[oldtimer]

John I dont have to fiddle with any controls. I was outlining the way I have setup my system for my room. You also dont have to convince me of anything OB, I have experienced many different setups and configurations in my room. I will state again that whatever way you decide to add bass augmentation, as long as you do it to suit your system and room, and do it properly, then that wont be any less effective than any other way. I know this, because I have done it. I still have my baffles with 2x 12's, 1x15, 1x12, 2x10, 1x10. All of these gave exceptional bass, but I contend that you will alsways get better overall results with only one driver in the baffle. This may of course not suit everybodies ears, but as long as it suits mine, then, I am a pig in mud.

Happy listenting
Nigel

[-Richard-]

Hi oldtimer ~

Your most recent explorations... in which you have separated the bass augmenters from
the OB baffle... allowing the B200 driver the integrity to play by themselves...
reflects my own current set up ~

The interesting thing here is the remarkable cohesion of the sound. I suspect it is the
result of the way the OB drivers load the room... it allows for a seamless integration
with the bass augmenters ~

Admittedly there is an urge to want ones "speakers" to be self-contained... to not have to
resort to separating the drivers from each other... this could simply be a conditioned response
that suggests that separate "sources" are intrinsically always "separate" in some fundamental
way that the ear will or should recognize... or it could be our "natural" desire for simplicity,
which in this age of "things" all-over-the-place is not without its wisdom ~

Strictly from a design stand-point, one baffle that could contain all the "ingredients" for
superior sound reproduction is highly desirable... especially from a commercial point-of-view
where issues of building costs and shipping problems must be addressed ~

However, one could make a strong argument for the visually, aesthetically pleasing appearance
of a simple baffle with one driver in it, while hidden in the back is a small bass augmenter
that effectively fills-in the bottom frequencies seamlessly... I think that solution is more
sophisticated looking and would certainly appeal to the ladies who must live with their
companions audio "objects" in the rooms they use for entertaining ~

The Bastanis are a case in point... I think they border on the ugly... too massive... to much
of themselves in our face, in our rooms... this kind of speaker solution makes the lovely
music we listen to seem ponderous ~

At this moment in time I feel that a simple driver in a simple OB wood panel is
rather beautiful... stark looking with a thoroughly Japanese kind of aesthetic...
Deb loves the look... and she is a world-class designer ~

This elegant solution leaves us to choose our bass augmentation freely...we can then
further control our costs by either building a simple box for a bass augmenter driver...
or as I have done at the present... recruit an existing monitor speaker that has good
characteristics for the job we are asking it to do ~

Thanks for contributing your important feedback Oldtimer, I deeply appreciate it!!!

Warm Regards ~ Richard ~

[Stempy]

All, believe  when I say I am not trying to be a naysayer here, I actually want to here what you are all hearing with your OB's, but to date no such luck. So I am calling on the collective wisdom for a hand.

As a point of reference I have been a ZU Druid owner for the past 2 years, Have owned  and enjoyed dipoles (Apogee's) for more than a decade, Perkins(dipole tweeter) and Spica's prior to then, just to date myself.

My OB's are along the line of what Vinnie has done. The main baffle is 10" and the wings are 9" and 13" respectively. The OB's are covered with speaker cloth and the backs are further lined with open cell foam(Joann Fabric's headliner).  The driver is 27" on center from the floor. The Baffle stands 45" tall

Amp's are Vinnie  modded Teac's including OIP V-caps, Endler attenuators and currently my only source is a stock Toshiba SD 9200. I am augmenting the bass with a ZU Method cross over at 50 htz.

My B200's have about 150 hours on them. My room is 18x30 and the OB's are 5.5 feet from the front wall. The drivers are 9.5 ft apart on center and I am sitting at 11.5 ft from each speaker. I have tried many toe in positions and am currently set up with the axis crossing behind me at about 5 ft


Well for sure the speed is there in spades, while dynamics peaks are fine, the midrange seems somewhat lifeless. This seems exasperated by opening the wings And to date I much prefer the wings not to be opened or opened just barely

While the center fill is on par with the Druid's I still don't feel I'm dialed in as the Druid's in comparison are not only more accurate but have greater air than my OB's. The latter I would not have expected.

All suggestions are appreciated.
   


   

[JohninCR]

Stempy,

I believe you just have a dimension problem with your wings.
For one thing, I think, a 4" difference in depth between wings
is too much.  Also, the wings seem too deep overall.  These
are just my gut feeling.  Plus, if you have bass augmentation,
there really isn't much need for deep wings.  I run a 16" max depth
on my U-baffles, but the driver is a coax and the rear wave starts
falling off at the cross to the tweeter which radiates only to the
front.  I wouldn't try to "close up" the rear wave that much with
a full ranger like the B200, because a closed-in sound is likely to
result.

Let me relate a problem I encountered prototyping my Joint Chiefs
U-baffles, and why I always recommend test baffles that are simple
and quick to modify.  The first JC I built worked great after I cured
some panel resonances.  Then I made an identical cab, but added 2"
of depth to the longest panel, leaving the shortest dimension the
same in an attempt to extend bass response.  The result was
horrendous with an overall very dead and dull sound. 

I can only speculate about what caused the drastic difference in
sound.  What I believe happened is that I caused a slight shift in
the ripples inherent in any OB response, and the shift put the peaks
of the ripples on the flat portion of notes and/or crucial fundamental
notes fell right on dips in response.

I think you should start by taking the wings off.  If your augmentation
has a shallow sloped XO, you may be able to blend it to the B200
with a minimal baffle.  Then if you still want wings, start them as close
as possible to the driver cutout on the backside of the baffle and use
duct tape and cardboard or wood scraps to experiment and determine
the size and wing angle you like best.

[corloc]

All, believe  when I say I am not trying to be a naysayer here, I actually want to here what you are all hearing with your OB's, but to date no such luck. So I am calling on the collective wisdom for a hand.

As a point of reference I have been a ZU Druid owner for the past 2 years, Have owned  and enjoyed dipoles (Apogee's) for more than a decade, Perkins(dipole tweeter) and Spica's prior to then, just to date myself.

My OB's are along the line of what Vinnie has done. The main baffle is 10" and the wings are 9" and 13" respectively. The OB's are covered with speaker cloth and the backs are further lined with open cell foam(Joann Fabric's headliner).  The driver is 27" on center from the floor. The Baffle stands 45" tall

Amp's are Vinnie  modded Teac's including OIP V-caps, Endler attenuators and currently my only source is a stock Toshiba SD 9200. I am augmenting the bass with a ZU Method cross over at 50 htz.

My B200's have about 150 hours on them. My room is 18x30 and the OB's are 5.5 feet from the front wall. The drivers are 9.5 ft apart on center and I am sitting at 11.5 ft from each speaker. I have tried many toe in positions and am currently set up with the axis crossing behind me at about 5 ft


Well for sure the speed is there in spades, while dynamics peaks are fine, the midrange seems somewhat lifeless. This seems exasperated by opening the wings And to date I much prefer the wings not to be opened or opened just barely

While the center fill is on par with the Druid's I still don't feel I'm dialed in as the Druid's in comparison are not only more accurate but have greater air than my OB's. The latter I would not have expected.

All suggestions are appreciated.
   


   

Your baffle setup sound simular to my originall.  I could suggest pushing the baffles to about 2' from the wall, and tilting them up 10 degrees or more. You want them either pointing at your ear or above at you listening position. I use sill plate insolation for the abck of mine.  It is open cell foam too, but is has ridges on one side.  I too enjoy the baffle pointed toed out rather than in.  Good luck and experiment.  You'll find the sweet spot.

Chris

[-Richard-]

Hi Stempy ~

You are going to get feedback here that might sound inconsistent... so have a bit of patience
with us ~

I would remove any surface material back and front from your baffles to start with...
this will give you a constant from which to start your inquiry ~

Unlike many of the OB users on this forum I find that my baffles sound best only 2 feet
from the back wall... I tow mine in so that they cross before the listening position ~

You could start near the back wall and then incrementally move them out into the room ~

Try raising your crossover point to 150Hz and then incrementally reduce it to see
what effect that has... I am finding that the B200's are very happy with some form of bass
augmentation that goes all the way up to 150Hz... assuming your bass drivers are very fast ~

You have not told us anything about your room... you may want to give some attention to
whether your room is over-damped... over-damping can absorb too much of the front and
back wave... interfering with the "harmonic" that results when the back wave merges with
the front wave... it is that effect that contributes so strongly to the spatial sound field you
read so much about on this thread ~

JohninCR is giving good advice when he suggests you remove your baffle wings and give
a good listen... however my experiments with Jim McCarthy seemed to suggest that placing
the wings close to the B200 driver in the back severally truncated the sound... so proceed with
an open mind here and see for yourself how things actually sound as you experiment ~

I am using a simple panel that is 42 inches high by 25 inches wide with the B200's 7 inches
from the top... they are tilted back about 7 degrees... which Roger Modjeski feels is the
Golden Mean for tilting positions of dipole speakers ~

Dmason has read an enormous amount of information from builders of OB's from all over
the world... being the impeccable researcher that he is...
he may have some insights for you here as well ~

Keep us informed of your experiments and observations... have a bit of patience and you
will find the magic we are all talking about ~

Warm Regards ~ Richard ~

[Stempy]

Great approaches all. I will give each a "how's your father"  once I get to ground zero.

The center baffle by it's lonesome seems like a good start point and report if that gets me closer and working my way into regressive-ly smaller wings.

As far as rounding over the edges of the main baffle, I can see (and hopefully hear) how this could improve imaging and integration within the room. Is rounding over the driver opening vital, incremental or a non starter to the formula?


Thanks again to all   

[Wind Chaser]

You may wonder "Why not avoid all this trouble and just use a flat
baffle?"  The answer is asthetics and imaging.   ...I don't like the look of big flat
baffles.

John,

Are you suggesting that imaging is improved with wings?  If so, I have to say I have found that to be quite to the contrary in my experience.  On a 36" tall baffle, 9.5" wide with 10" and 12" wings, the only dividend I found was substantially more bass compared to flat baffle 39" tall, 16" wide across the top and 20" wide at the bottom.  The latter trapezoidal baffle takes less space, is aesthetically more appealing, produces a much more seamless sound stage and the imaging IMO is in a different category.   In short, there are just too many drawbacks with wings for my tastes.

Now about those little Fostex drivers… as the trend goes Rocket Ronny (Decware) recently pulled the Fostex 108’s out of his BLH and replaced them with the 126.  I was at his place listening to them through is EV Carina.  Very nice indeed!  However I brought over a few CD’s and pair of B200’s with the aforementioned winged baffles to his place for a little comparo.

As nice as the Fostex drivers are, they do not hold a candle to the B200.  The differences are so vast that they aren’t even in the same ballpark, let alone city, county or country!  Whereas the B200 sounds balanced (with way more bass I might add) the little Fostex drivers sound anemic and in desperate need of serious EQ.  Lucky for Rocket Ronny he has some half decent digital EQ.  Whereas EQ might help the Fostex produce better tone and timber to some extent, in this regard the B200 stomps all over the Fostex.  But that’s not all…  The B200 opens up and revels in detail like that of a stat with a penchant for serious dynamics.

For the sake of experimentation, I suggest you liberate your Visaton’s from the U OB’s and try them on a flat baffle similar to what I have or what Nigel’s done.  Until you do so I can only conclude its no wonder you prefer the Fostex.  If my exploration and experimentation with the B200 finished with the three U OB’s I tried, I would have written it off as delusional insanity.

John

[oldtimer]

Wings are for aeroplanes. Consider if you will the shape of the rear of the driver. The rear wave WILL propagate much faster than the front wave. Wings will obstruck the rear wave propagation. I am NOT guessing with this, I discarded wings by baffle 3 of 12, and the first 3 had several different wing configuration before I learnt that they just hinder the sound.
If you can crack the right dimensions for the baffle, you will find that that front and rear waves will converge seamlessly, giving you a soundstage at least 3 mtrs deep, with no apparent sound coming directly form the front of the baffle. You will see space around the instruments, you will hear nuance's that propell the sound into live renditions of instruments and vocals.

Happy listening
Nigel

[Stempy]

I have not heard a difference with imaging with the wings in an open(meaning the baffle is straight across with no break in the 3 sections of the baffle, think Quads) vs a closing back towards the B200 (U shaped.

While I do get reasonable image depth, I also experience a degree of sound localized to the speaker. It is within the soundstage I was expecting more... more accuracy more palpable.

Several things I should have shared, one the ceiling is two stories high (25 ft or so), hardwood flooring through out, the room opens into the kitchen about one third off the front wall and is open the rest of the way to the back wall(give or take a ft for the support pillar. The room is lively.(with an unattractive slap echo which is severe in the 3 ft region away from the front wall. The only room treatment I am using is 2 pair of room tunes in each  front corner. 

I haven't had much luck crossing over my ZU as high as 150 Hz as the sub gets a little too active within the lower midrange. Perhaps too much foot on the volume.

Like my apogee's, side reflections don't seem to be much of an issue, the bare floors however not such a good thing. I do throw heavy wool blankets across the front  of the speaker when I have the room to myself and this improves things(to myself I am implying my dog not the kids. Seems my dog will mark as her territory anything I throw down on the floor, the little bastard is quite fast and accurate as well, think matrix quick as the spray hits the blanket before it reaches it's final resting place on the ground after it is tossed, quite unbelievable actually. )

[-Richard-]

Windchaser and Oldtimer ~

Nice to have you both share with us your careful, sensitive and astute observations ~

I am not currently using wings and find the sound field produced by this simple panel
deeply satisfying and very effective!!!!

There is a phenomena in science noted by such luminaries as the remarkable physicist
David Bohm and others... observation can be affected by pre-conditioning ~

If someone is convinced on some deep psychological level that wings or u-baffles are necessary
in their model of the real, than they will hear in that application a substantially more satisfying
presentation than a simple OB panel ~

Of course there is the possibility that some OB panel shapes could fit certain room conditions
better than others ~

Warm Regards ~ Richard ~

[Wind Chaser]

Of course there is the possibility that some OB panel shapes could fit certain room conditions
better than others ~

Richard,

IMO there is no substitute for experience through exploration.  Done with an open mind, this is more meaningful than all the so called scientific theory combined.  The proof is always in the pudding...

In addition to trying a few different baffles and listening to some, but not all on different equipment and in different rooms, what I've learned about wings is consistent.  They add lower end extension but choke the sound stage and thereby get in the way of great imaging.  If the projection of back wave off the baffle is manipulated or redirected in any way, the end result will compromise the potential for creating the illusion of “being there.”

In fact while I was at Rocket Ronny's (he’s an imaging is the end all be all kind of guy) his only reservation on the B200 in OB is that it doesn't image as well as his Horns.  The fact is had he had heard them in a baffle without wings, he’d have a different opinion.

John.

[JohninCR]

The only preconditioning here is that some of you gave up
too soon.  My current winged baffles went through at least 10
modifications before I got the results that I wanted.  I have
multiple pairs of the same driver and always compare to a
flat baffle to ensure that I haven't closed in the sound, so
the idea that I'm stuck in some rut of compromised sound
is baseless.  Throughout this thread I've tried to share how
to overcome the shortcomings of the B200 without using
electronics, along with the whats and whys of baffle shapes.

I'm up on the high wire working to combine the advantages
of all baffle and speaker types, but eliminate the compromises
of each.  The only thing I'm willing to sacrifice is perfectly
balanced off axis respose that is only achieveable using a well
excuted multi-way design, but that's a given compromise of
any full or wide range driver system.  I want the holographic
sharp imaging that narrow single driver speakers are known for.
I want the huge open soundstage and natural sound that OB's
deliver.  I want the deep full bass of big box speakers with the
clarity and instrument separation in the lower octaves that is
characteristic of OB bass.  Now that I've obtained all of these,
all that's left is to shrink the size, so I'll sign off until I come
up with something new and improved.

[-Richard-]

Hi Wind Chaser/John ~

Your insights and impressions have the ring of truth to them and perfectly fits
my own observations ~

Simplicity is a difficult model to grasp... we of the so-called western industrial
societies have been conditioned to accept an enormous degree of complexity in
our lives... with the result that we are highly susceptible to Alzheimer's and dementia
and well as all the physical diseases brought on by unmitigated stress in our lives ~

Future societies will study our way of life as a model of insane behavior...
multitasking is the ultimate form of introducing disorder into the brain ~

So simplicity works on every level of reality as the most functional and elegant paradigm ~

Warm Regards ~ Richard ~

[Stempy]

"I have not heard a difference with imaging with the wings in an open(meaning the baffle is straight across with no break in the 3 sections of the baffle, think Quads) vs a closing back towards the B200 (U shaped. "

Well that's not what I meant to report. I discussed this very issue with others off line the other day and in my limited experience with OB's I have prefered imaging  and air with the wings positioned as if it were a flat baffle. I am by no means married to this, just an early on observation.

[scorpion]

Well, sound from OBs with wings is pest, but bass through tubes one should be content with ? 

Point is, B200 is not the best speaker chassis in the world but decent enough to put out very good results on OB. OB in itself is the absolute best way to build a hi-fi speaker.

B200's two main shortcomings is bassresponse and the rising midrange/treble. Bass must be assisted to achieve hi-fi results. Similarely midrange/treble must be equalized to achieve hi-fi results.

I had hoped that the comments about Planet10's phase plugs should have said something about how they affect the rising midrange/treble frequency response. But so far I have seen nothing of this.

I do like the B200s and will use them as my main speakers for a long time.

/Erling

[mcgsxr]

Interesting tangent, with lots of respective passion for differing positions, I like to see it.  Shows me that each is confident in their position, based on their own experience, which leads me to believe that each room and set of ears, and set of gear, really makes a difference.

I will try a few differing configs, when my 12 inch subs arrive (they should be delivered to my office tomorrow) - I have been happy with the mids and highs using a baffle with quite different wing lengths.  When I add in the 12 inch subs, I will try adhering some cardboard etc to the rear, in different locations, and test against my existing setup.

Should leave me happy with the end result, if no further ahead in terms of settling this one!

All the best to all my fellow explorers, good for y'all for having some fun with an inexpensive, rewarding technology!

[Wind Chaser]

JohninCR,

I was under the impression that you hadn’t moved beyond the JC BLH.  Show and Tell a little more about your B200 wing exploration.  Like Stempy, it was only upon positioning the wings wide open that I came to realize how much better the sound stage and imaging could be.


Scorpion,

About the “B200’s two main short comings” I emphatically disagree on both accounts…  With the right baffle and ancillary equipment, the B200 doesn’t need help to flesh out the bottom end. 

I had two excellent 15” bass drivers that added nothing to my implementation; in fact I found them to do more harm than good.  Hence they are on the way to Costa Rica.  A lot about this hobby hinges on personal preferences.  For me, when a cello sounds like a cello, an upright bass like an upright bass, then I know I’ve achieved the quality of bass I want.  99.9% of all car audio enthusiasts in particular have no concept of what bass is.  If you’re from that camp there’s no point in even trying to have an intelligent discussion.

You wrote, “Similarly midrange/treble must be equalized to achieve hi-fi results.”   I’m not sure what YOU mean by hi-fi results.  Again, the benchmark or standard I use is real music.  I happen to know a few female vocalists and have their recordings.  Being intimately familiar with their voices I can tell you there aren’t many speakers that can convert electrical energy to sound as accurately as the B200.

John

[Vinnie R.]

Hey Guys,

I just posted this on a separate thread:
http://www.audiocircle.com/index.php?topic=30656.0

I really like the quality of the bass that it is adding to my OBs.  Just when I thought it couldn't get better....it did! 

Hey Stempy,

Welcome to Audiocircle and the RWA forum! 

Looks like you received good advice.  IMO, the best advice is to spend a lot of time with the placement of your OBs in your room and with respect to your listening position (distance from the walls, toe in, etc).  The OBs seem to interact with a room differently than boxed speakers, so a lot of the speaker placement guidelines that you know of or tried before might not apply with the OBs. 

As for the wings, mine have recently been slightly changed.  They are now 12.5" and 14" (instead of 13" and 14.5").  The center baffle is 10" wide.  The center of the driver is 31" from the floor.  The height of my baffles is 48" tall.  They are about 5 feet pulled out from the wall that is behind them.  I have the toe in such that the speakers cross a few feet behind my head.  There is no tilt because they are pretty close to ear level when I am sitting.  My baffles are made of 3/4", 13-ply baltic birch and they are vaneered on both sides (made by Louis of Omega). 

Keep experimenting... you'll get there! 

Have fun,

Vinnie

[Stempy]

Vinnie,
Do you have knowledge of the Bastani's Eminence driver. The reason I ask is that Bastani uses circular felt surrounding  the dust cap around the middle of the driver. I assume it is used for diffraction and to minimize lobing? I ask because many may be unwilling to take the next step and cut off the dust cap and to use a phase plug(I am giving it a shot by the way and have ordered my phase plugs from planet 10), and this may be a "safer" way of getting close to the effect without the Full Monty.

By the way, The Perkins I used in the late 80's had the dust cover removed and Bill Perkins used a felt rod to fill the opening and create the phase plug. Bill was(and is) an ingenious guy, he is the Developer of the Pearl Tube Coolers, he also was one of the first that I was aware of that potted crossovers and also isolated his dipole tweeter(that he hand built by smelting and forming from carbon!) from the bass enclosure with the use of tuning springs no less, ala sprung loaded turntables such as the Oracle. The tweeter driver was made from a gorgeous Hawaiian Coa.  I miss those speakers.