Box designs that address baffle step?

[leadbelly]

Just brainstorming and searching for enclosure designs that try to minimize baffle step....

One idea that I had for an enclosure is a double BR with the higher tuning to give a +6 dB bump in the response. Thus the high tuning would negate the baffle step loss, and the low tuning would soften the sharp dropoff in bass that would otherwise result if a single BR were used.

Any information and/or musings would be appreciated. I don't often see very much posted on this, the forum is typically split between the "just address it with the crossover" and "crossovers are evil" camps There probably are more rigorous or more elegant approaches to this out there

[knorke]

To adress baffle step elegantly build a bipol....

[leadbelly]

Originally posted by knorke
To adress baffle step elegantly build a bipol....

OK, that puts you in camp #2

Anybody else from camp #1 or an outsider want to speak up

[planet10]

needs a bit of updating to include using horn-gain to compensate, and that a bipole should be wider than it is deep.

http://www.t-linespeakers.org/tech/b...intro-bds.html

trying to get the extra gain out of a BR may land you with a speaker with a hiQ lumpy bass...

dave

[leadbelly]

Originally posted by planet10
trying to get the extra gain out of a BR may land you with a speaker with a hiQ lumpy bass...

dave

Thanks Dave. That's what I was wondering; how bad is that high Q sound if it's tempered with some low end. Don't the car audio kids build for high Q intentionally for whatever purposes?

[sreten]

Originally posted by leadbelly

Just brainstorming and searching for enclosure
designs that try to minimize baffle step....

One idea that I had for an enclosure is a double BR
with the higher tuning to give a +6 dB bump in the response.

Hi,

Given the above needs two drivers a 0.5 way is far more elegant.

The power handling in the lower bass of your high tuned section
to put it in a word will be "pathetic". As alluded to by P10 the
sacrifice of good upper bass group delay will not sound good.

/sreten.

[leadbelly]

OK, got it, thanks.

[knorke]

Originally posted by leadbelly
OK, that puts you in camp #2

Actually I never did build a bipol, but I think it is
a elegant way ...
I build mostly multi way systems where a xo is needed
anyway. This puts me in camp#1....

[Svante]

Originally posted by knorke
To adress baffle step elegantly build a bipol....

Mm, the problem is that it does not work for most geometries. A bipole is equivalent to hanging one loudspeaker on a rigid wall. Doing so, there will be a delay from the back side to the front side and the response ends up something like this:



Note the dip at ~400 Hz. This box is only 200mm deep (the on-wall box is 100 mm) and the baffle is 200 by 300 mm.

[planet10]

Originally posted by Svante
Note the dip at ~400 Hz. This box is only 200mm deep (the on-wall box is 100 mm) and the baffle is 200 by 300 mm.

Svante,

Can you do a series of plots where the box gets wider than it is deep?

At what distance is the plot simulating? (listening distance is more appropriate than 1m)

dave

Damn i wish that tool ran under OS X