the eq to compensate for the lack of baffle www.trans-fi.com/ob-speakers |
|
|
|
Post by ChrisB on Jun 8, 2016 12:49:41 GMT
John, do you know if anyone has used this configuration, but with the bass driver assembly rotated through 90 degrees so that they are still face to face but firing at the floor and ceiling?
I should think that the use of the floor in bracing against the downward firing force might be an interesting experiment to try.
|
|
|
|
Post by John on Jun 8, 2016 13:13:14 GMT
I not seen it myself but will ask
I seen and heard speakers firing up to the ceiling including bass drivers and full range drivers, with the full range it added a sense of being in a big hall rather than a room
|
|
|
|
Post by Paul Barker on Jul 17, 2016 9:11:12 GMT
Right, I'm lost here. Can somebody please help me?
I subscribe to the Briggs open baffle very much so. The best sounding speakers I have made were Graetz Field coils on the exact Briggs formula baffle.Back in those days there was a group of guys from the far east that put up pages about this particular baffle size formula. Also it was pointed out that the quad 57's shared the same formula.
I had made a few other baffle shapes and those also were very very good, as all open baffle sounds very good to me. But this Briggs formula just sounded best to me.
So, in the Briggs article which I don't have to hand but recall it well. there is a chart of baffle sizes required relative to frequency.
How so then do these speakers you call open baffle but look to me to have no baffle, preform at the frequencies which Briggs states needs a baffle of such and such a size?
Not asking to criticise. Asking to learn.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sovereign on Jul 17, 2016 9:36:37 GMT
Good question, I've often thought the same myself. If you read Paul Coup (RFC) speaker work who mainly is on AOS he speaks a lot about large baffles and his own speakers follow this design; or the lampizator speakers I have also have large and wide baffles yet sound amazing. It would be a lot of fun to suddenly get rid of my whopping baffles to see what difference it makes in sound. However it may sound bloody awful, and it may only be the careful design of Johns speakers that can go baffle-less, I'll let John comment from here.
|
|
|
|
Post by ChrisB on Jul 17, 2016 9:39:22 GMT
It certainly is a bit of a misnomer to call John's speakers open baffles.
|
|
|
|
Post by John on Jul 17, 2016 13:24:20 GMT
I heard s few open baffles and I like Open baffles I am happy if the speakers are not called Open Baffle, although still dipole.
I would say the briggs method is great for a full range driver without augmented bass. Nothing wrong with that its a different approach
The PRV are kind of like full range drivers but cut off somewhere around 150 but I am bring in the bass around 250. I would say not trying to have to go down as far as say the Mark Audio 12p allows the driver to perform better in the mid to treble range. These are very dynamic drivers that sound at their best in free air.
Bass drivers are now more important remember my drivers are acting as Isobaric and whilst I am adding a bit of db lower down to give me that slam and clout I enjoy Both the Daytons and Neos are capable of going subsonic The Daytons do not require extra db lower down
My own thoughts is that baffles add something to the sound I never had this kind of openness and flow no matter what I tried in the past
Bass is better than when I had the Hawthornes and they known for the bass. But its the flow and energy I have now that's changed something It not lacked before but just so much more freedom
Its a different approach that totally throws the Briggs method out of the window in fact just throws everything out of the window
|
|
|
|
Post by Paul Barker on Jul 17, 2016 13:31:26 GMT
Thanks. Are you using a cap for the full range or active crossover?
|
|
|
|
Post by Sovereign on Jul 17, 2016 13:49:36 GMT
Sounds fantastic to me John, how portable are they to Sovereign Towers, even if I ply you with good food and beverages.  |
|
|
|
Post by John on Jul 17, 2016 14:18:58 GMT
No crossover or cap to cut off but Vic Bantam 1 are set up to cut off around 150 my amp runs full but just powers the PRV and uses Berhringer Inuke which is ideal for the bass
PRV just run fully NAD
Active on the bass Behringer
Message you later James
|
|
|
|
Post by Paul Barker on Jul 17, 2016 16:15:16 GMT
Thank you.
|
|
|
|
Post by John on Jul 18, 2016 5:20:53 GMT
|
|
