|
|
|||||||
| Home | Forums | Rules | Articles | Store | Gallery | Blogs | Register | Donations | FAQ | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read | Search |
|
Please consider donating to help us continue to serve you.
Ads on/off / Custom Title / More PMs / More album space / Advanced printing & mass image saving |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#1 |
|
diyAudio Member
Join Date: Nov 2009
|
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? |
|
|
|
|
#2 |
|
frugal-phile(tm)
diyAudio Moderator
|
The newest Mark Audios, and the Fostex FF85k definitely go into HF territory previously reserved for tweeters.
dave
__________________
community sites t-linespeakers.org, frugal-horn.com ........ commercial site planet10-HiFi p10-hifi forum here at diyA |
|
|
|
|
#3 |
|
diyAudio Member
Join Date: Nov 2009
|
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? |
|
|
|
|
#4 |
|
diyAudio Member
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Maine
|
Someone please combine the F120A or F200A with the FF85K and report back! I'm really wanting to try it.
__________________
I must confess my favorite music is that made by the Rolls Royce Merlin. |
|
|
|
|
#5 | |
|
frugal-phile(tm)
diyAudio Moderator
|
Quote:
dave
__________________
community sites t-linespeakers.org, frugal-horn.com ........ commercial site planet10-HiFi p10-hifi forum here at diyA |
|
|
|
|
|
#6 |
|
diyAudio Member
Join Date: Nov 2009
|
Thanks Dave! I was just about to agree with you when I thought of this.
Think if a circular baffle. Put a point source in the middle. Bad. equidistant to all sides. Now think of the limit the point source grows to the size of the baffle. No more diffraction. |
|
|
|
|
#7 |
|
frugal-phile(tm)
diyAudio Moderator
|
You still have diffraction. The bafflestep diffraction is the same. Edge diffraction will likely differ with the driver's dispersion characteristics.
dave
__________________
community sites t-linespeakers.org, frugal-horn.com ........ commercial site planet10-HiFi p10-hifi forum here at diyA |
|
|
|
|
#8 |
|
diyAudio Member
|
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 by R-Carpenter; 24th December 2009 at 03:51 AM. |
|
|
|
|
#9 |
|
diyAudio Member
Join Date: Nov 2009
|
Thanks Guys! I had been wondering why people don't apply some sort of damping to the baffle... I guess no matter there will be a freq at which the damping is not useful.
Again thank you guys - Dave. |
|
|
|
|
#10 |
|
diyAudio Member
Join Date: May 2006
|
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. |
|
|
| Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
|
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| Full Range Open Baffle and 5W triode | pforeman | Full Range | 6 | 12th August 2009 01:18 AM |
| Building full range open baffle? | Glowbug | Full Range | 27 | 22nd January 2007 10:15 PM |
| For Full Range With Subs -- Sealed Box Vs Open Baffle ? | DrDeville | Full Range | 4 | 21st January 2007 05:26 PM |
| full range (open baffle) | then_dude | Full Range | 15 | 9th March 2004 02:58 PM |
| is two full range drivers in one baffle a problem? | bbaker6212 | Multi-Way | 40 | 26th January 2003 12:05 PM |
| New To Site? | Need Help? |
| Page generated in 0.11006 seconds (83.45% PHP - 16.55% MySQL) with 10 queries |