# Open baffle project on the way!



## Fast1one

Since I am a bit of an attention whote. Ahem...

Well, I have been doing lots of experiments with all kinds of drivers I had laying around. My favorite was 15 inch drivers and compression horns from a 1960s Magnavox in a simple baffle. Sounded phenomenal for what is was. Second favorite was my line arrays, which were a mistake (way to big). 

So on that note, going to do a serious project this time around. This is an attempt at a fairly low distortion, 20hz(30?)-20khz tower at moderate listening levels. Ill post some pictures when I'm done in a couple weeks. They consist of modified Fostex FF85KeN:

planet_10 hifi

Covering from 250hz-20khz. The midbass/subbass will be handled with four Pyle Pro PPA15 15 inch drivers in U-baffles. These have been used with great success over on diyaudio.com with very low extension for an open baffle system. Since this is on a budget, I will be using twin Audiosource Amp100s, actively powering the system. 

Here are my first drafts. Key here is a simple build. if I had time, I would use multiply ply and add some more curvature. But alas, Im limited with time. 


























Im sure most of this is way some of your heads, but thats ok. Hope someone will appreciate it  If anyone has any questions about dipoles, feel free to ask. And experiment!


----------



## ItalynStylion

I saw this over in the full range forum. I'm interested to see how you end up with it!


----------



## PEB

What other web sites have you found regarding open baffle speaker design?


----------



## Fast1one

These two websites will provide you with pretty much all the basics on the theory and implementation:

Linkwitz Lab - Loudspeaker Design

OB Theory



ItalynStylion said:


> I saw this over in the full range forum. I'm interested to see how you end up with it!


Thanks! Still working on the baffle geometry. Two 15s per side is a bit of overkill but I want to have some headroom for EQ on the lower octaves. Plus I am a bit of a bass head.


----------



## PEB

I want to design a system this summer, but I don't know if I can get the project approved. 

Phil


----------



## Fast1one

PEB said:


> I want to design a system this summer, but I don't know if I can get the project approved.
> 
> Phil


If I were you, I would search ebay for some old vintage drivers. If you can find large diameter woofers with compression horns that would be perfect.

These vintage drivers generally have a higher total Q and work well in open baffle alignments. What I am trying to say is, you don't need to spend a bunch of money to get good sound. Open baffles are very forgiving alignments. As long as you give the baffle at least a meter of space from the back wall, and make it nice and stiff, the sound will be great


----------



## Ga foo 88

What are measured specs on the FF85en from p10?

Why go for the U-frame over the H-frame? Was it simply an aesthetics thing? From simply looking at martin j king's page it seems the H-frame gives slightly lower extension than the U-frame at with about the same loss in efficiency. Now having said that I haven't played around with OB yet has you have, so what have you found out in your own experiments regarding baffle designs for dipole bass?


----------



## Fast1one

Ga foo 88 said:


> What are measured specs on the FF85en from p10?
> 
> Why go for the U-frame over the H-frame? Was it simply an aesthetics thing? From simply looking at martin j king's page it seems the H-frame gives slightly lower extension than the U-frame at with about the same loss in efficiency. Now having said that I haven't played around with OB yet has you have, so what have you found out in your own experiments regarding baffle designs for dipole bass?


Mostly aesthetics...and I want to keep the full range driver on the same flat plane as the woofers. I feel that the transition will be smoother without a 5-7 inch wall extending outward, from the FRs perspective. I can solve that by pushing the H baffle front edge back so its flat to the upper baffle. Ala the Orion+ by linkwitz. Problem with that is, since I am crossing over the woofers pretty high, there will be a time alignment issue with the mid-tweet. The Orion uses a larger midwoofer for lower extention, so this offset is not a problem. Besides, it uses a much more sophisticated external processor. At $5000, its got a lot of bells and whistles. 

The extention gained fro a H-baffle isn't all that important to me. I will be using some EQ, but in all honesty, if I can get these things to dig down to 40hz with a bit of output below that, I will be VERY satisfied for just an open baffle setup woofer setup. 

As far as what I have learned from my experience, flat baffles simply do not cut it for bass in my opinion. U-baffles are a much better option. When I constructed the U-baffles for my girlfriend using the vintage drivers, I ensured that the wings did not extend too much (4 inches) and used foam on the inside of the wings in attempt to reduce the ripple.

What I found was that short wings do wonders for bass response, and the actual heard ripple really isn't all that bad for the midrange, as long as the wings are kept relatively short. Its also important to note that extending the wings doesn't really add to the extension like you would think. Best way for more output is to increase the area of the baffle. 

With that in mind, since the FF85K will not be playing bass, higher QTS wasn't really a concern. In addition, the baffle will be kept flat and its width will be relatively small for a smoother response.

Hope that answers some questions. I would also like to add that I have modified the design per suggestions at diyaudio. I simplified the upper portion of the baffle, made it wider, and moved the driver up slightly to remove some nulls and peaks caused by the irregular shape of the baffle. I am also going to move the full range and woofer crossover points to around 325hz and 200hz, respectively, for better power handling. Its not as pretty, but I'll try my best to make it nice


----------



## Fast1one

The project has changed yet again, after considering the peaks the decision was made to go ahead and try widening the baffle to spread out the dip originally present in the midrange. It also simplifies the build even more. All thanks to the help and simulations by another member...

The wings are 1 inch at the top and 7.5 inches at the very bottom. This was done to keep the width of the wings relatively short at the top near the full range driver. Plus its aesthetically more pleasing. The driver is at 38 inch height but offset, 8 inches from one side. Baffle is also wider now at 20 inches versus 16. 

Just got the wood today. The front baffle will be 1.5 inches thick (two slabs of birch glued together) and the FR hole will be rounded over so it can breathe. I got my crossover in, amplifiers should be here tomorrow, and speakers should be here tomorrow or next week. Not sure when I am actually going to build it. Probably this weekend since it will only take a couple hours.


----------



## Ga foo 88

I think it looks better than the original.


----------



## Fast1one

Ga foo 88 said:


> I think it looks better than the original.


yes I agree, thank you.

Got some drivers in today. Still waiting on two more 15s. These things are pretty average quality. But for 35 bucks, they are an absolute steal...


----------



## pwnt by pat

I just wanted to make a quick comment.

I will admit I do not know much about open baffle speaker designs. However, from what I've seen, all seem to implement a sealed chamber at the bottom of the tower. The purpose of this chamber is to increase low-end efficiency by using the front baffle vibrations as a transducer, and using the chamber to control the "rear wave" of the baffle, increasing output. Frequencies affected depend on enclosure volume.

Also, do not forget about BSC: boost in frequencies above baffle width.

And consider changing the design to an MTM design, or design the crossover so the lower woofer is used in a 2.5-way manor (only playing up to certain frequencies to boost low-end output) while moving the tweeter as close to the top woofer as possible. 

Using the two woofers in this configuration playing the same frequencies could cause some issues around the crossover point.


----------



## SteveH!

hey fast1one, take a look this is another OBoption to consider:


High sensitivity, open baffle, single ended lovers dream speaker...

http://www.gr-research.com/pdf/BM-12CXA.pdf

I need help naming this new speaker...

New OB

Dannys new OB review


----------



## Fast1one

pwnt by pat said:


> I just wanted to make a quick comment.
> 
> I will admit I do not know much about open baffle speaker designs. However, from what I've seen, all seem to implement a sealed chamber at the bottom of the tower. The purpose of this chamber is to increase low-end efficiency by using the front baffle vibrations as a transducer, and using the chamber to control the "rear wave" of the baffle, increasing output. Frequencies affected depend on enclosure volume.
> 
> Also, do not forget about BSC: boost in frequencies above baffle width.
> 
> And consider changing the design to an MTM design, or design the crossover so the lower woofer is used in a 2.5-way manor (only playing up to certain frequencies to boost low-end output) while moving the tweeter as close to the top woofer as possible.
> 
> Using the two woofers in this configuration playing the same frequencies could cause some issues around the crossover point.


Using this chamber that you speak of would reduce the benefits of an open baffle design. These are outlined in depth at linkwitz' website. You want to keep the front wave and back wave fairly similar, hence the relatively short wings, for an ideal dipole radiation. Otherwise you start approaching a monopole response. For ultra low frequencies (40hz and under) this isn't as vital, hence you see many designs using a subwoofer for home theater reinforcement. 

As far as the placement of the drivers, I have considered an MTM type arrangement but decided against it because of the increased baffle size to raise the full range driver to an acceptable listening level. Goal is simplicity, relatively small size, and easy to build. Having said that, I am fully aware of your concerns of the placement. My concern is the image moving down in the lower frequencies with the lower woofer playing, especially with the introduction of floor bounce. I have some inductors laying around, so if it comes down to it I will apply a simple 6db/octave filter for the lower driver to make it a 2.5 way. 

The response with the final configuration has been modeled with a starting point for the crossovers. The FR is crossed over at 400hz while the bass drivers have been crossed over at 200hz. Since the drivers will exhibit a rising response due to the open baffle, the acoustic crossover is actually at 300hz as shown. Keep in mind these are starting points, and I will likely increase the gain for the woofers and cross them over lower as preference. Also note that the bass response should be better slightly better in room. The woofers have a lot of headroom left mechanically, so I will likely use a linkwitz transform cirtuit or something similar to lower the response to a reasonable level (40-50hz is great for my purposes). Depends on how it actually plays out in real life. The high Q notch at ~3khz looks a lot worse then it really is. Thats the only real problem that I can see, and much improved over my original design. 










Finally, I will also add a bass horn of some sort, likely posing as a big TV stand, in the future for home theater goodness.


----------



## Fast1one

Much too expensive. I have spent a total of ~$450 for everything, including amplification to date. Yes, this is relatively low efficient, but with my experience 50 watts or so has faired well for drivers of this sensitivity range with decent dynamics and headroom.

I come from line arrays, so nothing will really match the impact and dynamics of that setup. That is not what I am trying to replicate. I want a great sounding, affordable open baffle project that employs full range drivers and open baffle bass support. This is for a college student who is simply getting older, and I feel that this is my most mature build to date. Hopefully, I will actually keep this one (though the projects will never end  )



SteveH! said:


> hey fast1one, take a look this is another OBoption to consider:
> 
> 
> High sensitivity, open baffle, single ended lovers dream speaker...
> 
> http://www.gr-research.com/pdf/BM-12CXA.pdf
> 
> I need help naming this new speaker...
> 
> New OB
> 
> Dannys new OB review


----------



## Ga foo 88

Is there anyway you measure the the 1w/1m sensitivity and the in-room response of the pyle woofers in the U frame? or measure the t/s parameters of the pyle's after a break-in period?


----------



## Fast1one

Ga foo 88 said:


> Is there anyway you measure the the 1w/1m sensitivity and the in-room response of the pyle woofers in the U frame? or measure the t/s parameters of the pyle's after a break-in period?


unfortunately no... I don't have a woofer tester or an RTA setup. Do everything the old fashion way


----------



## Fast1one

I suppose I can update this thread now lol. I have spent most of my time updating diyaudio.com. Here are my recent posts:



Fast1one said:


> *I went ahead and got everything hooked up...
> 
> First of all, the FF85KeNs sound absolutely phenomenal. I haven't been listening for long, but one thing is for sure that these things are VERY revealing. I was expecting them to have this characteristic, but not at this level. I'm not completely sure if I want to keep them yet simply because they have brought out the worst of mediocre recordings in my collection. I am not quite ready to simply abandon half of my music
> 
> They have an incredible sound stage. Also very good micro and macro dynamics for such a tiny speaker. In addition, they are not fatiguing or do they have the imfamous fostex "shout" that I have heard about. Extremely smooth sounding, and I suspect its because of Dave's treatment. Also, suprisingly they handle genres like rock very well.
> 
> He wasn't kidding when he said they can rival quality tweeters. They definitely have wonderful sparkle to them, and nothing seems to be missing on the top end.
> 
> As far as the woofers go. I definitely need more power in the future. Currently they are each receiving only 30 watts each. I will be upgrading eventually to 100 watts each for head room. The FRs don't seem to be straining at all at higher levels with the 400hz crossover point. The woofers have great bass with a little EQ, enough for my tastes. Cone movement is controlled with music, only reaching about 2-3mm P-P with heavy bass passages.
> 
> However, they do leave a bit to be desired on the top end. Crossing them over above ~150hz simply doesn't sound very good. So right now I have a small gap in the frequency response. Not too big of a deal for my tastes. Over all the performance of the woofers is very good for the price, with great impact. The higher crossover point doesn't really steer the sound stage down as many led me to believe.
> 
> One more thing I forgot to mention. They are currently operating WITHOUT the wings because of a mistake I made when cutting. Being a college student, I only had access to a circular saw and router. I got a little careless with the circular saw and screwed up on one of my cuts. Needless to say I didn't have any more wood. However, I like the configuration very much and will likely keep them wingless for now. *





Fast1one said:


> *I am currently listening to the self titled album Nouvelle Vague. Bossa Nova music...Her voice is absolutely beautiful.
> 
> Here are some quick pictures I took. They are currently in my bedroom until I make room in the living room
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *





Fast1one said:


> *These woofers are definitely sounding better by the hour. I gave them a little exercise while I was at the library studying for about 6 hours with a 15hz test tone at low volume.
> 
> I don't think the crossover point is going to budge for now. Currently its set at ~140hz and I am enjoying the blend they have with the FRs. I don't really feel like I am missing much from the recording in that range. After all, its a crossover not a brick wall :smash:
> 
> Also, the bass is really nice even with no EQ. I am not in a terrible rush to get more power either. I haven't played anything that really made me miss deep bass yet. Even playing Pink Floyd's "Dark Side of the Moon" album was quite satisfying from beginning to end. The track with the clocks going off (Time?) is eerily life like. "Money" also has that same quality with all the registers going off in the beginning.
> 
> I think I may have some wiggle room as far as the FF85s go. They don't really move at all even with heavy music crossed over at ~350hz now. I will slowly bring the crossover point lower once I am confident that I they have the mechanical head room.
> 
> One final note for now. I think I am going to end up keeping the Fostex and just listen to good recordings with them  After all, I have other rigs for the rest of my collection ( *cough* car). *


Cheers!!!


----------



## 60ndown

i like building speakers, but nowdays ill only build speakers when all the design has been done right.

Decware's Audiophile Loudspeakers


----------



## Ga foo 88

^^ which ones, pics?


----------



## Fast1one

60ndown said:


> i like building speakers, but nowdays ill only build speakers when all the design has been done right.
> 
> Decware's Audiophile Loudspeakers


 You obviously like taking handouts  I prefer learning from my experiences and experimentation, thank you very much. 

Besides, you would have to be an idiot to really screw up an open baffle design. They are very forgiving alignments. The hardest part is getting the bass right.


----------



## 60ndown

Fast1one said:


> You obviously like taking handouts, The hardest part is getting the bass right.


i dont like wasting my time, if im going to build something i want the best chance of it working excellently, sure anyone can cut a hole and put a driver in a box/baffle

but theres a lot to get right if you want great sound.

the difference between sound and great sound is knowledge.

if you want to gain that knowledge by building multiple speakers over weeks/months/years and using $$ in materials to EVENTUALLY arrive at the same place i will be 'first time' thats up to you.

i dont need to understand why it sounds good to enjoy it.


----------



## Fast1one

Two different schools of thought my friend. I always strive to gain more knowledge every day. I don't just accept something that sounds good, I try to understand WHY. Hence I am striving for a mechanical engineering degree with a minor in math. I do a whole lot of reading. This wasn't just thrown together, research on the design and effects of baffles was done. In addition, the final piece was modeled to ensure that there wasn't anything to nasty in there. 

Anyway, you simply can't rely in models to predict the response perfectly. It just doesn't work that way. Like turbo-machinery that I am currently studying, only with empirical experience and testing can you achieve a true representation of a live model. You can tell yourself that it was designed well, but in the end, websites like DecWare are commercial sites and therefore are promoted accordingly. 

Not saying they are bad, but there is bias whether you like to admit or not. Honestly, zaphaudio.com seems to be the only non-biased DIY projects site that I have seen. 





60ndown said:


> i dont like wasting my time, if im going to build something i want the best chance of it working excellently, sure anyone can cut a hole and put a driver in a box/baffle
> 
> but theres a lot to get right if you want great sound.
> 
> the difference between sound and great sound is knowledge.
> 
> if you want to gain that knowledge by building multiple speakers over weeks/months/years and using $$ in materials to EVENTUALLY arrive at the same place i will be 'first time' thats up to you.
> 
> *i dont need to understand why it sounds good to enjoy it.*


----------



## 60ndown

Fast1one said:


> Two different schools of thought my friend. I always strive to gain more knowledge every day. I don't just accept something that sounds good, I try to understand WHY. Hence I am striving for a mechanical engineering degree with a minor in math. I do a whole lot of reading. This wasn't just thrown together, research on the design and effects of baffles was done. In addition, the final piece was modeled to ensure that there wasn't anything to nasty in there.
> 
> Anyway, you simply can't rely in models to predict the response perfectly. It just doesn't work that way. Like turbo-machinery that I am currently studying, only with empirical experience and testing can you achieve a true representation of a live model. You can tell yourself that it was designed well, but in the end, websites like DecWare are commercial sites and therefore are promoted accordingly.
> 
> Not saying they are bad, but there is bias whether you like to admit or not. Honestly, zaphaudio.com seems to be the only non-biased DIY projects site that I have seen.


very reasonable,



ive talked to many people who are meant to be very knowledgable about audio over the last 25 years, ive never met anyone who understands so much about what works and what doesnt as steve deckert. take 20 minutes and read a few of these.

if you want?:blush:

20 minutes..........


Remember that to get a single eight inch driver with no cross over to create a full balance of usable bass down to 40Hz without equalization in such a narrow baffle has never been done to my knowledge. It is the ultimate in coherency supporting the ideal that for a speaker to accurately reproduce a kick drum it must be a point source able to complete the whole range of that drum, which typically is 40Hz out to 10kHz or more.

Decware's Audiophile Product Page


----------



## Ga foo 88

Does the line at 85 db mean that is its avg 1w/1m efficiency for the speaker overall?


----------



## Fast1one

60ndown said:


> very reasonable,
> 
> ive talked to many people who are meant to be very knowledgable about audio over the last 25 years, ive never met anyone who understands so much about what works and what doesnt as steve deckert. take 20 minutes and read a few of these.
> 
> if you want?:blush:
> 
> 20 minutes..........
> 
> Remember that to get a single eight inch driver with no cross over to create a full balance of usable bass down to 40Hz without equalization in such a narrow baffle has never been done to my knowledge. It is the ultimate in coherency supporting the ideal that for a speaker to accurately reproduce a kick drum it must be a point source able to complete the whole range of that drum, which typically is 40Hz out to 10kHz or more.
> 
> Decware's Audiophile Product Page


Honestly, I don't listen to rock very much on this setup  I mostly listen to Jazz, chillout, classical, and on occasion some classic/indie rock. You must understand, playing a kickdrum and live levels was not the intention of this setup. 

My primary goal was to produce a smooth, detailed sound in the vocal range. Hence I used a small, full range driver that doesn't beam very much in the vocal range and crosses over to midbass drivers well. I listen to a lot of female vocalist, so the vocal range is very important to me as you might imagine. I accomplished my goal and then some. It actually doesn't strain when I do play rock, or electronic music at moderate listening levels. When I want to rock out though, I have my car for that 



Ga foo 88 said:


> Does the line at 85 db mean that is its avg 1w/1m efficiency for the speaker overall?


 Yes and no. That is the efficiency of the raw full range driver. I have the 15s crossed over lower but they are bumped up a bit to meet with the crossover point of the full range driver. This is just personal taste. 

This wasn't meant to me a loud setup at all. Been there done that, I am trying to conserve my hearing now. They still have very good dynamics at moderate listening levels though


----------



## aneonrider

Fast1one said:


> This wasn't meant to me a loud setup at all. Been there done that, I am trying to conserve my hearing now. They still have very good dynamics at moderate listening levels though


Quoted for emphasis. 

Way too many people on this forum believe the only way to get good sound is to try and rattle everything in your house. 

I quite enjoy listening to dynamic passages on my FR125 BIBs, no subwoofer, with only 50W on tap (and using much less than that!). 

You tend to appreciate the art of music more when you aren't trying to get rid of the ringing in your ears after you are done.

Good on you for doing something different and being more interested in the sound than the output!


----------



## Fast1one

aneonrider said:


> Quoted for emphasis.
> 
> Way too many people on this forum believe the only way to get good sound is to try and rattle everything in your house.
> 
> I quite enjoy listening to dynamic passages on my FR125 BIBs, no subwoofer, with only 50W on tap (and using much less than that!).
> 
> You tend to appreciate the art of music more when you aren't trying to get rid of the ringing in your ears after you are done.
> 
> Good on you for doing something different and being more interested in the sound than the output!


BIBs are quite fun to play with. I think I may build some with some FR125s as computer speakers 

Kudos for appreciating the beauty of music!


----------



## Sassmastersq

I've got the same full range drivers sitting on my dash right now (the untreated version though, but planet10's look interesting) they are a stellar speaker, once I get them into an enclosure I'll have to see what they can do.


----------



## Fast1one

Sassmastersq said:


> I've got the same full range drivers sitting on my dash right now (the untreated version though, but planet10's look interesting) they are a stellar speaker, once I get them into an enclosure I'll have to see what they can do.


The extended response up on top is quite surprising, I think you will like them


----------



## Sassmastersq

so far I love them, even just wrapped in a t-towel sitting in the corners, once they're in an enclosure up higher I think they're going to kick ass.... I can't wait! even the one that got wrecked the day I got it (by my wonderful son) sounds good.


----------



## Ga foo 88

My question is, how would you go about designing a x-over to preserve efficiency? A simple cap on the ff85en? Then what about the woofer?

I'm not concerned at the ability to get loud, but the option to use lower power amplifiers.


----------



## Fast1one

You mean a passive x-over? I usually don't deal with passives anymore, active is so much easier. 

To be honest, you would be much better off going with a larger driver and a helper tweeter above 10khz with lower power amplifiers. You can't beat physics, and these just aren't efficient enough for say, 10W SET 

You would also need more efficient woofers, ala Eminance Alpha 15s, a pair per side would be good. Granted, they have less excursion, but I am considering moving to them because my concern of excursion was highly overstated. The Pyle's barely move!

If you are set on going passive, please read Martin J. King's fantastic article on designing a passive 2 way open baffle setup. I learned a lot from that article even going active. Note that the woofers should have an efficiency of atleast +6db over the full range driver to overcome the open baffle loss. 

OB Theory

Cheers!

-Serg


Ga foo 88 said:


> My question is, how would you go about designing a x-over to preserve efficiency? A simple cap on the ff85en? Then what about the woofer?
> 
> I'm not concerned at the ability to get loud, but the option to use lower power amplifiers.


----------



## Ga foo 88

Sorry i forgot yours was an active set up. How much boost is on the pyles?


----------



## Fast1one

Ga foo 88 said:


> Sorry i forgot yours was an active set up. How much boost is on the pyles?


Currently absoultely none. Just using the higher efficiency of the Pyles and crossing them over a bit lower. Essentially a ~3-5db gain over the full range drivers from around 150hz down to ~70hz were they start to roll off. 

The pyles are getting better now. Much more transparent then before. It truly sound like the speakers aren't there at all. Just pure, lifelike music. Love open baffle. 

If you haven't taken the plunge yet, stop reading and start building! You can start with cheaper speakers and still get nice results. Once you have experienced it, then you can move on to something a bit more serious


----------



## bassfromspace

Fast1,

Could you take pictures of the back of the speaker?

Thanks.


----------



## pontiacbird

Do you have issues with reflections off of the back wall?

Also, theoretically, wouldn't you be able to boost your midbass - bass region using a larger area baffle, taking advantage of BSC?


----------



## Ga foo 88

Reflections off the back wall are part of dipole speakers, that is why they are recommended to be at least 3 feet off of the back wall. 

And yes, the baffle can act as a BSC in altering the response of the drivers. Larger baffles can extend the bass, but (IIRC) at the expense of some efficiency. The full range is placed off center to for better off-axis response. 

All of this wants to make me just build some....


----------



## Fast1one

bassfromspace said:


> Fast1,
> 
> Could you take pictures of the back of the speaker?
> 
> Thanks.


You mean like this?






















Ga foo 88 said:


> Reflections off the back wall are part of dipole speakers, that is why they are recommended to be at least 3 feet off of the back wall.
> 
> And yes, the baffle can act as a BSC in altering the response of the drivers. Larger baffles can extend the bass, but (IIRC) at the expense of some efficiency. The full range is placed off center to for better off-axis response.
> 
> All of this wants to make me just build some....


Go build some then!!!

These things ROCK with live music! Very surprised how much impact they provide for being open baffle. I upgraded power btw. Went to a "lower" power Yamaha CA-600, circa 1970s at 35 watts per channel. BS its more than 35 watts, the little full rangers have a ton of head room now. 

Also upgraded the sub power, now dual 240 watt dayton plate amps, one per side


----------



## Ga foo 88

I would but i'm still in college, if that explains enough (broke). I also was just looking at the pyles compared to the hawthorne audio augie 15s. Very similar fs, efficiency, and a close magnet weight.

Drivers
Parts-Express.comyle Pro PPA15 15" PA Speaker | 15" woofer 15 inch woofer midbass driver pro sound sound reinforcement PA

Also, that mid looks like it needs some room to breath in the back. There was a thread over at audiocircle about the back wave and the effect of routing over the edge of the back of the speaker on a smaller Full ranger i believe.


----------



## Fast1one

Ga foo 88 said:


> I would but i'm still in college, if that explains enough (broke). I also was just looking at the pyles compared to the hawthorne audio augie 15s. Very similar fs, efficiency, and a close magnet weight.
> 
> Drivers
> Parts-Express.comyle Pro PPA15 15" PA Speaker | 15" woofer 15 inch woofer midbass driver pro sound sound reinforcement PA
> 
> Also, that mid looks like it needs some room to breath in the back. There was a thread over at audiocircle about the back wave and the effect of routing over the edge of the back of the speaker on a smaller Full ranger i believe.


So am I 

Im not saying build THESE, im saying go build an open baffle system. You can build much smaller one with stands, say with an affortable full rage driver and a 12, like so: Parts-Express.com:12" Poly Woofer 4 Ohm | 12" Poly Woofer 4 Ohm woofer goldwood

That woofer has very comparable specs to the Pyle, and would be great for easy listening. You can also find one with a higher Qts, which will smooth out the response down to near the FS, though this one has a smaller x-max:

http://www.parts-express.com/pe/sho...xpress.com/pe/showdetl.cfm?Partnumber=292-320

You can pair both of those with a full ranger of about ~80-83db efficiency (Hi-vi B3S or B3N comes to mind) and follow the suggestions of MJK over on quarter-wave.com to build a passive setup. With the latter woofer, you can easily built this for under 100 bucks using basic components and wood  Won't be super loud, but great for easy listening.

As far as the routing goes, I did use my jigsaw at a 45 degree angle and cut the edge off, though its hard to see from that picture, like so: 










Cheers!


----------



## Ga foo 88

I was thinking something along the lines of a chr-70 + alpha in a h-frame to drop down the efficiency. The problem lies in purchasing another amp, plus an active x-over.


----------



## Fast1one

Ga foo 88 said:


> I was thinking something along the lines of a chr-70 + alpha in a h-frame to drop down the efficiency. The problem lies in purchasing another amp, plus an active x-over.


Of course... I understand your monetary position very well. I have the same problem. The Alphas and Mark Audios sound like a great combination!

I have an MTX crossover I can sell to you (ahem, donate) for the cause 

Its like this one: MTX HTX-V2 2 WAY Custom Audio Electronic CROSSOVER NEW - eBay (item 140318116191 end time May-31-09 18:46:52 PDT)

Has a wall wart and a switch as you can see. I used it temporarily for experimentation until I could get something better. Ended up just going in line passive highpass for the Fostexs with a Zobel network and used the adjustable crossovers on the plate amps for the Pyles . Unit worked well, just had a noticeable hum when you put your head against the speakers.


----------



## Fast1one

UPDATE

I spent a couple hours doing some minor modifications to the bass drivers. I did two things:

1.) I added some Cascade Audio engineering VBMAX sound deadening to the frames. Being stamped steal, they had a significant amount of ringing to them. I added some to all the spokes and added some around the perimeter where the magnet joins the frame. Just knocking it with my fist I could I already tell it was going to make a big difference; Very solid and no ringing whatsoever. I started playing music and WOW. What a difference, the upper response (150hz+) of the drivers was cleaned up quite a bit. But this was only part of the equation. I turned off the music and did the following.

2.) I added 10 ohms (two 20 ohm 20 watt resisters in parallel) in series with EACH driver. What does this do? Well, as you know the speaker has impedance not resistance, so adding resistance changes the response by changing the QES ( since it is a function of Re) and therefore raising the effective QTS. I forgot what the calculation turned out to be, but I believe it was around ~Qts=1.1 compared to .67 before. Essentially what this did was attenuate the upper frequencies like a high shelf filter.

All I can say is, WOW. HUGE difference. Before since there as a rising response, it really brought out the worse of the Pyles, particularly when crossed over high as previously mentioned. Now that the bass is more full and extended (easily to ~40hz to my ear), the pyles sound MUCH better and are now crossed over higher at about 160-170hz with no issues. Interestingly enough, I found my self pushing them a lot less, mechanically, since the presence of the low end allowed me to turn the gain down. Also, the amps are running cooler at ~8 ohms.

WONDERFUL macro and micro dynamics , dear God this is music. Eric Clapton Unplugged in particular was breath taking. The speakers are complete. Or should I say, what speakers? They completely disappear into the room!

Cheers!!! Long live music!


----------



## Sassmastersq

Sounds like you've found a great setup that suits your needs. I'd type more but doing this on my cell phone is a real pain in the ass. Gotta love the fostex!


----------



## Fast1one

Sassmastersq said:


> Sounds like you've found a great setup that suits your needs. I'd type more but doing this on my cell phone is a real pain in the ass. Gotta love the fostex!


They exceeded my expectations 

I brought over my ex since she has always been mildly interested in my speaker projects. She about **** her pants when she listened. She couldn't believe how the speakers literally disappear into the room. She used to think I was full of **** when I said if I closed my eyes I could imagine I was there. Now that she heard, she is a firm believer  I think I have definitely made a decent setup, if a total non-audiophile appreciates them that much.


----------



## Sassmastersq

my wife's first comment after I put the ff85k's on the dash was "wow, I've got my stereo back (it's been under construction for a while) She really likes them, and I'm looking forward to getting them permentantly placed and installed. These drivers are amazing, I might even try something OB for a set of home speakers. I really love the sound of them.


----------



## Fast1one

Sassmastersq said:


> my wife's first comment after I put the ff85k's on the dash was "wow, I've got my stereo back (it's been under construction for a while) She really likes them, and I'm looking forward to getting them permentantly placed and installed. These drivers are amazing, I might even try something OB for a set of home speakers. I really love the sound of them.


Highly recommended OB, at the price its hard NOT to try it


----------

