You're welcome!
Oh well, not set up to do drawings, so maybe Dave or ? will dimension a default master or other driver MLTL design, though might/won't be to scale.
I get the visions but then I need you guys to tell me if it can work, unfortunately I'm often hit with tec talk when all I want is a simple yes or no , or try this. But I appreciate people taking the time to reply because after all time is a precious gift.
Attachments
As far as I understand it, a wider baffle aids in baffle step and a narrow baffle aids in “imaging” or “spaciousness” but is there an ideal ratio in peoples experience??
If anything, I think a full range driver naturally narrows the dispersion of the highs.
While it makes for a smaller sweet spot, it befenits by having less hf information bouncing around your room.
Now as far as the front to back imaging thing, i have no idea.
I personally could care less about imaging.
But cabinet edges are a source of re-radiation of sound.
A dome would certainly light up the edges more than a 4" driver.
There are all sorts of websites that have measurements, but not many using 5" or larger full range drivers and the effects on the highs caused by baffle widths or round overs.
Revels people say do a better front/back/side imaging with their rounded baffles.
I use dense foam to absorb the hf from hitting the edges (but that is a horn loaded dome).
I prefer big wide baffles...........................
While it makes for a smaller sweet spot, it befenits by having less hf information bouncing around your room.
Now as far as the front to back imaging thing, i have no idea.
I personally could care less about imaging.
But cabinet edges are a source of re-radiation of sound.
A dome would certainly light up the edges more than a 4" driver.
There are all sorts of websites that have measurements, but not many using 5" or larger full range drivers and the effects on the highs caused by baffle widths or round overs.
Revels people say do a better front/back/side imaging with their rounded baffles.
I use dense foam to absorb the hf from hitting the edges (but that is a horn loaded dome).
I prefer big wide baffles...........................
true true, i wrote that badly.
I guess I mean I don't think an 8" full range, that the box edges would not affect the highs past 2khz, as it is already down to around 90 degrees, maybe down to 4khz 90 degrees due to the whizzer.
Way back we had a thread on intelligibility and whizzers. Somebody cut off a coral whizzer off. Measured it had better dispersion out to 4khz with whizzer versus 2khz without.
Are there any measurements of larger full range drivers and edge diffraction ?
The edges on Fern & Roby Raven, they just don't sit right with me, even through they are gorgeous.
Maybe it has zero effect on the sound compared to flat.
I guess I mean I don't think an 8" full range, that the box edges would not affect the highs past 2khz, as it is already down to around 90 degrees, maybe down to 4khz 90 degrees due to the whizzer.
Way back we had a thread on intelligibility and whizzers. Somebody cut off a coral whizzer off. Measured it had better dispersion out to 4khz with whizzer versus 2khz without.
Are there any measurements of larger full range drivers and edge diffraction ?
The edges on Fern & Roby Raven, they just don't sit right with me, even through they are gorgeous.
Maybe it has zero effect on the sound compared to flat.
Attachments
There is some basis to the myth thou. In a rectangular enclosures the early edge diffraction is soon enuff that it “merges” into the direct info (resulting in masking of small bits of information) vrs a wide (rectangular) baffle that edge diffraction happens later and may be more noticeable.
In both the examples show the baffle falls away as if it was a giant roundover, ir not rectangles.
One can also mitigate the edge diffraction by increasing HF losses of any enerfgy traveling along the baffle. Thick felt et al. The more it has to travel thou/along, it will disapate/absorb more energy leaving less to the diffract when it meets the corner.
dave
hmm, so a 4" source really doesn't send much hf on the edges, above 2khz anyway.............
see post 38 (thanks juhazi)
https://www.diyaudio.com/community/threads/full-range-sealed-box-design.389316/page-2
see post 38 (thanks juhazi)
https://www.diyaudio.com/community/threads/full-range-sealed-box-design.389316/page-2
The cabinet is a Snell E , 3" port a couple of inches off the bottom. I was going to use it for a WAW system. But change of plan led me to buy the MS 11's .
I built a rough pair of nostrums to use to run them in, but just couldn't listen to them anymore in those cabinets, sounded flat and lifeless, strangled if you will, in these Snell boxes they shine although port size is probably wrong. So question is could these boxes to altered to better suit the MS 11's or should I look to building something more suited?
I built a rough pair of nostrums to use to run them in, but just couldn't listen to them anymore in those cabinets, sounded flat and lifeless, strangled if you will, in these Snell boxes they shine although port size is probably wrong. So question is could these boxes to altered to better suit the MS 11's or should I look to building something more suited?
Last edited by a moderator:
I have a set of (AN diy) boxes based on that design, it better be an ML-TL or the box is WAY, WAY, WAY too big. You do need to model it.
dave
dave
Hello Dave,
I'm new here on diyAudio forum.
I have Pluvia 11 in King of the Swingers 23l box. Now I move in room where I need speakers like Aspen.
Where can I buy plans for this speaker cabinet?
Vlado
I'm new here on diyAudio forum.
I have Pluvia 11 in King of the Swingers 23l box. Now I move in room where I need speakers like Aspen.
Where can I buy plans for this speaker cabinet?
Vlado