The whole idea is to take advantage of the phenomen and put it to work for our purposes, not to fighting against.
Maybe we can tackle it from backwards, in a sort of Zen approach, as opposite to the machinist occidental philosophy of squashing and flattening anything that we don't like.
Had run some simulation on a very good CAD tool (Basta!) and the whole thing looks promising.
To tell in a very stripped way, it is a BR box, wide enough to start the rising response reasonably soon, and a peaky alignement, not a maximally flat as more usually is the case. The simulator clearly shows (and experience agreed) that the saddle in between will be inaudible thanks to the average room gain contribution. And, in a third octave -in room- analysis, things looks even better. I'm pretty sure that someone out there has already used this trick, in a comercial product, diy, or both. (Maybe in an old Wharfedale kit?)
Of course when it comes to pay the bill, the no-free-lunch law shows his head. The underdamped system Q, even if masked, is still there, and the possible side effects to be evaluated with music program material. And wide baffles tend to exhibit a very low WAF factor too..
But not to waste precious sensibility trough an RC equalizing network, looks non the less, very appealing.
Any comment, positive or not, about one such approach?
I'd like to know as well whether another discussion has already addressed the argument, in order to take a read
Just a rough sketch:
Thanks
JJT
Maybe we can tackle it from backwards, in a sort of Zen approach, as opposite to the machinist occidental philosophy of squashing and flattening anything that we don't like.
Had run some simulation on a very good CAD tool (Basta!) and the whole thing looks promising.
To tell in a very stripped way, it is a BR box, wide enough to start the rising response reasonably soon, and a peaky alignement, not a maximally flat as more usually is the case. The simulator clearly shows (and experience agreed) that the saddle in between will be inaudible thanks to the average room gain contribution. And, in a third octave -in room- analysis, things looks even better. I'm pretty sure that someone out there has already used this trick, in a comercial product, diy, or both. (Maybe in an old Wharfedale kit?)
Of course when it comes to pay the bill, the no-free-lunch law shows his head. The underdamped system Q, even if masked, is still there, and the possible side effects to be evaluated with music program material. And wide baffles tend to exhibit a very low WAF factor too..
But not to waste precious sensibility trough an RC equalizing network, looks non the less, very appealing.
Any comment, positive or not, about one such approach?
I'd like to know as well whether another discussion has already addressed the argument, in order to take a read
Just a rough sketch:
Thanks
JJT
Attachments
Indeed it has. Thorsten-Loesch was an advocate of this approach (as was Snell before him). I've a couple box designs using this approach (without the overly peaky bass alignment)
Your box has an estimated ** F3 of just under 300 Hz... that puts it into the ballpark of using the room to compensate for the rest.
dave
Baffle step is a simulation effect, when one uses real data of the drivers in the actual enclosure for setting up the crossover then the baffle step is already included and not a factor. Simulations are great tools to "roughing out" a design, but to do any serious loudspeaker work one must be dealing with the actual data as measured in-situ and "baffle-step" does not enter into the problem.
And lets not forget that at LFs the room dominates the situation anyways. I have never paid all that much attention to the "baffle-step" effect.
And lets not forget that at LFs the room dominates the situation anyways. I have never paid all that much attention to the "baffle-step" effect.
Happy to hear it, this encourages me to go ahead and select a suitable woofer.
Has Thorsten published some available documentation?
Are this couple your design present in the Planet10 website?
Thanks again
JJT
I'm sure about that, Dr. Geddes, but I was just exploring the factibility at the moment, still got not the woofer , nor the box. Just "roughing out" the idea.
But once the box is ready , and the woofer mounted, you can equalise the relative in room levels by flatten down the midrange, or liftin up the bass, no?
I'm talking when the case is a single amp is driving a passive crossover
kindly
JJT
In some cases (ie lots of FR/single driver systems) BSC is the only "cross-over" extant.
dave
He has lots of stuff... you'd need to Google & search this forum (his user name here is kuei yang wang)
Mileva/Demetri/PAWO
Scott & i have done a number of ML-TLs, many of them not published (some that are would be Thrilmere-R and an ML-TL for the EL70 (check CSS website)
I can look deeper later
dave
Well, on the paper, an Alpha 8A woofer, in a 2 ft3 box, tuned at 60Hz, is very near to what i meant.
I'll double the bet with a simil Cauer, very steep passive Xover, as proposed by Jason Cuadra. Near 1khz or so.
Tne Peerlees SDS tweeter seems that can do the job, but I'm open to change along the road.
Will see if it works...
Hasta luego
I'll double the bet with a simil Cauer, very steep passive Xover, as proposed by Jason Cuadra. Near 1khz or so.
Tne Peerlees SDS tweeter seems that can do the job, but I'm open to change along the road.
Will see if it works...
Hasta luego
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.