I'm building a $4000 speaker kit ... Which one?

With respect ...for some of you, I am NOT talking about recessing or flush mounting drivers at all. None. This was only about baffle edges, and recessed speaker grills.


I would never recess a grill, or make an edge for sound to have to hit. I just wondered why in hell it was ever done .... and I found out. Looks only. Now the math and science behind it which you're discussing, I am appreciating a lot!


But for drivers, I only flush mount drivers. Always.
 
I find it really interesting someone asking innocent and ignorant questions, can create a thread so long with so many opinions on technical stuff. I'm sure the really accomplished and learned builders think this thread should be burned. But I have learned amazing amounts from it.
 
I find it really interesting someone asking innocent and ignorant questions, can create a thread so long with so many opinions on technical stuff. I'm sure the really accomplished and learned builders think this thread should be burned. But I have learned amazing amounts from it.


I knew it from the beginning, that's why my post about the dog that bites its tail ...
I think it's not a good attitude anyway ......

The highlighted paragraph I do not believe it.
 
You are not going to get the argument you desire from me. You have been asked to find another thread where you can add something positive instead. I am learning here, NO MATTER what you think. I refused to take down the productive thread. You are dismissed, not wanted. Go play somewhere else. "Finished"
 
I would be cautious of this as in BEM simulation I see roundovers providing a beneficial effect on waveguides with already well terminated mouths. For standard towers or speakers with gradually increasing driver size the trapezoidal chamfer seems to be a very good solution for minimum diffraction.

for sure, enclosure shape seems to affect a lot and can be taken advantage off with tools like BEM. Flat baffle minimization is easy rule of thumb though, which seems to minimize problem of diffraction.
 
It makes me wonder how the Grimm Audio LS1 makes it work so smoothly with such a wide baffle. I believe its 500mm wide? The very large diameter roundover must help a lot...

Hi, yes the roundovers will reduce diffraction on the upper frequencies radiating along the baffle. But the width of the baffle will drag the diffracting waves lower in frequency I'd imagine and the diffraction is now just lower in frequency (compared to narrower baffle). This is good example of speaker the diffraction is accounted for in the design but to me it still is counterproductive and looks like a marketing trick. It probably sounds good, but less diffraction could be made with smaller front. Let me dig out the VituixCAD and try to demonstrate.

I couldn't find Grimm LS1 measurements with Googling but this I found: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?attachments/grimm-audio-ls1-design-pdf.125208/ , somebody made simulations on the front and drew some conclusions about it. It says the baffle width is to compensate the narrowing directivity of the woofer due to crossover point being too high. This is a "problem" that a waveguide or 3-way design would solve. There might be more in the LS1 that I can't see, I'm not pro on the field and it seems well engineered product. Maybe they don't consider the diffraction a problem and dig the better directivity at some frequency to some direction due to baffle width. Measurements would be nice to see but it is typical they are not available by manufacturer other than the on axis response.
 
Last edited:
Hi, yes the roundovers will reduce diffraction on the upper frequencies radiating along the baffle. But the width of the baffle will drag the diffracting waves lower in frequency I'd imagine and the diffraction is now just lower in frequency (compared to narrower baffle). This is good example of speaker the diffraction is accounted for in the design but to me it still is counterproductive and looks like a marketing trick. It probably sounds good, but less diffraction could be made with smaller front. Let me dig out the VituixCAD and try to demonstrate.

I couldn't find Grimm LS1 measurements with Googling but this I found: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?attachments/grimm-audio-ls1-design-pdf.125208/ , somebody made simulations on the front and drew some conclusions about it. It says the baffle width is to compensate the narrowing directivity of the woofer due to crossover point being too high. This is a "problem" that a waveguide or 3-way design would solve. There might be more in the LS1 that I can't see, I'm not pro on the field and it seems well engineered product. Maybe they don't consider the diffraction a problem and dig the better directivity at some frequency to some direction due to baffle width. Measurements would be nice to see but it is typical they are not available by manufacturer other than the on axis response.

That is interesting. I thought I saw measurements with smooth of axis response but I must be confused with another speaker. The fact that they show a DSP flattened frequency response in only one plane now makes me a bit wary.

Regarding the wide baffle solving the beaming problem, I don't see anything wrong with that. There are actually quite a few benefits but I haven't seen your simulations yet, so if you can post them it would be interesting to see.