|
|
|||||||
| Home | Forums | Rules | Articles | Store | Gallery | Blogs | Register | Donations | FAQ | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read | Search |
| Multi-Way Conventional loudspeakers with crossovers |
|
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: Jul 2004
Location: New Zealand
|
Hi all
I've read that a driver mounted in a 2" or thicker baffle will be "acoustically loaded in an undesirable way if the woofer is placed in a deep “tunnel”." Does this mean that I should try and remove the mdf/wood from around the rear of the cut driver hole; i.e. shaping it like a funnel leaving scallops(?) for the driver screws to screw into? Or is this wrong and there is minimal effects of a driver mounted in a thick baffle? The driver I'm using is a SEAS W18. Last edited by marcus1; 6th December 2009 at 08:46 AM. |
|
|
|
|
#2 |
|
diyAudio Member
Join Date: Oct 2006
|
You should try and chamfer the hole behind the driver. There is a good article on this topic on Troel's website:
chamfering driver holes |
|
|
|
|
#3 |
|
diyAudio Member
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Sacramento,CA
|
It would depend a lot on the driver in question as well. A tweeter would be in a mishap of a waveguide in that situation while (I'll go out on a bit of a limb here) an 18" woofer could probably care less. Also it would depend on the crossover, if you're crossing fairly low it might be negligible.
__________________
"You have fallen into my plan trap!" |
|
|
|
|
#4 |
|
diyAudio Member
Join Date: Oct 2006
|
Forgive me if I am wrong Q, but surely the Tweeter with a sealed back mounted on a thick baffle is the one that it wouldn't make much difference too (none at al in fact), whereas an 18" woofer that needs lots of air to breathe would benefit quite a lot from a chamfered hole. The maximum benefit however would come with small mid/woofers where the circumference to depth ratio is small.
|
|
|
|
|
#5 |
|
diyAudio Member
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Sacramento,CA
|
Ah, I see now that you are speaking of the interior "tunnel". I thought you were referring to a rear mount situation. Though I still think that smaller woofers will be affected the most if only for the fact that do reach the same SPL you will need more cone travel. But then someone would have to crunch the numbers on the increase (non linear if I recall)of the restricting surface area for an ever larger circle.
Also for a midwoofer I'd think that square edge would introduce diffraction just like it does anywhere else, even worse since it comes perpendicular to the cone (ouch!). Whether or not this is audible on the other side, I'll leave that for the guys with measurement gear to answer.
__________________
"You have fallen into my plan trap!" Last edited by "Q"; 6th December 2009 at 07:31 PM. Reason: addition |
|
|
| Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
|
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| 12" "guitar" driver in Audio Speakers | jwhit67 | Multi-Way | 4 | 11th February 2008 02:47 PM |
| design help needed: monopole 15" / 8" MTM open baffle with Manger | taloyd | Multi-Way | 26 | 26th January 2007 10:53 PM |
| WTB: FELT F13 Grey - 1/4" to 3/4" Thick - Like on Duntech/Dunlavy Speakers' Baffle | dtm1962 | Swap Meet | 0 | 21st October 2006 04:18 AM |
| Fried "Line Tunnel" Technology | BAM | Multi-Way | 6 | 10th October 2003 07:01 PM |
| New To Site? | Need Help? |
| Page generated in 0.06746 seconds (81.44% PHP - 18.56% MySQL) with 10 queries |