No, hence my question. A tall, thin rectangle with driver centally placed would probably be just as effective as a flower for any normal listening position.
It all tends to average, if you pick the right axis on which to listen.
(If I pull the image I referred to in post #11) Trace the average out of these angles and it's a lot more straight than the 0 degree shot suggests. Only if you listen on the axis that resembles that average, the tonal balance will be more consistent.
This is still not a cure for diffraction.
(If I pull the image I referred to in post #11) Trace the average out of these angles and it's a lot more straight than the 0 degree shot suggests. Only if you listen on the axis that resembles that average, the tonal balance will be more consistent.
This is still not a cure for diffraction.
Attachments
True. Following on from post #12, I'm thinking about the compromises of a driver on an open baffle in particular.
The magnitude of the variations from SL is surprisingly similar.
You might correct me if I go off track here as I'm just thinking out loud. Anyway, if there's a reason it needs to be listened to on axis, what about diffraction mitigation? Instead of just looking at the response.
There may be different ways to do this, I notice that SL went toward a narrow baffle in later times. Is it possible he was trying to reduce the diffraction delay, somewhat in line with the precedence effect?
You might correct me if I go off track here as I'm just thinking out loud. Anyway, if there's a reason it needs to be listened to on axis, what about diffraction mitigation? Instead of just looking at the response.
There may be different ways to do this, I notice that SL went toward a narrow baffle in later times. Is it possible he was trying to reduce the diffraction delay, somewhat in line with the precedence effect?
I can't recall the brand but I once audition a Japanese 3 way speaker way back which sounded amazingly good. It's vintage 70s style with broad baffle JBL like with vertical driver alignment. The difference that I remembered was a thick felt like material covered almost the whole baffle. You don't see it once grill is installed & I was told that grill had to be on as it was tuned to include it.
With more drivers he was able to move towards what's very nearly naked drivers. The rear radiation is very similar to diffraction at the edge of the baffle and produces similar ripples. Somewhere on diyAudio someone made a OB out of felt which was very effective.
I built a pair of small bookshelf speaker that used the Golden Ratio for the enclosure dimensions and for the offset tweeter placement. They also have the '70s style recessed baffle with square edges.
I have gotten several compliments on their style, from both audiophiles and non-audiophiles.
I have gotten several compliments on their style, from both audiophiles and non-audiophiles.
@ ToyMcc,
...so we assume the 4 x is the bottom for some logical reason and for that same reason the x3 is the width, I assume if centered on the midlle of the bafle the x2 is about the side and the x1 about the distance to the top... and if out centered (near a side) the x1 is near this side and the x2 is towards the top.
About rounded sides (plan bafle, sphere for the rest) if possible, should they not be as smooth between a 45° max and less. Sees that is not only the sudden break of bafle direction but also the amount of its angle ?
A driver with no bafle but its own front plate and putted on a top of a cylender without more width but this 90° side behind it that is round due, shows very big peaks and dips ... for illustration.
So the angles should they not be as big than the width of the front bafle for each of them and no bove 45° angle ? Here the horns seems to need less and just a little smooth rounding at the mouth suffices ?!
So are theses very little rounded angles in the coffins speakers so efficient in reality ?
Of course rounded angles à la Revel for the tweeters and mids is nicer looking...
...so we assume the 4 x is the bottom for some logical reason and for that same reason the x3 is the width, I assume if centered on the midlle of the bafle the x2 is about the side and the x1 about the distance to the top... and if out centered (near a side) the x1 is near this side and the x2 is towards the top.
About rounded sides (plan bafle, sphere for the rest) if possible, should they not be as smooth between a 45° max and less. Sees that is not only the sudden break of bafle direction but also the amount of its angle ?
A driver with no bafle but its own front plate and putted on a top of a cylender without more width but this 90° side behind it that is round due, shows very big peaks and dips ... for illustration.
So the angles should they not be as big than the width of the front bafle for each of them and no bove 45° angle ? Here the horns seems to need less and just a little smooth rounding at the mouth suffices ?!
So are theses very little rounded angles in the coffins speakers so efficient in reality ?
Of course rounded angles à la Revel for the tweeters and mids is nicer looking...
@ xrk971, about the hardness of the bafles and the flusch mountiing :
what if the flushing around the tweeter is no made of wood but the 3 mm of the tweeters face plates are flushed by a 3 mm wool bafle -natural wool carpet silencer that are purchased for both the conforrt and the anti sliping behavior-
Can we consider it is "flush or such carpet or the foam you often use is not dense enough to avoid that peaks and dips ?
what if the flushing around the tweeter is no made of wood but the 3 mm of the tweeters face plates are flushed by a 3 mm wool bafle -natural wool carpet silencer that are purchased for both the conforrt and the anti sliping behavior-
Can we consider it is "flush or such carpet or the foam you often use is not dense enough to avoid that peaks and dips ?