[Ric Schultz]

http://www.tweakaudio.com/EVS-2/speaker_pics.html

Check out the latest brace!  Done with a zigsaw.....and glued and L bracketed on. 

Ric,
Here's my second take on the second part of the brace: Adding the second part of the brace significantly deepened the bass and made it more articulate, present and punchy. The noise floor also dropped considerably with this second part--imaging, 3d soundstaging, presence, etc., are all more noticeable. 

However, the cumulative change is really what is profound, with the overall brace contributing to a much more complete sonic picture from top to bottom, with tremendously more musical information in all the usual audiophile ways. The system is now much more musically communicative, less like a system--and the bass/mid-bass is so much more a part of the overall character of the sound in my room. 

Alan


Alan is very matter of fact in his writing.  He told me he is hearing things he has never heard in the recordings before, including all kinds of mixing, overdubbing, subtle things, etc.  What I get from talking to him is that basically, he has a new speaker and a new system playing at a whole nuther level.  From muddy and confused to super crystal clear.  Like the speaker is starting and stoping on a dime, yet sounds way more real and listenable.....and also way more dynamic...so is more exciting.  He did not get this kind of sonic improvement from his latest $5000 phono stage, his $5000 Synergistic Research powercell 10 line conditioner, his exotic battery powered cables, etc, etc.!!!!!!  This is a serious upgrade in a serious audiophile system.  You would have to pay something like $10,000 for this difference!!!  Now, lets see, it was $10 for the wood, $15 for the epoxy, glue, screws and brackets and a few hours labor (way more labor for him as he has practically no tools and is not an experienced woodworker).  Some of you guys could do this in a couple of hours max.

If I were doing this from scratch, I would only have the second brace. However, it would be at least as thick as the magnet on the driver......ie; as wide as the first brace.  So, I would cut out a bunch of three quarter inch pieces of plywood and glue them all together and then put this massively thick brace on.....with epoxy to the magnets of the woofs and with glue and brackets to the frame and base.  This would be super seriously dead.  Of course, you will remember to leave a hole or slots for the woofers to vent.


This speaker was already 2.25 inches thick (2 pieces of MDF with birch plywood in center all glued together with green glue) and bolted on the bottom to an aluminum base which is sitting in some audiophile stands.  So, what was done here is basically to damp/brace the magnets and brace the baffle.  He already has his speaker baskets damped (could be done better, however).  So little done for so much sonic beautification.

I just talked to Alan and I told him what I wrote and he agreed that the sonic improvement is indeed far greater than any of those other upgraded components.  He just today listened to Joni Mitchell's Blue and said it was Jaw Dropping better than ever.   He also said it actually cost him $50 for the parts, so I exaggerated.  he he.

[Luigi]

Hi Ric

Bit of an aside here; what's the top driver of this speaker? Is it some sort of coaxial? It looks like a compression driver poking out the rear there. From the front it looks like a Geddes-type system. Yes?

New brace looks much stiffer.

[Ric Schultz]

Its a Beyma CD385ND compression driver firing through a 12 inch Geddes waveguide.  Geddes used to sell the waveguides separately...something like $400? each!!!  Xover is at 900 hz at 48db per octave using modified Behringer DCX24/96.  Two way, two Alphas running to 900hz.  Modified Hurricane amp on bass and Yamamoto 2 watter on CD.

[Ric Schultz]

Some things you need to do to get great sound on an open baffle are:

1. Super massive and dead baffle.  At least 2 inches thick....several layers best.  No MDF.....please use double refined MDF (Rangerboard, Medite, Plum Creek, etc.), great plywood or mix plywood with double refined MDF.

2. Super bracing of the baffle.  Dead braces going as far up the baffle as possible.  No ringing in braces!

3. Super dead and massive base to mount the baffle to and to mount your dead braces to....also allows you to use whatever feet you want underneath and creates more mass and weight to drive your feet into the floor, furthering the rigitity.

4. Damp the basket/frames of the drivers.....all drivers....with EAR SD40AL constrained layer damping material.  Several layers probably works best.

5. Brace/Damp the magnets on the woofers, as in the above speaker.  You do not want your magnets waving in the air!

6. All drivers should be seriously mounted to a dead baffle.  Tweeters too!  You think you are getting speed and detail by having a little planar/bullet/whatever tweeter sitting up in the air above the baffle mounted by a couple of screws?!?!?!?  No way, Jose.

7. If you can, mount the mid and tweet on their own baffle so they are not moved at all by the woofs.  This separate baffle should be just as dead and braced as the woofer baffle.  Also, you can magnet mount your midrange driver and isolate it from the baffle.  Magnet mount must be very rigid.

[sfdoddsy]

I really wish you would add 'IMHO' to some of your statements.

[Russell Dawkins]

This strikes me as an excessive, if not obsessive, amount of after-the-fact fixing.

Why not just replicate the whole thing in cast ferro-cement or some other heavy, rigid material?  While you are at it, I guess you could cast the HF horn as an integral part.

You could also choose shapes that are inherently more rigid in the first place, such as a front baffle made up of multiple layers of thin curved ply.

[Redefy Audio]

i like his spirit.

i appreciate ur approach and findings.  , as i too have similar setup.

cheers
henry

[studiotech]

I too, don't really understand all of your tweaking and optimizing and overbuilt baffles(can't fault you there  ) but then using cheap old Alpha drivers.  These things are nowhere state-of-art.  After all, you can't polish a turd.  Why not use a better quality driver that doesn't have a cheap ass frame?

I also feel that you are pushing the woofers to their limits.  Alphas do not sound their best much over a few hundred hertz.

Greg

[Ric Schultz]

The whole idea of these posts was to educate you on the finer subleties of tweaking.  This is not my speaker.  This is a modified Emerald Physics speaker that a friend owns.  I have been after him for over a year to brace the speaker and magnets.  Now, you all know how important it is.  The fact that the woofers are not state of the art is not the point.  The point is that people all over the world take some OK to great drivers and mount them on a simple resonant panel and think they have good sound.  The fact is...you can take Alpha woofers and damp them and mount them super and you probably have better sound than using really expensive drivers mounted on a three quarter inch piece of MDF with no bracing and damping.  Anotherwords, no matter what price range of speaker components you are using, you cannot get great sound without great construction......period.   If you can only afford a couple of Alphas and a B200 you more than likely can afford a few sheets of double refined MDF and a sheet of birch plywood for the bracing.  If you make the baffle, base, bracing and magnet damping well, you will end up with a speaker that out performs speakers that cost an arm and a leg.

The person that owns the speakers already has a lot of money and time in them.  He has no woodworking skills and he does not have my speaker knowledge.  He has just done the things I have told him to improve the speakers.

If I were him and I wanted to use the Geddes waveguide (no longer available) with the Beyma CD and wanted to make a state of the art speaker with it then I would have it and a couple of 5 or 6 inch drivers on a separate stand alone open baffle.  A second separate baffle or H frame would contain 4 of Danny Richies 12 inch open baffle servo woofs, crossed over at around 150hz or so.  The whole thing tri-amped, using the modded Behringer with the Yamamoto amp on the waveguide/CD crossed at 900Hz, the Hurricane amp on the 2 fives or sixes....and of course, the woofs would have two servo amps per channel.  The midwoofs would run from 150 to 900 hz.  Everything would be damped and braced to the max, including damping of the midranges magnets and all the woofers magnets.  This would cost about $3500 to implement over what he has now and it would take over his room.  I would do it, if I were him, but I am mostly sure he won't.  Man, getting someone to damp something with $50 worth of materials that completely transforms his system is hard enough....he he.

Later this year I am going to build a speaker for myself similar to the above description.  It will have 4 12 inch servo open baffle woofs per channel and another open baffle panel with 6 BG-10s and a row of planar or ribbon tweets next to it.  It will be implemented as I describe.  Very dead and serious. 

As far as excessive amount of tweaking......come on....you have not seen obsessive, if you think this is something.....this is what I describe....a funky brace.   This is the point.....a funky brace can transform your speaker.

Everything is always someones opinion.  Why would we need to keep stating that?  However, can you find any scientific reason why any the things I mention would not work?  I have done everything (except the magnet damping, now done by Alan) and can testify (can I get a witness? he he) that you get a sonic improvement with each one.  This is not guesswork.  This is why I posted this bracing thang.....to let you get the information directly from someone who did something and listened. 

But if you want to make it "your truth" then you need to try these things and listen for yourself.  Then you will know.  Real experiential knowledge is the only truth.

If one person does one thing I describe and gets better sound (besides Alan) then I have helped one more person.  I offer all my knowledge for your benefit.  You can criticize or try it and see if it works......the option is yours.  I personally am very excited about open baffle speakers and their potential.  Now, someone with little woodworking skill and just a few tools but a serious desire for great sound, can get sound that we only dreamed of years ago.

Obviously, I am a perfectionist.  Why not make the best thing you can (sonically)?  I read all over the internet and gather information and then I try it and see if it works.  The joy and ecstasy from hearing music reproduced well is an amazing thing.  I wish you all amazing sound and amazing joy (the joy exists every second.....however, you have to tweak to get the sound).

[Russell Dawkins]

Speaking of perfectionism, Ric, whatever happened to those recordings you were going to make available a few years ago, around November/December 2007? Did that ever materialize?

http://www.audiocircle.com/index.php?topic=43473.0

[cab]

Speaking of perfectionism, Ric, whatever happened to __________ you were going to make available _____________? Did that ever materialize?

http://www.audiocircle.com/index.php?topic=43473.0

Insert missing hyped product in blank........

[Danny Richie]

Hey Davey,

Some time back when everyone was talking about these things I looked into them. I don't know that I can put a lot of faith into the theory for why they are having an effect, but they do have an effect.

I made about a dozen of them using different materials, types of wire, types of dielectric material, loop sizes etc.

Using my Super-V's (which place the upper driver in open baffle) made it real easy to try them on the tweeter, woofer, and then also at the speaker terminals and amp.

Some had a little positive effect with the reproduction of a few instruments, and some of them had negative effects on the sound stage size or added ringing. I wound up not using any of them in my system.

Without question though, there were clear changes made with them in and out of the system.

I did not see the need to investigate the cause of the effects. Maybe another day...

So if you haven't tried them yourself, don't be so quick to criticize.

[Davey]

Danny,

If we approach everything from a "if you haven't tried them, you can't comment" point of view, where does that leave us? 

Subjective evaluation is fine, but (conveniently) it places the evaluator outside any discussion realm where their opinions can be questioned.  It's an easy out.
I have no problem with users posting subjective evaluations and claiming this-or-that and not knowing why.  The problem arises when said posters expect to have their comments taken just as seriously as posters who have real, objective data to back up there subjective evaluations.

Do you see the difference in premise?

Cheers,

Dave.

Just for the record:  I removed my response myself.....John didn't remove it.

[Danny Richie]

Davey,

Ric added some bracing to his open baffle speaker to help stabilize the front baffle. It makes the whole thing more rigid. At least we can presume to think that it stabilized it and made it more rigid. Ric didn't prove that it did. 

Ric revealed a tweak and reported subjective results. That's great!

Funny thing is that I have done the same thing. I added more supports to open baffle speakers that I was testing with and noticed the same subjective effects.

You know, if a bunch of people all try it to and they too notice the same subjective effects, then one might conclude that just maybe there is something good going on with that tweak. Some might even be inclined to try it themselves.

The same holds true for the loop of wire on the speaker terminals.

This whole community is about sharing things like that.

My speakers sound good (example). My opinion. It's subjective. Others can try them if they like and maybe they will agree.

One must not prove EVERYTHING with objective data. This hobby is about listening to music.

And thank you Ric for sharing a great tweak. I have tried it too and I agree with your findings, and I'd recommend others try it too.

[Davey]

Danny,

Sorry, I got lost.    So do you believe in at least making the attempt to objectively measure subjective effects, or are you comfortable just accepting them?  (I think I know the answer in your case, but I'm sort of asking the larger group as well.)  Myself, I haven't given up on the idea/possibility that objective measurements can (ultimately) be used to explain all subjective aspects of audio reproduction.  Maybe I'm being naive?

Anyways, back to (kind of) the original topic.  You know there's a theory, at least in some circles, that damping/bracing baffle/structure vibrations on dipole systems is a bad thing to do.  The theory is that "providing a path for vibrations to drain away" from the transducers is preferable to "containing them within the transducer structure" and letting them "color" the original information.
Since dipole baffle vibrations also radiate with dipole behavior these vibrations are "beneficial."  They would laugh at using MDF, or other materials with high internal damping, to construct baffles.  Hardwoods, or other materials, that would send an attached accelerometer to never-never-land are the preferred construction materials.

It's a theory.    There is much subjective evaluation supporting this "funky" scheme. 

Cheers,

Dave.

[Danny Richie]

Sorry, I got lost.    So do you believe in at least making the attempt to objectively measure subjective effects, or are you comfortable just accepting them?  (I think I know the answer in your case, but I'm sort of asking the larger group as well.)  Myself, I haven't given up on the idea/possibility that objective measurements can (ultimately) be used to explain all subjective aspects of audio reproduction.  Maybe I'm being naive?

When something sounds different I always want to know why. If I know why then I can build on it.

However, I must except that there is a lot of things that make a clear subjective difference that I just don't have the means to measure.

Anyways, back to (kind of) the original topic.  You know there's a theory, at least in some circles, that damping/bracing baffle/structure vibrations on dipole systems is a bad thing to do.  The theory is that "providing a path for vibrations to drain away" from the transducers is preferable to "containing them within the transducer structure" and letting them "color" the original information.

That's quite a theory. My experience suggest to me otherwise.

Since dipole baffle vibrations also radiate with dipole behavior these vibrations are "beneficial."  They would laugh at using MDF, or other materials with high internal damping, to construct baffles.  Hardwoods, or other materials, that would send an attached accelerometer to never-never-land are the preferred construction materials.

Sounds to me like they are getting away from reproducing the music and are producing a variation of their own.

[scorpion]

Well Danny, have a look at: http://methe-family.de/sabacello.htm

Nothing like you ever experienced, I suppose

/Erling

[Danny Richie]

Well Danny, have a look at: http://methe-family.de/sabacello.htm

Nothing like you ever experienced, I suppose

/Erling

Wow, no kidding. The name that gave it really fits. That's like mounting a driver into a Cello.

[doug s.]

my instincts lean towards eliminating wibrations, but there are speakers that take a different tack.  i have never heard them, but i would sure like to.

http://www.ocellia.com/
http://www.6moons.com/audioreviews/ocellia3/ocellia.html

http://www.acoustic-dimension.com/Auditorium-23/auditorium-23-main-page.htm
http://www.acoustic-dimension.com/Auditorium-23/auditorium-23-Provence-page.htm
http://www.acoustic-dimension.com/Auditorium-23/auditorium-23-RA605-page.htm
http://www.acoustic-dimension.com/Auditorium-23/auditorium-23-Solovox-page.htm

http://www.sorasound.com/products/musical-affairs/

http://www.us.onkyo.com/model.cfm?class=Speaker&m=D-TK10

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:3MjBTMwN25EJ:www.lovingtonhorn.co.uk/+lovington+speakers&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=lv&source=www.google.lv

http://www.positive-feedback.com/Issue36/tonian_labs.htm

http://www.6moons.com/audioreviews/micropure/kotaro.html
http://www.enjoythemusic.com/magazine/equipment/0807/micropure_kotaro.htm

http://www.dejavuaudio.com/SPEAKERS-AUDIONOTE-AN-E.HTM
http://www.dejavuaudio.com/SPEAKERS-AUDIONOTE-AN-K.HTM

http://www.6moons.com/industryfeatures/rondo/rondo.html

doug s.

[scorpion]

I suppose no one can be aginst bracing of baffles. However dipole speakers do not exibit such forces as boxed speakers do on their baffles.
It is very easy to sence once you have an OB and play it.

To me only when I put up my AE IB15 I sensed any strong impulse on the baffle. The Eminence Alpha15s never seemed to put out that kind of force.
I play the IB15s in an 28 mm thick all three birch baffle with what I think a good result, at least the sound it give away says so. But there are forces and vibrations in the baffle at low frequencies and really high pressures.

But the rest of my Blindstone: http://www.audiocircle.com/index.php?topic=88075.msg890615#msg890615 with 18sounds 6ND430 and B&G Neo3 on an 18 mm spruce baffle seemingly doesn't engage it to any extent worth talking of.

I am sorry of the Methe link all in German, but the speaker is supposed to  be a resonant housing by itself based on another famous design. In the beginning it had an all open back like some kind of OB speaker.

/Erling