My intial experiments w/ OB bass

Bob in St. Louis · « **Reply #40 on:** 26 Mar 2009, 10:16 pm »

Yes, I did have them mounted each on their own baffle, but the reason wasn't anything scientific at all. Basically, I had two baffles and two Augies. Then, two more Augies came along, so I built two more single baffles. Then come two MORE Augies.....I didn't have the time, money, or desire to take the operational units apart to remount them on larger baffles (I couldn't stand to have them apart during construction, I wanted to be listening to them instead). I actually would have prefered to have them on fewer individual baffles (The wife said it looked like I was having a garage sale for speakers).
I had many daydreams about making one baffle, wall to wall, twelve feet wide and mounting the left channel, center channel, and right channel drivers as well as the Augies. Wouldn't that be cool! That would have been seven 15" drivers on one horizontal baffle. aa
I was *this close*.
But instead, I sat them as close to each other as possible so they would all help reinforce each other.

Four of my six Augies are now mounted in Infinite Baffle, so the floor has cleared up quite a bit. The other two Augies are currently in the workshop prepairing for their new baffles. They'll eventually be mounted in a more traditional 'upright' style. Then I'll have three individual speakers; The center channel with a single 15" SI, and the two main channels, each with an SI and an Augie.

Bob

Viridian · « **Reply #41 on:** 26 Mar 2009, 10:39 pm »

Thanks Bob for the explanation. Makes sense and I can understand how all that can happen. I have too many things I want to try as well and not enough time. But, the drivers are piling up. I somehow seem to acquire them.

Erik

Bob in St. Louis · « **Reply #42 on:** 26 Mar 2009, 10:47 pm »

Yes, exactly.

I have too many ideas and too little time, money or space to bring them all to fruition.

Bob

opnly bafld · « **Reply #43 on:** 26 Mar 2009, 10:54 pm »

I'm thinking about building a house for stereo systems only, no other unnecessary rooms, well maybe a restroom.

Lin

drphoto · « **Reply #44 on:** 26 Mar 2009, 11:44 pm »

What about the theory of dispersing multiple drivers in order to load the room in such a way to smooth out peaks and nulls?

dweekie · « **Reply #45 on:** 27 Mar 2009, 12:31 am »

Quote from: opnly bafld on 26 Mar 2009, 10:54 pm

I'm thinking about building a house for stereo systems only, no other unnecessary rooms, well maybe a restroom.

Lin

That might come in handy when you do some brown testing....

dewar · « **Reply #46 on:** 27 Mar 2009, 01:29 am »

Hi guys,

FWIW, I've got single Augies per channel in 45cm wide baffles, but also just built some ripole subs using two Eminence Beta-15A's per side, just because the drivers were selling cheap. I quite like the ripole, fairly similar to dipole Augies, but perhaps a bit more of the mid bass punch you guys are looking for, i.e dipole sound with a smattering of boxiness. Would be interesting to try dual ripoles using Augies - apparently it lowers fs by nearly 10hz so would be truly full range then. Also takes up less space (vertically anyway), and the cab is very still at high volumes due to push/pull vibration cancellation.

tubamark · « **Reply #47 on:** 28 Mar 2009, 01:47 am »

Quote from: dewar on 27 Mar 2009, 01:29 am

Hi guys,

FWIW, I've got single Augies per channel in 45cm wide baffles, but also just built some ripole subs using two Eminence Beta-15A's per side, just because the drivers were selling cheap. I quite like the ripole, fairly similar to dipole Augies, but perhaps a bit more of the mid bass punch you guys are looking for, i.e dipole sound with a smattering of boxiness. Would be interesting to try dual ripoles using Augies - apparently it lowers fs by nearly 10hz so would be truly full range then. Also takes up less space (vertically anyway), and the cab is very still at high volumes due to push/pull vibration cancellation.

A true Ripole w/Augies would result in too high of a Qts for most tastes, and really low efficiency, compared to the Beta 15's.
If you're interested in extended range, you may be better off using the Acoustic Elegance IB-15, or Peerless SLS in a Ripole, rather than the (already high Qts .90) Augie.

Bob in St. Louis · « **Reply #48 on:** 28 Mar 2009, 01:59 am »

Mark, I recall you and I talking about the Augies for ripole duty a few months back on the Hawthorne site. I searched there long and hard, but couldn't find the discussion. Thanks for posting the answer.

Bob

drphoto · « **Reply #49 on:** 28 Mar 2009, 03:40 am »

Uhhhhh.....what's a ripole?

dewar · « **Reply #50 on:** 28 Mar 2009, 04:40 am »

Could be right there Mark, think I've seen 0.6 tossed around as ideal. With DEQ I've got the Beta-15's flat down to 20hz with fairly modest cone excursion, but I dont listen too loud.

drphoto, try a google image search. Linkwitz's dipole sub is also a ripole, the not with cones facing each other, as is a bit more common.

Rudolf · « **Reply #51 on:** 28 Mar 2009, 07:39 am »

Quote from: dewar on 28 Mar 2009, 04:40 am

Linkwitz's dipole sub is also a ripole, the not with cones facing each other, as is a bit more common.

You could call it nitpicking, but AFAIK there has been a sort of gentlemen's agreement between Linkwitz and Ridtahler: Ridtahler's dipole (aka ripole) is the symmetrical W frame version with the drivers facing one another AND a reduced opening area that will lower the system Fs.
A dipole woofer with drivers facing one another - but without the intention to lower Fs - has been described by Linkwitz too: http://www.linkwitzlab.com/woofer3.htm

scorpion · « **Reply #52 on:** 28 Mar 2009, 09:09 am »

I would say that both the Linkwitz W-dipole and the Ripole are true sub solutions. To get midbass smattering out of these is no point. Then they will sound both boxy and coloured. Crossover well below 100 Hz is mandatory But question is if W- or Ripole is any better alternative than a properly built H-baffle, effects would be similar on Fs but H-dipole resonances should be easier to tame and with true dipole characteristics.

/Erling

dewar · « **Reply #53 on:** 28 Mar 2009, 09:46 am »

I was worried about a higher XO with these, but in fact dont hear any problem crossing over at 160hz to 5" Feastrex drivers. Upper bass integrates perfectly to my ears which was a nice surprise. I do roll them off very steeply above 160hz though with DCX2496. Agree that they dont offer any sonic advantages over pure dipole, especially seeing as I could just have EQd dipole to have the same extension (and loss of efficiency/headroom) as ripole, but the fact that it transfers zero vibrations to the full-range baffle that sits atop them does count for something I reckon. Also, my wife likes!

But it would be nice to try some 12" Tone Tubbies 160-80hz me thinks.

drphoto · « **Reply #54 on:** 28 Mar 2009, 06:00 pm »

Ok, I just got back from the 'Depot w/ supplies to make "Bob Baffles" I'm starting w/ 24" for the 12" GR driver. Now I know this is quite a bit larger than your 22" for the 15" Auggie, but I figure, I can always cut it down if needed. Now....should I put it dead center or put the woofer lower on the panel....ie: more toward the floor by a few inches, or does it matter?

I'm going to slap some panels around the existing baffle I posted to make and H or U frame (haven't decided on which) just to do some comparisons.

Even though I'm running sealed monitors rather than a full OB setup....the size of the soundstage is pretty dramatic. I'm still havin' fun, even w/ this need to change baffle size.

mcgsxr · « **Reply #55 on:** 28 Mar 2009, 06:04 pm »

I would mount the driver in the middle left to right, but lower on the baffle top to bottom.

I run mine about 1 inch off the floor - you don't need to be that drastic in placement, but understand that by mounting lower, you are reflecting more off the floor as far as I know.

By mounting them lower, if you start trimming off size of your baffle, your driver won't end up near the top!

Bob in St. Louis · « **Reply #56 on:** 28 Mar 2009, 06:24 pm »

Ditto everything Mark just said!

I would recommend keeping the driver as close to the floor as possible. An inch or so would be fine. This will give you plenty of room to trim from the top and sides as your ears suggest you should,and would help with boundary reinforcement.

I assume you got the shelf bracket legs?? Just to make your life easier, mount them tucked almost against the driver as opposed to the very outermost edges of the baffle. This way you don't have to repeatedly take them off each time you want to trim the wood.
Also, for testing purposes, I'll only use a few screws to hold the driver on. Makes it a little quicker and easier to remove the driver to trim the wood.

Bob

drphoto · « **Reply #57 on:** 28 Mar 2009, 08:01 pm »

OK, now I got me some big 'ole bob baffles! Of course, I didn't wait for a reply, and stuck the drivers right in the middle. However with the suggestion to go low, I might eventually try cutting a section off the botton and put the biggies over the old setup I had (glue/screw the big baffle right to the old one). Yeah, I used the shelf brackets, but w/ a baffle this big and the driver up high, they seem a little tipsy, so I've got shot bags on the 'foot' portion.

So....how does it sound? Well definite step forward from the original mini baffle. I've now got to go in and readjust all the variables like crossover point, phase, etc. However my inital thought was....yeah....I still need two more drivers.

However, as the photo biz had gone down the toilet, and I'm having to make do off my meager pharmacy tech salary, I've got to wait a bit to spend even a mere $300 extra.

Thanks a lot guys....this really did help.

drphoto · « **Reply #58 on:** 28 Mar 2009, 09:51 pm »

Quick update.....after some tweaking settings, this is a huge improvement. Thanks again.

Bob in St. Louis · « **Reply #59 on:** 28 Mar 2009, 10:18 pm »

Glad to hear things are improving Doctor.
So, what size are you at currently?

Bob

p.s. Maybe you could take a side job of photographing pharmaceuticals for the medical industry.
Pills would be considered 'still life', just not as romantic as flowers or fruit.