Seas + Celestion FRD Baffle diffraction and step analysis - diyAudio
Go Back   Home > Forums > Loudspeakers > Multi-Way

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
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 20th October 2010, 07:29 PM   #1
gfiandy is offline gfiandy  United Kingdom
diyAudio Member
 
gfiandy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Cambridge UK
Default Seas + Celestion FRD Baffle diffraction and step analysis

Hi,

Below are some screen shots of the FRD program for baffle step analysis. I have attempted to use this to optimise the placement of some drivers in an existing box I hope to use.

This post is a bit of a demonstration of what these tools can do. However if anyone knows them better than me and can see any flaws in my approach I would be very interested to hear them. The tools are here:-

FRD Consortium

The box is an old Celstion enclosure I got from freecycle. Its owner had sold the parts off on ebay but the box had no value. It still has its ABR in which I hope to use (Box sim is a different project which has indicated the power handling of this design will be low at about 20W, but thats OK).

The drive units are Seas CA15RLY woofer and a 27TFFC tweeter that have been lying arround, I got them as samples ages ago when working on a comercial design.

Image 1 shows the drivers vertically aligned in the box (I have left our the ABR as its frequency range is limited to below BSD region) Blue is the tweeter and green the mid / woofer

Image 2 shows the drivers offset to what seemed to be the optimum positions after trying lots of options. You can see the improvement in the high end response.

Image 3 shows the drivers offset with a chamfer on the box. My box has a chamfer but it faces in towards the drivers not out. I don't know how this will affect the response, so if anyone does please let me know.

You can clearly see from this that assuming this simulation approaches the real situation by moving the drive units by only a few CM from the center line a very significant improvement in the response can be had basically for nothing. Since it is dificult to correct diffraction problems electrically this seems like a worth while exercise.

Any comments?
Attached Images
File Type: jpg Seas 0 offset.JPG (227.5 KB, 37 views)
File Type: jpg Seas T-1.5 W2.0 offset.JPG (231.4 KB, 35 views)
File Type: jpg Seas T-1.5 W2.0 offset with chamfer.JPG (230.4 KB, 33 views)
  Reply With Quote
Old 20th October 2010, 11:18 PM   #2
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Measure off axis for your comparison as well. If the edges of your box protrude, you have some issues to deal with, and getting rid of those edges should be a high priority.
  Reply With Quote

Reply


Hide this!Advertise here!
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Edge diffraction: large, rounded baffle, or narrow square baffle fortyquid Multi-Way 23 12th February 2013 02:23 AM
Baffle diffraction step - is this right? buzz1939 Multi-Way 6 6th May 2007 05:55 PM
Baffle Diffraction Simulator Tenson Multi-Way 0 12th December 2006 02:56 PM
Qs about baffle diffraction elambert Multi-Way 1 30th November 2005 09:09 PM


New To Site? Need Help?

All times are GMT. The time now is 09:37 AM.


vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright 1999-2014 diyAudio

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2