Or possibly a request for opinions. I'm looking at two baffle widths. One would put BDS at 380Hz, the other at 458Hz. Is there good reason to go with one or the other? I will be using a compensation network but I'm not sure which way to go.
Hello
Generally, it is assumed (from what i have read) that smaller baffles can help the speaker project a better stereo image. So i would go for the smaller baffle (the one with the higher BDS). The drawback is that you have to compensate a little more so you loose some efficiency.
F
Generally, it is assumed (from what i have read) that smaller baffles can help the speaker project a better stereo image. So i would go for the smaller baffle (the one with the higher BDS). The drawback is that you have to compensate a little more so you loose some efficiency.
F
Personally, i like to try and keep the baffle step below 350 Hz since the BSC is essentially an XO and i want to keep it's turn-over as much out of the midrange as possible.
Most of the time thou i try to avoid building a speaker that requires BSC, either by doing a bipole, or by XOing at the baffle step (here i also like to keep it below 350 Hz).
dave
Most of the time thou i try to avoid building a speaker that requires BSC, either by doing a bipole, or by XOing at the baffle step (here i also like to keep it below 350 Hz).
dave
planet10 said:
That's why the question was nagging me. I'd prefer using the bipole solution except for SAF which requires me to get the system as close to the wall as possible. What I'm considering is a folded ML-TQWT using 2 Pioneer B20's and a super tweeter on top of the enclosure. My goals for using 2 drivers is efficiency and LF response. My tweeters are 96db/1w. So I could use a 14" baffle to achieve ~324Hz BDS. Whaddya think?
Timn8ter said:
That is what i would do -- i always keep that 13.5" minimum width in my head.
dave
- Status
- Not open for further replies.