I think there was a build where the front baffle was 14mm wider than specs and they put a chamfer on it to bring it back to 11" (280mm). Not sure how that affects the BSC that Joe has built in.
Hello everybody,
Since I am currently planning the box, I made a note of post 2778. Joe explained the effects and possible corrections of rounding off very well. maybe it helps.
The "Elsinore Project" Thread
best regards Steff
The "Elsinore Project" Thread
Since I am currently planning the box, I made a note of post 2778. Joe explained the effects and possible corrections of rounding off very well. maybe it helps.
The "Elsinore Project" Thread
best regards Steff
The "Elsinore Project" Thread
Very good explanation on making the baffle too small. But what about making it slightly bigger? Any thoughts?
Compound chamfer on baffle
What I have in mind is something like Baffle B.
Will not be easy though...
Baffle A is easier, but Baffle B would be a superior option?
While some might say that the steeper slopes on Baffle A can make the baffle a tad narrower and affect BSC designed in the XO, would the gentle slopes of Baffle B maintain the "full baffle width" and hence no adjustment to BSC would be required (in theory)?
What I have in mind is something like Baffle B.
Will not be easy though...
Baffle A is easier, but Baffle B would be a superior option?
While some might say that the steeper slopes on Baffle A can make the baffle a tad narrower and affect BSC designed in the XO, would the gentle slopes of Baffle B maintain the "full baffle width" and hence no adjustment to BSC would be required (in theory)?
Attachments
Last edited:
hello zman01,
I can understand your plan for the baffle shape well. I also made a lot of considerations and then rejected them. Joe has pointed out several times that the baffle width should remain unchanged and only a maximum radius of R6.2 is unproblematic. In addition, there was the recommendation that only a change in the depth of the case is unproblematic, for example if a different wood thickness is used to adjust the case volume. I think your Form B and additional distribution of the box not only lead to a change in the BSC but also the edge diffraction, which can only be corrected with precise measurements and adjustment of the crossover, with the hope that this does not affect the overall concept of the crossover.
better not do this and stick to the recommendations. take a look at engelholmaudio.com. the design of the floorstanding loudspeakers is perhaps a good alternative for building the elsinöre which I like very much and which keeps the deviations very small ... (I hope so)
best regards Steff
sorry for my bad English
I can understand your plan for the baffle shape well. I also made a lot of considerations and then rejected them. Joe has pointed out several times that the baffle width should remain unchanged and only a maximum radius of R6.2 is unproblematic. In addition, there was the recommendation that only a change in the depth of the case is unproblematic, for example if a different wood thickness is used to adjust the case volume. I think your Form B and additional distribution of the box not only lead to a change in the BSC but also the edge diffraction, which can only be corrected with precise measurements and adjustment of the crossover, with the hope that this does not affect the overall concept of the crossover.
better not do this and stick to the recommendations. take a look at engelholmaudio.com. the design of the floorstanding loudspeakers is perhaps a good alternative for building the elsinöre which I like very much and which keeps the deviations very small ... (I hope so)
best regards Steff
sorry for my bad English
The Elsinore's crossover does not include any such attempt, so I see this as moot (without prejudice as to the whys and wherefores).
The facts are that..
A radius of 6.2mm is small, and has an operating band beyond the range of hearing for many of us, so is of little help.
Reduction of diffraction, as pertains to conventional designs, is generally considered a good thing. The higher frequency edge diffraction you mention is of particular interest due to its various concerns with audibility, and it is relatively easy to round over a baffle making this band a likely target of such efforts.
The idea of modifying the baffle step frequency has not been shut down in this thread that I'm aware of. As has been mentioned the 2.5 way type of crossover is easy to modify for a change in BSC, and besides.. zman01 has only expressed an interest in a small change, so the workload should be minimal, if necessary.
Canada. Mixed.
Residential trades ar imperial, 2x4 studs (1.5x3.5”), 16” centres, 4x8’, x12’, x16’ drywall, etc.
Most everything else is metric. Metric is taught in schools.
dave
..I really hate Imperial with "standardized" lumber: where a "2" by "4" isn't 2 inches by 4 inches. It might as well be Metric.
Metric is taught in the US as well, but not really used - a shame because it's considerably better for detailed "short" measurements. Once you get to a foot though what's the point (beyond continuity when specifically working with smaller dimensions)? (..when I do material cuts I use Metric, though I typically think of the dimensions first as Imperial.)
..and then there are the derived words in English: like fuel mileage, that to the best of my knowledge does not have a metric substitute.
Metric is taught in the US as well, but not really used - a shame because it's considerably better for detailed "short" measurements. Once you get to a foot though what's the point (beyond continuity when specifically working with smaller dimensions)? (..when I do material cuts I use Metric, though I typically think of the dimensions first as Imperial.)
..and then there are the derived words in English: like fuel mileage, that to the best of my knowledge does not have a metric substitute.
Last edited:
I would like to place the crossover into a 4" pedestal under the actual speaker cabinet, and so I am trying to squeeze the crossover parts onto a 6"x12" board. The 0.1 and 1mH coils are on their sides. I would appreciate any comments if there is anything wrong with the layout in the picture below. Thanks!
Attachments
I can record a song or two at some point in the near future. What would you like to hear?
Caveats:
- I have 1/2" roundovers (didn't realize we shouldn't round that much...will need to fix this summer)
- Room is not treated in any way
- Will be an iPhone recording
Send me a pm and I'll see what I can do.
You are usually better-off having that space clear.
Best to try it out first (..typically putting books underneath vs. some speaker "toes") and listen for which result you prefer.
What I have in mind is something like Baffle B.
We have done the 1st often and the 2nd turned into the Ellipsa And a set of curved Pensils). The more segments you add the closer it gets to a smooth curve.
I have been following the round over conversation with interest. My understanding is that at the frequencies involved, a chamfer needs to be quite large have an affect at lower frequencies and will only make response higher than it is effective will be smoother and have less time-smeared and physically distanced pertebation to the direct radiation.
If one wants to know the affect of 20mm increase in width…
BS(-3) ~ 4560/width (an imperial equation, width is in inches).
Add 20mm (0.78”) to the width and you will see how much.
305 Hz vrs 298 Hz. about 5%. Less than the tolerances in the XO.
dave
Given the frequencies involved neither of Zia’s chamfers will affect the BS. Only smooth things up much higher in frequency.
dave
Me too… but that is what i get from Home Despot.
My rear deck is proper dimensional 2 x 4 cedar milled by a buddy. Quite different really.
dave
There are a few posts in this thread that are well worth the read
The "Elsinore Project" Thread
The "Elsinore Project" Thread
The idea is that the inductors create a magnetic field, that field can induce current in nearby inductors. The 2nd post above I believe talks about hooking up anything that can create a signal to one inductor and hooking up a speaker or headphones to another inductor. By simply moving them around, you will get a hear the phenomenon and get a feeling of what placement creates the least amount. I was very surprised to learn that pivoting one inductor even a very small amount reduces the cross talk significantly. This exercise is simple to try and tremendously insightful.
That said, I know some here are VERY familiar with what works well, if your not going to try as mentioned, may be someone else here can fill in any gaps...
Aa007:
You might consider this advice about coil orientation from Troels Graveson: Placement of coils in crossover networks
Regards,
Scott