This is just a "for the heck of it" conversation, so don't bother asking what I'm trying to build. 
Let's say you're designing the woofer and mid (cones) part of 3-way, and you want to align acoustic centers perpendicular to the ground, and you need a pretty significant difference from a flat baffle. What do you think about these strategies? The pink is absorption.
Yes, I know driver selection / crossover point / crossover slope / directivity strategy could play into some of these. That's fine. Just think about which one would work best for sort of 3-way you like (and let us know what you're thinking of), for example.
I've skipped the tweeter to keep it focused, and I've still called it a 3-way because I want to imply a fairly low crossover point.
Let's say you're designing the woofer and mid (cones) part of 3-way, and you want to align acoustic centers perpendicular to the ground, and you need a pretty significant difference from a flat baffle. What do you think about these strategies? The pink is absorption.Yes, I know driver selection / crossover point / crossover slope / directivity strategy could play into some of these. That's fine. Just think about which one would work best for sort of 3-way you like (and let us know what you're thinking of), for example.
I've skipped the tweeter to keep it focused, and I've still called it a 3-way because I want to imply a fairly low crossover point.
Attachments
Member
Joined 2009
boris81,
I built baffles that looked very similar to what you are showing for JBL many years ago. What was different is that the entire front of the baffle was molded flexible foam over a wood substrate to help damp the front first reflections. It was called the JBL-XPL series of speakers at the time.
I built baffles that looked very similar to what you are showing for JBL many years ago. What was different is that the entire front of the baffle was molded flexible foam over a wood substrate to help damp the front first reflections. It was called the JBL-XPL series of speakers at the time.
Member
Joined 2009
I'd want to minimize center/center spacing, via the rounded shape, and a rear-mounted tweeter (with the dome right up against the edge of the beveled shape). I wouldn't want to do this with the flat beveled piece, and the pointed arrangement doesn't allow quite as close a CTC spacing since the midwoofer frame will need to be further down. Because the distance from the midwoof panel edge to the tweeter will be widely varied (and "soft" because of the bevel) I think this would exhibit both better summation and minimal diffraction artifacts. Felt on the portion closest to the dome might not be a bad idea though, if it's right next to the dome.
Badman,
I am in agreement with you that more thought should be given to decreasing the ctc distance between the two drivers. If you are going to rear mount the dome tweeter why not use part of the radius contour between the two devices as part of the slope leading into the dome tweeter and remove the steps as shown on boris81's cross sectional dtawings? Sometimes it is as simple as cutting a section of the front plate away so you can put the two devices closer together.
I am in agreement with you that more thought should be given to decreasing the ctc distance between the two drivers. If you are going to rear mount the dome tweeter why not use part of the radius contour between the two devices as part of the slope leading into the dome tweeter and remove the steps as shown on boris81's cross sectional dtawings? Sometimes it is as simple as cutting a section of the front plate away so you can put the two devices closer together.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.