The REAL Reason Why Open Baffle Sounds Better Than Box Speakers

Comments · 348

• IB

  @IBuildIt · 2 years ago · pinned

  READ ME! <br>My opinion, after thinking on it long and hard and listening to my own open baffle speakers for 2 years is that the main difference is the midrange presentation. <br>The open mid projects the sound back out of phase with the front output and reflects off the wall behind the speaker. It then combines (largely in phase) with the front output and changes what you&apos;d get from the front firing driver. <br>So, in a boxed speaker you only get that front firing sound, while the dipole gives you that PLUS the reflected back firing output as well. That changes the character of the sound and gives open baffle its distinctive sound quality. <br>Is is perfectly accurate? No, obviously not, but that really doesn&apos;t matter. You either like it or you don&apos;t, and that&apos;s what&apos;s important. <br>Now I will say that unless you&apos;ve actually tried listening to a well designed pair of open baffle speakers, you can&apos;t have an opinion either way. I think most who do start listening to OB don&apos;t go back to boxed speakers. At least not willingly - maybe their situation changed and they need to listen in closer quarters where the speakers must be too close to the front wall to realize the benefits of OB. <br>I used the term ethereal to describe the sound difference because it&apos;s the word that came to mind, but maybe a better way to describe the OB is to say more expansive. As in it projects a bigger sonic presentation, but retains pinpoint imaging and immersive soundstage. <br> <br>In my latest OB design: <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PuQhntQwjpM">https://youtu.be/PuQhntQwjpM </a><br>I focused on the midrange driver with these conclusions in mind. The bass is omnidirectional for all speaker types, and the tweeter doesn&apos;t carry enough of the music spectrum (there&apos;s very little content above 10KHz in most music) to warrant making it rear firing as well. Whereas the mid carries the bulk of what serious listeners are looking for in a refined and engaging listening experience. My design lets the high efficiency mid play a wide range of the audio spectrum and is run through a 1st order bandpass filter to extend that coverage down into the low midrange and up into the treble.

  39

• IB

  @IBuildItHome · 2 years ago

  “Great minds discuss ideas. Average minds discuss events. Small minds discuss people.” <br>― Henry Thomas Buckle

  25

• JO

  @JoeJ-8282 · 2 years ago

  Hmm, I&apos;ll have to try a few open baffle design speakers myself then, because by what you&apos;re describing, it sounds like I would really like their sound presentation especially with already &quot;ethereal&quot; sounding music like a band called &quot;Hooverphonic&quot;, of which I absolutely LOVE, and their first two albums especially would probably be absolutely spine tinglingly awesome on good open baffle speakers! (Their albums &quot;A New Stereophonic Sound Spectacular&quot; and &quot;Blue Wonder Power Milk&quot;)

  4

• AN

  @andrew1977au · 2 years ago

  I&apos;ve got a set of mirage om12&apos;s, listening to you explain how the sound is more full I can relate, the sound is beautiful compared to a normal boxed speaker

  4

• MI

  @mikebeacom4883 · 2 years ago

  Thanks for the di-pole discussion. It reminded me of the properties of a bi-directional mic, and gave me a better way of thinking about open baffle speakers

  5

• BR

  @BRATWURST1 · 1 year ago

  One of the advatages of dipoles over box speakers is that due to the cancellation effects they don`t excite floor to ceiling and side wall to side wall room resonant modes.

  3

• BA

  @bartvanransbeeck1341 · 1 year ago

  In blind speakertest, most people prefered open baffle type like magnepan , quad.....because at that time there was no papercone open baffle speakers yet

  3

• I-

  @I-Have-Fire · 1 year ago

  <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VLsbr_msVBA&amp;t=521">8:41</a> &nbsp; Ethereal is exactly the right word. &nbsp;The sound is in the air…everywhere.

  2

• JO

  @johnorourke1636 · 1 year ago

  I’m really enjoying your videos. &nbsp;I experimented with open baffles about 30 years ago after reading about them in a British magazine. &nbsp;I got some great results even using some pretty modest parts. &nbsp;You have fired up my enthusiasm and I might just build some again.

  1

• PA

  @paulhirst3548 · 2 years ago

  I really enjoy a large soundstage and good imaging. &nbsp;For me, my OB speakers excel even in a small room.

  16

• ST

  @stackoverflow8260 · 2 years ago

  John, more than halfway into the video, you&apos;re reminding me of Bose 901s, not accurate but ethereal provided you use the EQ and an amp that can withstand sustained 15db to 25db EQ boost in treble and presence.

  2

• RI

  @richardtheweaver4891 · 2 years ago

  I used to have Bose 901s. Trapezoidal, point to back, four drivers on each back plane and one in front. Lots of similar theories are used in OB, such as external tuning:<br><br>901s were designed so their rear point is 18” in front of the wall. If you build OB you should fiddle with angles and distances, along with wall shapes: a corner or shallow convex “v” might be fun.<br><br>Bose said that multiple speakers can’t resonate at the same frequency. I don’t know how much of that is physics and how much is engineering.<br><br>I like the ring-of-midranges look. Perhaps add a short tube to the back of each driver and put two speakers back to back. Six double-coned speakers will ease and broaden. Twin baffles allow for great off axis listening.<br>All together, you’ll have all sorts of levers to adjust to get the sound right.<br><br>I would keep the subwoofer separate. The above setup will lower the optimal crossover frequency.<br><br>The baffle can be circular, but scalloping can direct and adjust response while giving the speaker a more flower-like look.<br><br>Thumbs up

  3