Open baffles and directivity - 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 22nd February 2004, 06:32 PM   #1
Yuihb is offline Yuihb  Germany
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Ulm
Default Open baffles and directivity

To model an open baffel that is not circular, I integrated the function

g:= (f,d,a) -> abs(1+exp(I*phi(f,d,a))); (phi is the pase shift)

that gives the gain for the two-point-source model at frequency f, distance d and angle a to average from 0.4 m to 1 m:

b:= (f,a) -> evalf( Int(g(f,d,a), d=0.4..1)/0.6);

This should correspond to a baffle that is shaped like obfp1.gif:

This is the frequency response on-axis from 50 to 3000 Hz:

There are a lot of peaks and holes due to interference which must be equalized. Still, this response is smoother than that of a circular baffle which has interference holes at all multiples of c/d.

Up to 230 Hz, the radiation pattern is a figure-of-eight. This shape however becomes increasingly distorted at higher freqencies. The following graphs show the radiation pattern at 400, 800, and 1600 Hz:

At 400 Hz, there's a response of almost 2 dB at +/- 45 degrees. At 1600 Hz at lot of energy is radiated almost orthogonal to the main axis which will cause standing waves at least between floor and ceiling while other room modes are likely to be excited as well because of the lack of directivity.

My conclusion is that this baffle is useful in a range from 50 to 230 Hz only. Since it doesn't make sense to construct a different baffle for each interval, I question that open baffles are better than conventional designs. It seems that there are as many advantages as disadvantages.

Boris (yuihb01 at compuserve dot de)
  Reply With Quote
Old 22nd February 2004, 07:54 PM   #2
Svante is offline Svante  Sweden
diyAudio Member
 
Svante's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Stockholm
Default Re: Open baffles and directivity

Quote:
Originally posted by Yuihb
To model an open baffel that is not circular, I integrated the function

g:= (f,d,a) -> abs(1+exp(I*phi(f,d,a))); (phi is the pase shift)

that gives the gain for the two-point-source model at frequency f, distance d and angle a to average from 0.4 m to 1 m:

b:= (f,a) -> evalf( Int(g(f,d,a), d=0.4..1)/0.6);

This should correspond to a baffle that is shaped like obfp1.gif:

This is the frequency response on-axis from 50 to 3000 Hz:

There are a lot of peaks and holes due to interference which must be equalized. Still, this response is smoother than that of a circular baffle which has interference holes at all multiples of c/d.

Up to 230 Hz, the radiation pattern is a figure-of-eight. This shape however becomes increasingly distorted at higher freqencies. The following graphs show the radiation pattern at 400, 800, and 1600 Hz:

At 400 Hz, there's a response of almost 2 dB at +/- 45 degrees. At 1600 Hz at lot of energy is radiated almost orthogonal to the main axis which will cause standing waves at least between floor and ceiling while other room modes are likely to be excited as well because of the lack of directivity.

My conclusion is that this baffle is useful in a range from 50 to 230 Hz only. Since it doesn't make sense to construct a different baffle for each interval, I question that open baffles are better than conventional designs. It seems that there are as many advantages as disadvantages.

Boris (yuihb01 at compuserve dot de)
This is interesting, but I cannot see the images, so I'm having a hard time understanding your math. Could you post the images again?
__________________
Simulate loudspeakers: Basta!
Simulate the baffle step: The Edge
  Reply With Quote
Old 23rd February 2004, 03:23 PM   #3
Yuihb is offline Yuihb  Germany
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Ulm
I'm sorry, something went wrong with the file upload. This is the shape of the baffle:
Attached Images
File Type: gif ob1sp.gif (7.3 KB, 529 views)
  Reply With Quote
Old 23rd February 2004, 03:24 PM   #4
Yuihb is offline Yuihb  Germany
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Ulm
This is the frequency response:
Attached Images
File Type: gif ob1fp.gif (6.4 KB, 521 views)
  Reply With Quote
Old 23rd February 2004, 03:25 PM   #5
Yuihb is offline Yuihb  Germany
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Ulm
This is the radiation pattern at 400 Hz:
Attached Images
File Type: gif ob1pp400.gif (8.6 KB, 517 views)
  Reply With Quote
Old 23rd February 2004, 03:26 PM   #6
Yuihb is offline Yuihb  Germany
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Ulm
This is the radiation pattern at 800 Hz:
Attached Images
File Type: gif ob1pp800.gif (8.0 KB, 512 views)
  Reply With Quote
Old 23rd February 2004, 03:28 PM   #7
Yuihb is offline Yuihb  Germany
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Ulm
This is the radiation pattern at 1600 Hz:
Attached Images
File Type: gif ob1pp1600.gif (7.9 KB, 517 views)
  Reply With Quote
Old 23rd February 2004, 04:27 PM   #8
diyAudio Moderator Emeritus
 
Bas Horneman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: The Netherlands
Blog Entries: 18
"Every advantage has it's disadvantages" - Johan Cruiff
  Reply With Quote
Old 23rd February 2004, 04:44 PM   #9
Svante is offline Svante  Sweden
diyAudio Member
 
Svante's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Stockholm
Default Re: Open baffles and directivity

Quote:
Originally posted by Yuihb
To model an open baffel that is not circular, I integrated the function

g:= (f,d,a) -> abs(1+exp(I*phi(f,d,a))); (phi is the pase shift)

that gives the gain for the two-point-source model at frequency f, distance d and angle a to average from 0.4 m to 1 m:

b:= (f,a) -> evalf( Int(g(f,d,a), d=0.4..1)/0.6);

This should correspond to a baffle that is shaped like obfp1.gif:

This is the frequency response on-axis from 50 to 3000 Hz:

There are a lot of peaks and holes due to interference which must be equalized. Still, this response is smoother than that of a circular baffle which has interference holes at all multiples of c/d.

Up to 230 Hz, the radiation pattern is a figure-of-eight. This shape however becomes increasingly distorted at higher freqencies. The following graphs show the radiation pattern at 400, 800, and 1600 Hz:

At 400 Hz, there's a response of almost 2 dB at +/- 45 degrees. At 1600 Hz at lot of energy is radiated almost orthogonal to the main axis which will cause standing waves at least between floor and ceiling while other room modes are likely to be excited as well because of the lack of directivity.

My conclusion is that this baffle is useful in a range from 50 to 230 Hz only. Since it doesn't make sense to construct a different baffle for each interval, I question that open baffles are better than conventional designs. It seems that there are as many advantages as disadvantages.

Boris (yuihb01 at compuserve dot de)
OK, before we go to the conclusions of this (which I sense that I will to some extent agree with you) I would like to get the model straight. From
g:= (f,d,a) -> abs(1+exp(I*phi(f,d,a))); (phi is the pase shift)
it seems as if you add two sources of equal magnitude. I would add four sources, but the result would be the same; on the front side we would see the point source and its mirror, and an edge reflection from the front source and also an edge reflection from the back source. Maybe you "think" four sources as well?
The back edge reflection will have the same sign as the front edge reflection, but the opposite to that of the front source and its mirror. There is a "+" in your equation above,but maybe you fix this in the phi equation?
So, how do you calculate the phase? I suppose you would calculate the pathway for each angle, first from the source to the edge, and then add the distance difference between the edge and the source, seen from the listener? Then integrate over all angles in the baffle plane to sum up all edge sources?
Do you use any directivity of the edge source? I have found this directivity kind of hard to understand from the articles I have read.

My second question is where you got the baffle shape from? Does it represent a rectangular edge distance distribution between 0.4 and 1 m or have you used some other trick? The fluctuations you see in the frequency response will vary *a lot* with the placement on the baffle, and it is likely that you could find a better baffle shape and/or placement.

A third question would be what you mean with "useful"? If you define the usefulness by that the directivity of the speaker should be a dipole, the you are right. It stops being a proper dipole at about 200Hz (for these dimensions). On the other hand I have understood that people like the dipole because it does not excite the room resonances as much as a point source. Room resonances mainly occur at low frequencies (<200Hz). Above this frequency, the baffled speaker will behave in about the same way as a boxed speaker.

I have posted this link here before, but I'll do it again in case you have not seen it. It is a little diffraction hack of mine, that allows you to experiment with different baffle shapes. It uses the model I described above, with the exception that the response is only plotted straight in front of the baffle.
http://www.tolvan.com/diffract.exe

I don't know if I answered your question, or if there was one, but anyway...

Opinions?

Baffle diffraction is fun!
__________________
Simulate loudspeakers: Basta!
Simulate the baffle step: The Edge
  Reply With Quote
Old 23rd February 2004, 11:33 PM   #10
eStatic is offline eStatic  United States
diyAudio Member
 
eStatic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: blue ridge mountains
Default Re: Re: Open baffles and directivity

Quote:
Originally posted by Svante

On the other hand I have understood that people like the dipole because it does not excite the room resonances as much as a point source. Room resonances mainly occur at low frequencies (<200Hz). Above this frequency, the baffled speaker will behave in about the same way as a boxed speaker.
My shriveled little gray cells seem to recall at least one person here who suggested that another major advantage of dipoles is the production of pseudo ambience. That would be in the range > 200Hz Yes, no?
__________________
This space for rent.
  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
Open baffles for dummies ;) Jennice Multi-Way 58 5th November 2012 01:36 AM
New open baffles hurdy_gurdyman Multi-Way 3 26th September 2007 02:22 PM
$7 open baffles... planet10 Full Range 31 8th May 2005 07:45 AM
Open Baffles :- ) brianon Multi-Way 17 3rd February 2004 08:13 PM
Open baffles? dc Multi-Way 5 28th December 2001 02:10 AM


New To Site? Need Help?

All times are GMT. The time now is 05:29 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