|
|||||||
| 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 Moderator Emeritus
|
I used Diffraction & Boundary Simulator 1.20.
First off I calculated the golden ratio position in my open baffle and did a sim. Then I used the NoBox plan. i.e. 90cm from floor and center of the baffle. The result of the simulations is attached. Driver is Visaton B200. I noticed that there was a dip around 1kHz with the "nobox" placement and a bump before. The Golden Ratio graph looks less ragged. Last edited by Bas Horneman; 12th February 2013 at 02:46 PM. |
|
|
|
#2 |
|
diyAudio Moderator Emeritus
|
Bump.
Verstuurd van mijn GT-N7000 met Tapatalk |
|
|
|
#3 |
|
diyAudio Member
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: UK
|
Short answer: it depends. Technically an offset is usually preferable (although golden ratio is a bit of a myth in some ways). However, you have to factor room response into these things, which usually screw things up below ~300Hz, and the polar response of the drive unit. The B200 has a rapidly narrowing power response as frequency increases, & while this has it's obvious drawbacks, it does tend to render it a little less vulnerable to some (some) baffle effects.
|
|
|
|
#4 |
|
diyAudio Moderator Emeritus
|
Thanks Scottmoose. I'm aware of the offset usually being preferable. I have an old Phillps document where they suggest that. The golden ratio was just a starting point. But seems at least from a simulation aspect to have one of the flattest responses.
Anyway thanks for your reply. |
|
|
|
#5 |
|
just another
diyAudio Moderator
|
Hi Bas, did you try the driver centered at the same height as the golden ratio one? I've found with BDS that the vertical position on the baffle can make a big difference.
I read once somewhere (I think it was duntechs site but I checked there and didn't see it) that the particular designer had moved away from asymetric baffle placement due to negative effects (I think from memory on imaging). I ended up going with centre placement after reading that.... I wish I had the reference... Tony. |
|
|
|
#6 |
|
diyAudio Moderator Emeritus
|
Hi Tony,
The sim with golden ratio height. But centered. Regards, Bas |
|
|
|
#7 |
|
diyAudio Member
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Virginia
|
Bas,
Where do you get this software? Thanks, X |
|
|
|
#8 |
|
diyAudio Moderator Emeritus
|
|
|
|
|
#9 |
|
diyAudio Member
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Chamblee, Ga.
|
Using your baffle as a monopole measured at the old 4 ft standard distance and setting the room boundaries to '0' to mimic a corner, calculating x = 15.41", y = 27.4" looks close enough for me; ditto as a dipole 4" from rear wall and measured 45 deg off axis horizontally.
With the rest of the boundaries missing though, not to mention another speaker, furniture, etc., it's accuracy will rapidly degrade except over a narrow BW. Still, a useful tool, especially for near-field apps. GM
__________________
Loud is Beautiful if it's Clean! As always though, the usual disclaimers apply to this post's contents. |
|
|
|
#10 | |
|
diyAudio Moderator Emeritus
|
Quote:
|
|
|
![]() |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| how accurate are the box simulations? | scampo77 | Car Audio | 20 | 3rd November 2009 04:06 AM |
| WTB: Stock or near stock ART DI/O | buzzinghive | Swap Meet | 0 | 16th March 2007 09:06 AM |
| Seas L15 simulations | Khron | Multi-Way | 3 | 11th April 2006 04:38 AM |
| Xamp-simulations problem_s | grataku | Pass Labs | 25 | 31st July 2003 05:10 PM |
| Protel simulations | Kees | Solid State | 2 | 12th November 2002 03:47 AM |
| New To Site? | Need Help? |