Hello,
some speakers (Kef 104, Concerto, etc.) do have the front baffle recessed into the cabinet to acommodate for grille frames. Would it be worth soundwise making the loudspeaker baffle flush with the border side panels? I wonder if it could help somewhat with imaging... I was thinking doing that to my Concerto kit speakers whose baffles are recessed about 1'5 cm into the cab
What do you think?
Thanks
some speakers (Kef 104, Concerto, etc.) do have the front baffle recessed into the cabinet to acommodate for grille frames. Would it be worth soundwise making the loudspeaker baffle flush with the border side panels? I wonder if it could help somewhat with imaging... I was thinking doing that to my Concerto kit speakers whose baffles are recessed about 1'5 cm into the cab
What do you think?
Thanks
I have the same question regarding my home brew speakers (I'm not going to make this mod, but I'd like to know what effect it has)
I had a pair of Concertos, the way the baffle is recessed is very bad and would cause edge diffractions that could well have an effect on the imaging.
Thank you all!
I wanted to know beforehand in case it could turn out a waste of time, although it won't be hard just placing some fillets over the existing ones
I may also add some bracing towards the middle of the cab and was thinking about strategic bitumen pads, felt linning with and maybe changing the itchy yellow fiber glass for pillow stuffing...
I wanted to know beforehand in case it could turn out a waste of time, although it won't be hard just placing some fillets over the existing ones
I may also add some bracing towards the middle of the cab and was thinking about strategic bitumen pads, felt linning with and maybe changing the itchy yellow fiber glass for pillow stuffing...
That's the thing, you can't really tell that you can hear the sound working around the bump. Opportunities to really hear issues of this nature are few and far between. You need to proceed in faith, if the design is worth your efforts.
Yes, given the nature of wave propagation and anecdotal evidence one can make reasonable assumptions.
Hello Swann , I knew the thread tittle could mislead someone... I wasn't reffering to that but to the whole baffle surface in relation to the cabinet edges
Hehe, my bad
could have read more then the title 🙂. But to go there, i would also say yes to this topic. Because every "bump" (edges, uneaven flushed driver) which for instance the tweeter and the midrange "see" in their emission, causes a bump/dip in the overall freqnuncy response. May it be the edges of the cab itself which are not flushed or the driver, being not flush mounted in the baffle itself.
CT 292
You see, for instace the speaker i linked above has these edges like the concerto, plus the uneaven (not flush mounted) low/mid driver.
This creates a dip for the tweeter in the frequency response at around 3 khz, which is measureable and shown in the magazin where the speaker was build for.
This is a two way speaker, made from the guys of Klang and Ton with the sqaure 13pfc25 from Sb, and they where to lazy to trim it flush in the baffle.
So guess what, i build my own version of the speaker with a different tweeter (ST26 instead of the SB19ST), and same in here. I was to lazy to flush mount the stupid square driver and got the same dip around 3 khz!
Still i do not have these overstanding egdes like the they had in their construction, but got the dip.
TDLR: it helps to have no overstanding edges and to flush mount everything.
Greets Swany
could have read more then the title 🙂. But to go there, i would also say yes to this topic. Because every "bump" (edges, uneaven flushed driver) which for instance the tweeter and the midrange "see" in their emission, causes a bump/dip in the overall freqnuncy response. May it be the edges of the cab itself which are not flushed or the driver, being not flush mounted in the baffle itself.
CT 292
You see, for instace the speaker i linked above has these edges like the concerto, plus the uneaven (not flush mounted) low/mid driver.
This creates a dip for the tweeter in the frequency response at around 3 khz, which is measureable and shown in the magazin where the speaker was build for.
This is a two way speaker, made from the guys of Klang and Ton with the sqaure 13pfc25 from Sb, and they where to lazy to trim it flush in the baffle.
So guess what, i build my own version of the speaker with a different tweeter (ST26 instead of the SB19ST), and same in here. I was to lazy to flush mount the stupid square driver and got the same dip around 3 khz!
Still i do not have these overstanding egdes like the they had in their construction, but got the dip.
TDLR: it helps to have no overstanding edges and to flush mount everything.
Greets Swany
But the results in some ways apply to the issue you have asked about. Thanx Swann, i hadn’t seen that before. It is a critical point that is often missed.
dave
That in itself wouldn't effect the imaging but it does show that the extra sources , which could effect the imaging, due to the diffraction are interfering with the direct sound.
No problem, happens all the time when reading things on the fly
Interesting to know that even in such small loudspeakers not flushing stuff may have an effect ��. I understand you didn't flush the driver on the CT92, routing for a non round speaker must be a hassle! That speaker has a similar frame to Kef's B110 used in Concertos
I started today the project of bringing the baffle forward and it's not as straightforward as i expected as fillets and baffle edges are rebated... I'm working on it. It surprised me the quality of the mid driver rounded cabinet, I expected a thin cardboard cilinder similar to a port tube but it is quite consistent... it seems it goes all the way to the back making contact with the rear panel so I guess I'll need to fill that gap when bringing the baffle forward
You are making the baffle thicker (not a bad thing, but just taking a router to the edges is a lot easier.
dave
dave