Btw, a great seller, Tyson, is on US Audio and AudioCircle (Trading Post and Spatial Audio Circle) selling his X3s in immaculate condition. Great speakers.
Open Baffle Experience
Much has been said about open baffles, including an epic website by the late, great Dr. Linkwitz but I've only heard them really once, playing absolutely garbage music (thanks Pure Audio!) at a hotel.
I'm talking here about dynamic drivers in single baffles without enclosures, not ESLs or Magneplanar type systems.
I'm curious who has had them, and who kept them or went back to "conventional" boxes?
I'm not really looking to buy speakers, but I did start thinking about this because of a kit over at Madisound made with high quality drivers.
157 responses Add your response
Sorry, I discovered this discussion as it is wrapping up. As others have said - I came to open baffle speakers (Emerald Physics 2.8's) through having first many closed box speakers - Linn, B & W, Audio Physics - and also a 12 year stint with Magnepan 3.6's. What I like about these boxless dynamic speakers is the way they - in my room, my system, my ears - seem to embody the best parts of the other two technologies, without feeling (as much) the natural limitations of either. Of course, I cannot own the box speakers where wonderfully heroic technology can also eliminate those restrictions (Wilson, Magico). I haven't spent much time with the more affordable speakers that seem to work with those factors, instead of conquering them (like Harbeth). The Emerald Physics are more open and airy than my previous box speakers, and more punchy and dynamic than my Maggies were. They are not perfect, but it I am glad I came upon this funny piece of the loudspeaker landscape. I wish others could, too.
|
Obituary. I heard his open baffle speakers ( https://www.linkwitzlab.com/LX521/LX521_4.htm ) at the Seattle audio festival last summer and was impressed.
|
Of course I can say that. It's a well recorded video and if you have a half way decent computer rig, you can easily hear the possibilities. He's using just a laptop feeding into an Denafrips Aries 2 DAC into a Naim Supernait 3 integrated with no power conditioning, footers, room treatment, etc. and the sound it's producing is great. But, to each their own as the saying goes. All the best, |
There are open baffle speakers and then there are open baffles speakers. One can’t judge all by listening to one, or even a few. Case in point: I came across the video on a preview of a review over at 6moons of Qualio Audio IQ open baffle (for the mids and highs) and I must say, if I had the room, I’d get them. Now, his room isn’t treated and the head of Qualio admits as much, saying he’s gonna get some carpets and room treatment but the music I hear is astonishingly good, despite the echos. Here’s the video:
All the best, Check out the simple system he’s using as well. I feel this system destroys a lot of audio shibboleths that we all adhere to. |
@jaytor - yes I meant the NX-Studios. Thanks for the information. |
@dz13 - I assume you are referring to the NX-Studios. I would say that, within their limitations, they are exceptional speakers. The NEO3 is one of the best drivers for upper midrange and treble that I’ve heard, particularly in an open baffle implementation. These speakers won’t play exceptionally loud, and they don’t go very deep (maybe 65Hz) so if you are looking for deep bass, they need to be used with a sub. They also aren’t as efficient as GR-Research’s other models, but that’s true for most stand mount speakers. I use them in my bedroom system (approximately 13’ x 15’) driven by a Purifi amp (DIY) and don’t play them particularly loud. With the jazz and folk music I typically play on this system, they are excellent - far better detail and soundstaging than the Totem Mani-2s I was using, with a sweeter sounding midrange, although the Mani-2s handily beat them in bass extension. |
I have Spatial Audio Lab's X5s and I love them. They are easy to drive and I haven't even done anything really to set them up. They sound even better when the equipment behind them is improved (duh).
@jaytor do you think the GR Encore Studios are worth the price? They look interesting but are kind of pricey when there are a lot of good speakers below $2,000.
@soix I'm thinking you heard the X4s. Right now Spatial Audio Labs is only producing 2 models, the X4s and the M4s. I think this is due to parts shortages. The main difference between the X4s and the X5s is that the X4s have a passive woofer whereas the X5s' woofer is active with a hypex amp built on. I do think the X4s (newer) may have newer speakers although I don't know how much a difference that is. |
Since both "russbutton"and "eric_squires" both mentioned the active crossover in Linkwitz designs, I thought I might elaborate on my last post. I was fortunate to be good friends with one of Linkwitz's collaborators on the "Orion" loudspeaker. He was nearby and I frequently visited as he tinkered on improvements to the design. Siegfried had signed off years prior after deciding that he'd taken the "Orion" to its limits but my friend continued to work painstakingly at them nontheless. On every occasion the work centered on changes in the active crossover. We all are familiar with companies that promote their careful matching of components during the build and how significantly that care can impact performance. Well --- he had a substantial stock of components and hand-matched them before putting them into service, hence the values were as close to perfect as possible. Every change was followed up by long, careful listening sessions. Most changes were subtle and a few were remarkable. I'm positive that my active crossover was altered/improved at least a dozen times over probably a 5 year period, so I can't honestly say that I have a standard Orion crossover at this point. He was Linkwitz's builder of most of the crossovers for the Orion and as such, was intimately informed of its performance specifications. As "russbutton" also stated, the Orions are my "forever" loudspeaker as well. |
LXmini plans are available here:
Phoenix open-baffle sub plans are free from Linkwitz Labs website, here: https://www.linkwitzlab.com/woofer.htm The specific Phoenix[alt] version I built is here: https://www.linkwitzlab.com/woofer3.htm I made a slight alteration (think it was 1/4" taller?) to fit built-in Hypex FA-123 (could also fit wider FA-253), and you can build a pair of the subs with one (4’x8’) sheet of wood.
While searching for that file, I also found the in-room measurement (used REW and Omni Mic)...
|
@mwatsme could you send me link to plans for your speakers? I think this is exactly what I am looking for in my listening space. |
I had too much experience with open baffle speakers, i had Diesis Audio open baffles before and they are the bes t op's imo, open baffle is very hard to find perfect place to set the speakers and everybody has an opinion like open baffle is easy to drive you need just some watts for them that the common mistake and wrong , open baffles plays all the room and you must drive them with good amplifiers produces good current except watts... |
I used to think as you do about "needing" sub/s. I have Emerald Physics 3.4s OB 12" woofer with 1" concentric tweeters. Since owning them for almost 2 years now I felt the need for sub/s, BUT, I did 2 things recently that flipped my script 1. I upgraded all my cables with Ali-Express Odin 2 and Odin Gold which is HUGE in regards to everything, but especially to lows -mids 2. I’ve had a Solid Steel vertical rack for 15+ years. Just this week I came across a local deal and bought a solid maple table top (5 x 2 x 2"), and I am FLOORED what it does for everything, but especially the bass hth
|
Linkwitz was a stalwart proponent of active speaker designs long before DSP crossovers and equalizers were even available. He also designed his speakers for excellent on and off axis response, an art lost in many high end makers today. I wanted to talk in this thread about the general limitations and benefits of open baffle designs and how they compare to boxes or even other line sources. The LX521 is a standout in my mind because it is a 4 way, allowing for fine tuning of the horizontal polar response, but having to use 4 channels per speaker is a big no for me. 😁 What do you think the active part of Linkwitz designs brings others lack? |
This whole discussion has all been about open baffle merits, referencing the Linkwitz designs. What’s been totally missing from the discussion is the merits of active amplification. All of the Linkwitz designs use active amplification. Very few, if any of the various muy expensivo hi-end designs use active crossovers. In many ways, active crossovers are as significant to the Linkwitz designs as is open baffle. |
But, that’s his specialty and sole reason for being. My guess is he isn’t allowed to leave his padded room enough to get out and actually listen to anything. Also notice he never discloses what’s in his system. Hmmm.
|
For those of us who have owned both box and open baffle speakers at high price if that means something to Kenjit . Not just listened to them at an audio show Open Baffel do a much better job at delivering and a sonic image. Kenjit you should expand you narrow experience before you make unqualified statements.
|
“Unless you are prepared to use a sub.....Open baffle are not a good Idea....I have 2 pair and rarely hook them up anymore.” In my rooms, dual subs (at minimum) are a given… before I even decide which mains I’m going to use. If all your running is a pair of left and right mains in an average room (with four walls, a floor and a ceiling) and the addition of a couple subs makes the overall bass response worse…then I’d say you most certainly have either the gain or crossover frequency (or both) of the subs set too high. This is only if your in a typical room and therefore have the expected boundary interference. If you move outside, or even half outside the rules (physics) change Obviously the degree of room treatments can change the game somewhat, but I still always use both (multiple subs and room treatments) for that clean, tight punchy bass goodness…
|
I believe the best open baffle experience is a single full-range driver accompanied by a superior active sub woofer unit. This provides the best of all worlds: a cohesive sound for the majority of the musical content, and a proper power/driver size for the really low frequencies. It's the right tool for each job, and provides the greatest flexibility in choosing the amplification scheme you prefer. |
@soix They were almost certainly the X4's, which is what Spatial has been using recently at shows, coupled with the LTA ZOTL40+ integrated. Earlier in this thread I posted a video of that same combo at the Pacific show. Because of supply issues and other factors, Spatial's offering is now down to just two models, the M4 and the X4. |
I own a pair of Linkwitz "Orion" loudspeakers mated with Burmester amps, pre and DAC and can't imagine a more open and natural sounding speaker. If bass is on the recording it is heard in full bloom. The very complex crossover network is crucial to their performance. Two Peerless woofers, SEAS mid and tweeters in each cabinet fill my "Great Room" with glorious sound. Mine have the rear-facing tweeter as well and placing them about 3' from the wall produces a perfect soundstage. I owned Linkwitz's "Audio Artistry" Dvorak for years and compared them with the Orions prior to selling the Dvoraks. I could happily live with either. I was skeptical about open baffle speakers, too, but am now a true believer. YMMV |
I respectfully disagree. I own the Spatial audio x5 open baffle and their woofers are powered and include DSP and a level control. I also have two rel subwoofers and have tried using them with the X5s and they detracted not improved the bass. The bass is much better without the rels. I'm getting flat response to 32 Hz without the subwoofers and very good extension to the upper 20s according my stereophile test cd. Sure I have heard open baffles with weaker bass but it depends on the open baffle speaker design and woofer implementation. The X5s are a little different in that the bass is powered and the output controlled by the end user but this just adds flexibility. In my opinion open baffle bass is faster and more detailed than a boxed subwoofer bass but again that is just my opinion after having lived with and heard many very good box floorstanders and subwoofers such as the Rel. |
I’ve never had the pleasure to hear open baffle speakers, but I’ve seen plenty of reviewers saying they loved them. Even Steve Guttenberg, for "entertainment value" has switched from his beloved semi-permanent on loan Klipsch Cornwalls to PureAudioProject open baffle speakers. |
@reimarc Those 521's are beautiful. I've never heard them, but have a spare 4x10HD and 12-ch amp and intend to build them one day. |
This is akin to a butcher having a disagreement with a surgeon about how best to remove a tumor. Substitute “knowledge” for “character” and you might have something here. Jeez. |
GR-Research offers a model called the NX-Studio which are designed for applications where the speaker can't be placed at least 3ft from the front wall. These are a two-way design with an "open-baffle" planar-magnetic tweeter and sealed woofer. The cabinet has an angled panel behind the tweeter which deflects the back wave up through an open top, so the rear wave bounces up and off the ceiling. These aren't quite the same as a full open baffle, but in a smaller room, they project a nice spacious soundstage. They don't play super low so a sub is required if you want deep bass. I have a pair in my bedroom system (13' x 15') and they sound very nice with an open-airy sound.
|
These kind of "discussions" always end with some people showing their ignorance about how the real world works. "A four-dimensional space ( 4D) is a mathematical extension of the concept of three-dimensional or 3D space. Three-dimensional space is the simplest possible abstraction of the observation that one only needs three numbers, called dimensions, to describe the sizes or locations of objects in the everyday world." kenjit- Enclosed speaker radiation into space is compromised by baffle step. Dipole speakers by design are much less susceptible to Schroeder frequency effects because they essentially remove the floor, ceiling and wall interactions adjacent to the baffle. I was present (an exhibitor) at RMAF when Danny Richie debuted his open baffle speakers. Pete Belasco has a song called "Deeper" that has 808-drop effects in the mix. Their center frequency is 21Hz. Those drops caused everyone in the room to look around in disbelief as their pants legs flapped from the LF wavefront transients and bass that was tactile as much or more than auditory. The lows hitting the chest was startling! I have heard the GR speakers that Jaytor has. They are, as he says, stunning in the way they communicate (and this is important) EVERY GENRE OF MUSIC! As a retired recording engineer with more than a little street cred I know what instruments are supposed to sound like: ie., a double bass or contrabassoon radiates into 4 pi space. So does the human voice... My friend's Boulder driven Magico M3 are great at reproducing pop, electronica, ambient, etc. They do not reproduce low frequencies produced by acoustic instruments as well as the GR open baffle speakers. Obviously, you have never heard a properly designed open baffle speaker. There are a lot of so-so designs that frankly suck, just like there are box speakers. As another opined - people without real world exposure that make statements about things outside of their universe of experience are speaking out of their ass. Just sayin'. Over and out >>>>>>>>>>>>>> |
When I first set up my open baffle system, I used GIK absorber/diffusers behind the speakers on the front wall. These are absorption panels with a plate mounted on the front with various holes. They are supposed to absorb low frequencies and scatter higher frequencies. I found that these deadened the sound too much and reduced the depth and airiness of the soundstage. I replaced these with Quadratic Residue Diffusors from ATS and these made a huge difference for the better.
|
| Post removed |
@audiokinesis thanks |
@kenjit Im guessing dipoles can be measured in half space or an anechoic chamber (more or less like most other loudspeaker topologies.) But measurements are all only generalizations of response anyway, without the boundary interference of the things we all listen within called "rooms". For me its how the loudspeaker makes one "feel" while listening...not what the polar response might be. Lets ask ASR lolololol Lets ask |
@johnnycamp5, here are four reasons why I think the spectral balance of the reflections should be similar to the spectral balance of the direct sound: 1. Timbre is more natural when the reflections fully support the first-arrival sound. Where the reflections are spectrally different from the first-arrival sound, they can skew the perceived timbre towards that difference. Also a rich and spectrally-correct reflection field inherently supports good timbre (as long as it decays neither too quickly nor too slowly), as is demonstrated by the acoustics of a good recital hall or concert hall. 2. If there is a significant spectral discrepancy between the first-arrival sound and the reflections, the ear/brain system has to work harder to correct identify the reflections. This is because the ear/brain system looks at the harmonic structure of all incoming sounds to determine whether they are reflections or new sounds. The more the overtones in a reflection differ from those in the direct sound, the harder the ear/brain system has to work to correctly classify them as reflections, and over time the additional "CPU usage" can result in listening fatigue. 3. The effective in-room signal-to-noise ratio can be degraded if the overtones in the reflections become inaudible before the rest of the spectrum does. (This can also be caused by excessive in-room absorption attenuating the short wavelengths moreso than the longer ones.) Once the overtones in the decaying reflections have become too weak for the ear/brain system to recognize them as reflections, they cease to be "signal" and become "noise". The net result is a raising of the effective in-room noise floor and a corresponding reduction in dynamic contrast and liveliness. 4. Reflections are the carriers for the reverberation tails on the recording, which in turn convey the venue ambience. If the overtones in the reflections are too weak, the venue acoustics are no longer effectively presented and the "small room signature" of the playback room is more likely to be perceptually dominant. @soix, I don’t think kenjit has raised a legitimate issue so I won’t waste everyone’s time by replying. |
