Testing baffle edge treatments for tweeter diffraction.

Since I am starting a new speaker, I wanted to try a couple of different baffle edge treatments to see their effect on tweeter diffraction.

Tonight I finished the four blanks which are a double layer of 3/4" MDF 8"x15".

Tonight I did the boring basic stuff, routed the rebate to recess the tweeter, did the through hole and notched for the lead ears.

I am going to test the following,

- control which will be left square edged

- 7/8" roundover on three sides

- progressively wider 45º chamfer starting a 0" width at the bottom and ending 1" wide going across the top

- 30º chamfer that starts in the middle of where the woofer will be going to about 1.5" at the top and across

Tweeter will be an inexpensive SB Acoustics SB26ST-C000-5

More to follow....
 

Attachments

  • baffle test 1 - four blank baffles.jpg
    baffle test 1 - four blank baffles.jpg
    412.1 KB · Views: 661
  • baffle test  7 - four test baffle blanks ready.jpg
    baffle test 7 - four test baffle blanks ready.jpg
    458.9 KB · Views: 202
  • baffle test  6 - cutting tweeter lead ears.jpg
    baffle test 6 - cutting tweeter lead ears.jpg
    394.8 KB · Views: 149
  • baffle test 5 - drilling through hole 2.jpg
    baffle test 5 - drilling through hole 2.jpg
    454.2 KB · Views: 627
  • baffle test 4 - drilling through hole.jpg
    baffle test 4 - drilling through hole.jpg
    368.1 KB · Views: 637
  • baffle test 3 - routing rabet 2.jpg
    baffle test 3 - routing rabet 2.jpg
    445 KB · Views: 644
  • baffle test 2 - routing rabet.jpg
    baffle test 2 - routing rabet.jpg
    412 KB · Views: 660

AllenB

Moderator
Paid Member
2008-10-18 11:31 am
About interpreting the results..

A sim could show two things. One, that the response is smooth on axis because the diffraction effects are spread. This may not be the good result that it appears to be. Sound is still delayed and displaced. The sound also is not smooth on other axes.

That the response on axis is smooth because the diffraction effects are sufficiently reduced. How this is done depends on the application. For example though, a roundover might be a part of the sim.
 
I cut the edge profiles on the three test baffles tonight.

- 7/8" roundover on three sides

- Progressive 45° chamfer from 0" at the bottom to 1" at the top and across

- 30° bevel starting at 0" from mid where the woofer will be to about 2" at the top and across.

The roundover was the easy one.

For the 45° chamfer, I just made a simple jig to hold the end of the board 7/8" up at the bottom of the baffle.

The 30° bevel jig was a little more work, but I have made enough furniture leg tapering jigs before and for this, just made a short length/tall version. It didn't quite land exactly where I wanted it to, but close enough for testing.

I hope to take measurements in the next few days.
 

Attachments

  • 76785055_10156891991872741_8676097365444132864_n.jpg
    76785055_10156891991872741_8676097365444132864_n.jpg
    74.9 KB · Views: 144
  • 78565018_10156891991767741_9030237025525039104_n.jpg
    78565018_10156891991767741_9030237025525039104_n.jpg
    78 KB · Views: 138
  • 72944858_10156891991677741_1891355407901786112_n.jpg
    72944858_10156891991677741_1891355407901786112_n.jpg
    62.9 KB · Views: 139
  • 78271821_10156891991592741_4676799114204151808_n.jpg
    78271821_10156891991592741_4676799114204151808_n.jpg
    73.3 KB · Views: 139
  • 78472470_10156891991522741_8445334854303744000_n.jpg
    78472470_10156891991522741_8445334854303744000_n.jpg
    80.5 KB · Views: 170
Pics of large bevel...
 

Attachments

  • 78560550_10156891991462741_1143878146022440960_n.jpg
    78560550_10156891991462741_1143878146022440960_n.jpg
    56.2 KB · Views: 189
  • 78336250_10156891992297741_4455421325648855040_n.jpg
    78336250_10156891992297741_4455421325648855040_n.jpg
    62.2 KB · Views: 122
  • 78918411_10156891992222741_5999974136036720640_n.jpg
    78918411_10156891992222741_5999974136036720640_n.jpg
    69.3 KB · Views: 89
  • 79315316_10156891992187741_7922070948453285888_n.jpg
    79315316_10156891992187741_7922070948453285888_n.jpg
    72.2 KB · Views: 96
  • 78587099_10156891992137741_1271218175387631616_n.jpg
    78587099_10156891992137741_1271218175387631616_n.jpg
    77.8 KB · Views: 104
  • 78101533_10156891992107741_5393598214962151424_n.jpg
    78101533_10156891992107741_5393598214962151424_n.jpg
    70.4 KB · Views: 103
  • 78862892_10156891992052741_5028444437668167680_n.jpg
    78862892_10156891992052741_5028444437668167680_n.jpg
    74.4 KB · Views: 102
  • 80010244_10156891991982741_2458951184497508352_n.jpg
    80010244_10156891991982741_2458951184497508352_n.jpg
    84.7 KB · Views: 99
  • 78471732_10156891991907741_8712383912040464384_n.jpg
    78471732_10156891991907741_8712383912040464384_n.jpg
    47 KB · Views: 149
More tinkering based on theory and my own trials:
- all these baffle types are popular and relatively easy to make
- baffles 3 and 4 have remarkably different flat area dimensions and thus should show gross difference to 1 and 2
- tweeter's band 1-25kHz is so high that the box will have minimal effect.
- a woofer in the baffle would make some minor ripples in response appr. 3-8kHz
- below baffle step limit (woofer range) sidewalls make continuence which most likely will change spl response at perhaps 30-90 deg angles, compared to simulation of a baffle without box (or measurement, which would be a dipole woofer then !)

Still impatiently waiting for measurements!
 
Last edited:
...Still impatiently waiting for measurements!
While waiting for measurements you might find this set I took 10 yrs ago of interest. It compares a standard sharp-edged box with the Joseph Audio and Avalon Acoustics style diffraction treatments. The Joseph Audio was similar to DaveFred's test baffle #4. The Avalon style reduced the diffraction effects just a bit more then the Joseph Audio, with smoother off-axis response in the critical 1kHz - 3kHz range. I couldn't locate pics of the actual test boxes, but I attached images of the loudspeakers I was trying to test the shape of.

*Forgot to mention that the 3dB rise in the top octave of the raw measurements is not diffraction related, but from the the response peak in the uncalibrated mic.
 

Attachments

  • Diffraction_Compare_01.png
    Diffraction_Compare_01.png
    333.6 KB · Views: 450
  • Diffraction_Compare_02.png
    Diffraction_Compare_02.png
    454.3 KB · Views: 454
Last edited:
Here are some results,

Here are the results of my tests on the four baffles at 0º, 15º, 30º, 45º and 60º.

A comparison of the four baffles at each angle,
 

Attachments

  • 60 degrees all baffles.jpg
    60 degrees all baffles.jpg
    230.3 KB · Views: 156
  • 45 degrees all baffles.jpg
    45 degrees all baffles.jpg
    228.8 KB · Views: 155
  • 30 degrees all baffles.jpg
    30 degrees all baffles.jpg
    227.4 KB · Views: 366
  • 15 degrees all baffles.jpg
    15 degrees all baffles.jpg
    230.3 KB · Views: 385
  • zero degrees all baffles.jpg
    zero degrees all baffles.jpg
    237.8 KB · Views: 391

AllenB

Moderator
Paid Member
2008-10-18 11:31 am
What remains is how to pull useful data out of this.
gedlee said:
Second, and this is the most important, there is no reason to believe that a small visual aberration means that the perception is equally small. It may well be that small diffraction aberrations are far more audible that the FR differences would lead one to believe (my research shows that.) I think that it is important to note that diffraction effects are always delayed in time and that can make a huge difference in perception.(link)