Baffle Diffraction and Full Range

Status
This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.
I am new to all of this so I have a basic diffraction question as it pertains to full range drivers.

Playing with Jeff Bagby's Diffraction simulator I started wondering if for diffraction purpose it is better to not use a tweeter. I am not sure however if this is too simplistic a model however.

I am sure that coaxial Full range drivers won't behave any better and maybe worse as the tweeter section by design is nearer the center of the baffle.

What about a Jordan or the like?
 
I think in a round about way you answered my question. Playing with the software (new fun for me) the smaller the the cone area the more problematic baffle diffraction (best I can tell anyway).

I think what you are saying is the smaller the wavelength the more baffle diffraction to deal with. I am speaking about the smaller 1-3 db undulations not the 6db rise/loss.

I guess I was wondering if you get away from some of this problem by not using a small cone?
 
It's all a set of trade offs and benefits. All or most (you ask about Jordan and the answer is yes) Full range drivers go all the way up to 20 000 or sometimes higher territory. The question is how well they get up there and with what level of linear and non linear distortions. How good or bad is the off axis response of the driver? Adding a tweeter allows to get a much better off axis response and lower distortions and because full range driver gives you a wide window where to cross, you don't necessarily need a $$$ tweeter to play clean low. But it adds up the crossover and it's own drawbacks. Coax drivers appear to resolve off axis problems at the crossover frequency. I have come across a couple of older Tannoy coaxial drivers and measured them. Quite honestly I was blown away by how low the THD were.
Diffraction depends on the size and the shape of the cabinet. You can lower it somewhat by applying fabric to a front panel as well.
 
Last edited:
It should not be related to driver size, only baffle size

dave


IIRC from playing with The Edge, smaller drivers exhibited more diffraction than larger drivers, centered at the same place on the same baffle. Maybe not dramatic enough to make a big deal about but I think I remember seeing a difference. I'd try it again to confirm but it's pretty busy with the holidays and all.
 
IIRC from playing with The Edge, smaller drivers exhibited more diffraction than larger drivers, centered at the same place on the same baffle. Maybe not dramatic enough to make a big deal about but I think I remember seeing a difference. I'd try it again to confirm but it's pretty busy with the holidays and all.
In contrary to what planet10 said, it is of course related to the cone area too. But we have to keep in mind, that the area, which will radiate high frequencies, will almost always be confined to the neighbourhood of the voice coil. This means: Simulating high frequency diffraction for wide cone areas does look good in EDGE, but it is not reality. So in real life planet10 is right again.:p
 
In contrary to what planet10 said, it is of course related to the cone area too. But we have to keep in mind, that the area, which will radiate high frequencies, will almost always be confined to the neighbourhood of the voice coil. This means: Simulating high frequency diffraction for wide cone areas does look good in EDGE, but it is not reality. So in real life planet10 is right again.:p

I actually never thought of it like this. This is good info, thanks.

On the other hand, even if hf is radiated only from the vc area there could still be a fairly substantial deviation based on coil size alone, as you seem to indicate.
 
Status
This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.