[oz_audio_todd]

Hey Danny, Why 8" for the width of most of ur boxes, why not 6 or 7 or 9? Isnt a baffle that is less wide supposed to be good for imaging?
Ta

[Danny Richie]

The outside frame on my 5.25" woofers is 6.25". So if the baffle width is 8" and has a 3/4" round over on the corners then that leaves a 1/8" space between the outer edge of the woofer and where it starts to roll.

[Bonk]

On a related note ,
I've often wondered about a no baffle or "zero" baffle design ?

Would the drivers themselves then be the "baffle" and effect the freq. response ?
Cabinet building and design would be a challenge , but I wonder if such a design would net any significant benefits over a traditional box cabinet/baffle ?

[oz_audio_todd]

Hey Danny, cool easy answer, thanks 
Does that mean there is no advantage to larger roundovers?
Also, is there any chance that may be some day u might post the various dimensions of ur drivers (diameter of frame, mounting hole, screw holes, depth of mags, height above baffle etc?)
Hey Bonk, do ur drivers have magnets on them that would actually fit between the sides of those enclosures?
Thanks guys   

[Danny Richie]

I've often wondered about a no baffle or "zero" baffle design ?

There are benefits to a minimum baffle size. The tricky part is making it. And it does effect the response. It pushes the baffle step loss to a higher frequency. It then needs to be compensated for just like any other design.

Does that mean there is no advantage to larger roundovers?

If the baffle must be wider than it needs to be for the consideration of lower frequency drivers then a larger round over will be good. Better yet though would be a smaller baffle.

Also, is there any chance that may be some day u might post the various dimensions of ur drivers (diameter of frame, mounting hole, screw holes, depth of mags, height above baffle etc?)

I think that there is a good chance of that.