The same as mounting them in a cylinder is it not?. Typically it will produce the worst baffle step, and it will go up to a higher frequency.kneadle said:
Audiophilenoob said:
Maybe if you have a driver that operates like an expanding ball. Believe it or not, I recall there is even a US patent like that.
Are we talking about baffle step or refractions?Vikash said:
In any case, bear in mind that "Cutting the Gordian knot" does not untie the knot, i.e., address refractions, it just removes them from consideration. My goal was to remove the baffle from consideration while I was addressing this design, which resulted from the pursuit of a pyramid-shaped design.
I also assure you that the caterpillars sound very good, whatever refractions and steps may be present.
Dave
Now, about the cardioid design mentioned earlier...
How would that function in an OB design? Is there one in existence?
Thanks,
Dave
How would that function in an OB design? Is there one in existence?
Thanks,
Dave
Member
Joined 2004
Baffle coloration
Kneadle: I like your design philosophy regarding baffle distortion components.It makes sense to attempt to design these out if possible.I remember someone in a Hi-Fi salon holding up a piece of cardboard with a circle cutout in the middle of it..he held it in front of him and spoke,you could hear the coloration the baffle introduced.I built a three way system and mounted the Midrange and tweeter to a very small baffle,it plugs into the Bass unit with bananna plugs. Bob C.
Kneadle: I like your design philosophy regarding baffle distortion components.It makes sense to attempt to design these out if possible.I remember someone in a Hi-Fi salon holding up a piece of cardboard with a circle cutout in the middle of it..he held it in front of him and spoke,you could hear the coloration the baffle introduced.I built a three way system and mounted the Midrange and tweeter to a very small baffle,it plugs into the Bass unit with bananna plugs. Bob C.
Attachments
Hi,
I'm working on this as often as I have free time. It's true that I haven't achieved some sort of ideal with the caterpillars, but everytime this topic comes up, I study it as closely as I can.
Right now I think I may have some sort of answer to the problem, which is, in my mind: how can I mount the speaker onto the enclosure without mounting it into a cylinder nor onto a baffle? But I'm keeping that to myself while I work out the math and design possibilities. It's currently in "guess" phase, and the material world is providing exceptional obstacles. My kingdom for a fourth dimension!
As I mentioned in passing earlier, my ears tell me that mounting it onto my spiral--which is not a cylinder, if you think about it--did indeed present a satisfactory alternative to baffle refractions, if not a satisfactory solution.
As far as BS goes, well--that's a whole 'nother problem. I have some ideas for that, too.
Dave
ps--lovely speakers, btw.
I'm working on this as often as I have free time. It's true that I haven't achieved some sort of ideal with the caterpillars, but everytime this topic comes up, I study it as closely as I can.
Right now I think I may have some sort of answer to the problem, which is, in my mind: how can I mount the speaker onto the enclosure without mounting it into a cylinder nor onto a baffle? But I'm keeping that to myself while I work out the math and design possibilities. It's currently in "guess" phase, and the material world is providing exceptional obstacles. My kingdom for a fourth dimension!
As I mentioned in passing earlier, my ears tell me that mounting it onto my spiral--which is not a cylinder, if you think about it--did indeed present a satisfactory alternative to baffle refractions, if not a satisfactory solution.
As far as BS goes, well--that's a whole 'nother problem. I have some ideas for that, too.
Dave
ps--lovely speakers, btw.
I'm not saying your speakers don't sound good, I'm just thinking as others have mentioned, that you now have a very tiny baffle (the edge of the speaker, which might be stuck in the end of a cylinder for as long as that is probably relevent (as Vikash mentions) even thought the thing starts spiraling.
So I think you are being overly optimistic that you have eliminated this factor:
I suspect that you are getting tons of refractions from your tiny sharp baffle that is the edge of your driver.
So I think you are being overly optimistic that you have eliminated this factor:
I suspect that you are getting tons of refractions from your tiny sharp baffle that is the edge of your driver.
I appreciate that, but to be accurate, I don't claim to have eliminated it; I've simply removed it from consideration.
And I reiterate: I do not think I've solved the problem; I've established an alternative for consideration.
No claims to ideal here, no sir!
However, I think some distinctions need to be drawn more sharply. Refraction is a fact of physics in sound reproduction. Eliminating refraction is a hopeless endeavor; why bother aiming to eliminate them?
If the speaker itself is going to refract at its edges, why not use this property as an advantage? Why not build an enclosure assuming refraction?
And again (lastly for now), is the refraction at the speaker edge quantifiable? How does it compare to "real" baffle refraction?
Dave
And I reiterate: I do not think I've solved the problem; I've established an alternative for consideration.
No claims to ideal here, no sir!
However, I think some distinctions need to be drawn more sharply. Refraction is a fact of physics in sound reproduction. Eliminating refraction is a hopeless endeavor; why bother aiming to eliminate them?
If the speaker itself is going to refract at its edges, why not use this property as an advantage? Why not build an enclosure assuming refraction?
And again (lastly for now), is the refraction at the speaker edge quantifiable? How does it compare to "real" baffle refraction?
Dave
Neat, I love the caterpillars.
I'm a little late getting back to this but:
I believe so, infinite baffle designs with the speakers built into the wall. Or next best maybe a sort of "stealth" speaker with a shape that started flat against the wall and curved out only enough to get the volume required to hold the drivers? A speaker set into a sphere is also supposed to be good no? Is it necessary? Are these refractions audible? Does going to an infinite baffle design to avoid them come with tradeoffs that might be even more audible? Still no idea 😀
Continuing in the "fun to think about but no idea if it's necessary" category, I have a thought about an open baffle with some thickness to it, sort of like a speaker stuck in a big donut, but with the thickness of the donut varying as you go around so it's kind of like the cardiod. I don't think I can draw it and I know I can't predict what it would do...
I'm a little late getting back to this but:
I believe so, infinite baffle designs with the speakers built into the wall. Or next best maybe a sort of "stealth" speaker with a shape that started flat against the wall and curved out only enough to get the volume required to hold the drivers? A speaker set into a sphere is also supposed to be good no? Is it necessary? Are these refractions audible? Does going to an infinite baffle design to avoid them come with tradeoffs that might be even more audible? Still no idea 😀
Continuing in the "fun to think about but no idea if it's necessary" category, I have a thought about an open baffle with some thickness to it, sort of like a speaker stuck in a big donut, but with the thickness of the donut varying as you go around so it's kind of like the cardiod. I don't think I can draw it and I know I can't predict what it would do...
Thanks, and I think your cardioid idea demonstrates that you and I are on the same wavelength, refracted though it may be...poptart said:
😉
Dave
- Status
- Not open for further replies.