• RE: Re framing - Satie 14:26:37 10/06/16 (2)
  In Reply to: RE: Re framing posted by pictureguy on October 06, 2016 at 11:26:40

  Yes, but less important when you are using wall loading as Josh is doing as dipole cancellation is restricted on one side. .
  

  ---

  • RE: Re framing - pictureguy 15:47:20 10/06/16 (1)
    In Reply to: RE: Re framing posted by Satie on October 06, 2016 at 14:26:37

    I'm just establishing the principle. And Yes, with the panel using wall loading, that side is pretty much 'out of play'.
    The reason I ask is that I've seen Panels with 'truncated' frames (Apogee?) which I suspect varies the cancelation frequency. Advantage? Disadvantage?
    I would design such frames for my 1.6s, if I ever work up the energy to start!
    Too much is never enough
    
    

    ---

    • RE: Re framing - Satie 18:54:53 10/06/16 (0)
      In Reply to: RE: Re framing posted by pictureguy on October 06, 2016 at 15:47:20

      The trapezoid shaped frame on the Apogee is supposed to spread the baffle loading over a broader range of frequencies rather than have the one freq below which it just falls off.. Other issues are at play but I don't remember what they were. That should complement the room's bass loading and provide a more uniform bass FR - it is sort of a substitute for Magnepan's resonance freq tuning with the buttons. but operates at a different freq range to provide a lower bass emphasis vs more even response on through the midbass on maggies.
      
      I don't expect it would contribute to a maggie reframing project. .
      
      
      

      ---

Post a Followup:

This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:

Kimber Kable

---

[ Top of Page ] [ Contact Us ] [ Support/Wish List ] [ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]

---

[ General ] [ Speakers ] [ Tubes ] [ Vinyl ] [ Digital ] [ Hi-Rez ] [ Video Asylum ] [ Cables ] [ Tweaks/DIY ] [ Music ] [ Films ]

---