An example of different ways to do it - https://www.diyaudio.com/community/...overs-without-measurement.189847/post-6910468
285Hz is your F3 (midpoint) of your baffle step rise / loss (being approx 115 / 0.4064 metres = ~282Hz).
Therefore you have rise still occuring above 285Hz. Your midrange needs to be part of the baffle step solution.
Padding the mid (and tweet) is fine. resistors / shaping circuits are quite common here, without having to cascade filters with the woofer circuit.
@Dave Bullet Thank you for the suggestion, Im raised the XO point of the mid slightly. You were correct a bit too much in the 230 -300 hz range. Sounds a bit better. Not as heavy and a bit clearer. I am also padding down the mid only for now. experimentation continues but I believe I am on the right track.
I use a 12" offset in a 22.5" wide open baffle.
The image very well, I just don't toe them in. This keeps a lot of baffle reflections away from me, and lateral dipole cancellation helps with ceiling and sidewall reflections. My less efficient helper tweeters are aimed for on axis response, above 9 or 10000 hz.
A friend brought over his refreshed LS 3/5A to give me a lesson in proper box speakers imaging and soundstage done right.
The bet Porterhouse steak was on his tab.
unless the laws of physics were derived from the greek gods instead of scientists.....then no, it's not a myth at all. Quite often this comes from the same folks with directional horns aimed to crossfire in front of them too........the big headphone effect that sounds great!....until it doesn't
hmm... what laws of physics show that narrow images better than wide baffle?
Theres a lot about this hobby that doesn't always follow the rule of law. tubes, solid state, cable, etc. I think that sometimes things come together in a way that you cant explain but it just works or as my buddy says It's PFM !! (Pure ******* Magic!)
Last edited by a moderator:
a wide baffle would be less omni at lower frequencies and you have more reflections from the baffle. out of the various speakers iv owned narrow baffle has been better, but that may also be a consequence of smaller drivers which are more capable at higher freq etc.
siegfried linkwitz would certainly have a say in this if he was alive.
siegfried linkwitz would certainly have a say in this if he was alive.
Last edited:
Ask Galileo's descendants how empirical proof sometimes does against the known facts of the day.
If y'all want to believe in majic that's fine, just don't try to pretend it's because the laws of physics has not caught up to your golden ears.
I don't believe in homeopathy, but I'm ok if you do, but I am gonna think you're being silly when you tell me science just hasn't caught up to your healing "art".
If I am off base here and there have been major breakthroughs in the physics of sound in the last 20 years please let me know. I am always willing to learn and will eat crow from time to time.
I don't believe in homeopathy, but I'm ok if you do, but I am gonna think you're being silly when you tell me science just hasn't caught up to your healing "art".
If I am off base here and there have been major breakthroughs in the physics of sound in the last 20 years please let me know. I am always willing to learn and will eat crow from time to time.