Hi guys,
Does anybody have any information handy regarding the smoothing effect of chamfering baffle edges vs rounding them over? I remember seeing somewhere that chamfered edges were, for all intents and purposes, just as good as roundovers of approximately the same size.
Does anybody have any information handy regarding the smoothing effect of chamfering baffle edges vs rounding them over? I remember seeing somewhere that chamfered edges were, for all intents and purposes, just as good as roundovers of approximately the same size.
If you can find the tool called Baffle Diffraction Simulator, it does a good job of showing the differences. After playing with it a couple years ago and doing some prototypes to verify the results, I only use chamfers now. You get a much bigger "bang for your buck" than roundovers in the same size. Also the off axis response is different, chamfers provide a very consistent change as you move offaxis, which is easier to deal with in the crossover. Roundovers have the ripple move around more. So it is harder to correct (which angle do you put the most weight on?) and I would guess a less consistent in-room response, though that effect may be pretty small.
Hi augerpro,
You can as well use 'Passive Speaker Designer' to model edge diffraction.
Baffle Diffraction Simulator can be found here.
I prefer chamfered edges as well.
You can as well use 'Passive Speaker Designer' to model edge diffraction.
Baffle Diffraction Simulator can be found here.
I prefer chamfered edges as well.
I don't see the option to model chamfers with PSD? Also Jeff B's program is not the BDS I'm talking about (and Jeff's doesn't do chamfers either, even though I've tried talking him into it). This is what I'm referring to: http://alloy.wishray.com/frd/diffraction/downloadbds.htm
What is a good bang for buck chamfer size?
And if the sims show a smoother off axis respons than roundovers, should we start terminating horn mouths with chamfers rather than rpundovers a la seas dxt waveguide?
And if the sims show a smoother off axis respons than roundovers, should we start terminating horn mouths with chamfers rather than rpundovers a la seas dxt waveguide?
Last edited:
Hi augerpro,
Thanks for correcting.
However, I used both, Baffle Diffraction Simulator and Passive Speaker Designer to simulate round edges (see here or here).
Both seem to simulate round edges but no chamfer baffle edges though.
There was an article on minimum size of baffle edge chamfers in an old Hobby Hifi magazine. The measurements suggested that the chamfer size depends on the baffle width and a chamfer of >15% of the baffle width, IIRC.
Thanks for correcting.
However, I used both, Baffle Diffraction Simulator and Passive Speaker Designer to simulate round edges (see here or here).
Both seem to simulate round edges but no chamfer baffle edges though.
There was an article on minimum size of baffle edge chamfers in an old Hobby Hifi magazine. The measurements suggested that the chamfer size depends on the baffle width and a chamfer of >15% of the baffle width, IIRC.
It's been done. It can be used to effect diffraction in a controlled way to extend pattern control to a lower frequency for a given cabinet 'frontage', if this can be accepted in spite of the compromise, else a roundover can be used to dissipate the diffraction.
A box cabinet needn't necessarily be seen as all that different to a horn, I think horn designers are probably just already 'thinking curves'. It's all relative with regards to working with what you already have at any given frequency, treating all mid/higher kHz with care, getting enough control out of the bottom end for the size etc.
Soundeasy is able to model a single chamfer (I use multiples to get closer to round just because...) or a roundover. Of the models that I have compared, I have not seen more than a dB difference. Though there are slight differences, a dB would not likely be audible and what it shows is that at some frequencies, one is better than the other but this is not consistent at all frequencies. You should model the estimated radius of the chamfer version to be about the same as the radius to be fair.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.