As for the Stradivari, it may eliminate some of the diffraction issues, but introduces other problems. I don't think the wide baffle images very well. I actually have the Stradivari clone and especially at low frequencies, there are some phasy things that shifts the image around.
Are you sure it is the baffle design that is the Problem here ? At least theoretically either very wide or very narrow baffles should imnage well. The worst are the ones that are as wide as an average head.
Regards
Charles
Would be difficult to move around ... to a new place. I'd like my speakers to be able to wiggle and shake a bit.
Then you will have diffraction, there's simply no way around it.
Round shapes, or Avalon type shapes, do spread the diffraction over a wider frequency range, making it less obvious.
The other solution is Juhazi's in post 29, where you choose your baffle width and crossover points very carefully, but diffraction will be there.
On a side note: You can use diffraction/acoustic impedance changes to make very shallow but still wide frequency range diffusers that also work as wide band absorbers.
Waveguides are a solution to diffraction
Yes. But only up to the point where they stop working, then you have to crossover to a lower frequency speaker thus diffraction will happen. And because the acoustic impedance change is about as big as it can get, you'll get lots of it. Using large waveguides will shift the diffraction to lower frequencies where they will be less audible.
That looks like they've used an old TV cabinetI've heard minimum baffle designs and wide body speakers. I have to say I prefer the latter by a fair margin.
Other minimum baffle designs include designs from Linkwitz as well as Vandersteen.
Thiels (old designs) seemed to be normal width, but big rounded edges.
Here is a pic I dug up of the Snell A/III with the top removed:
![]()
And about baffle diffractions - the best way to avoid them is tu use a dipole or cardioid system below it's dipole peak range! Then we don't encounter edge diffractions until we reach say 6kHz with a minimal baffle width! This means usually a 4-way construction like Linkwitz's LX521 or Kreskowsky's NaO Note II! My attempt in this genre is in my signature AINOgradient
Dahlquist DQ-10 - Manual - Five Way Dynamic Loudspeaker System - HiFi Engine
dahlquist dq-10
I mirror-imaged my share of those in the day.
dave
Depends on foam density.
GM
Thanks for the replies. Would the foam help tame sibilance issues? Would any baffle treatment help with sibilance?
John
Surely, this is subjective. Correct me if I am wrong; but - can the human ear actually measure diffraction?
Waveguides are a solution to diffraction
i am not sure..
since the moment the wave is formed by the membrane driver,
the wave must be free of propagate without interferences.
Everything that will obstruct the dispersion will create some type of sound distortion.
what is happening in the inside of the mouth of the waveguide?
waveguide is like a baffle, like a frame H or another shape that constrain the wave to follow a route obbligated.
That sounds a bit vague and audiophiley. In the worst case it can have significant impacts on high end frequency response of 6dB or more.Diffraction can degrade imaging, so it can be perceived
Diffraction from baffle edges
It seems to me that people are chasing rainbows. the only way to measure the out put of a loudspeaker is through the application of scientific measurement equipment. I'm no expert - but I doubt any you human could distinguish an indicated diffraction within the confines of , if you're lucky, a reasonable sized music room.
And, in comparison to what? a symphony hall? how does one measure the diffraction of a venue and does the perception of a critique spoil the experience of attending a concert, ballet or opera?
Lets take the example of a recording studio, the engineers desk, where audio is mixed and produce for our consumption. There is simply no emphasis placed on monitor diffraction. Sound engineers mix and produce product and it's their ear that is the arbiter of what we listen to.
I'm all for innovation but if a baffles diffraction criteria influences the design with no definable , objective conclusion; then I consider the subject of baffle diffusion a spurious argument in the context of man V scientific instrumentation.
And, in comparison to what? a symphony hall? how does one measure the diffraction of a venue and does the perception of a critique spoil the experience of attending a concert, ballet or opera?
Lets take the example of a recording studio, the engineers desk, where audio is mixed and produce for our consumption. There is simply no emphasis placed on monitor diffraction. Sound engineers mix and produce product and it's their ear that is the arbiter of what we listen to.
I'm all for innovation but if a baffles diffraction criteria influences the design with no definable , objective conclusion; then I consider the subject of baffle diffusion a spurious argument in the context of man V scientific instrumentation.
I think they are more of an acoustic transformer to aid coupling and dispersioni am not sure..
since the moment the wave is formed by the membrane driver,
the wave must be free of propagate without interferences.
Everything that will obstruct the dispersion will create some type of sound distortion.
what is happening in the inside of the mouth of the waveguide?
waveguide is like a baffle, like a frame H or another shape that constrain the wave to follow a route obbligated.
Until I realized that I actually prefer wide baffle speakers, I had been using small rounded baffle speakers for 15 years believing blindly that the baffle diffraction is a bad thing. It was waste of my time. Compare them yourself.
As I understand it, diffraction is from going from a 2*pi (hemisphere off a flat surface) space to a 4*pi space (3D sphere). If you mount in a wall, you're always in a 2*pi space so you avoid diffraction. Otherwise you have some degree of diffraction.
The diffraction can be easily measured as it causes constructive (peaks) and destruction interference (nulls) on top of the normal response. So it looks like more ripple or bumps.
You may (or not) be able to hear it depending on the amplitude and frequency. I think most people want a flat freq response so they try to minimize diffraction.
The diffraction can be easily measured as it causes constructive (peaks) and destruction interference (nulls) on top of the normal response. So it looks like more ripple or bumps.
You may (or not) be able to hear it depending on the amplitude and frequency. I think most people want a flat freq response so they try to minimize diffraction.
Because of HRTF, I suppose? Interesting you should say this because reading thru this I kept thinking "Wide or Narrow? I can't decide because I've heard both do well - very narrow and very wide. But in between? Nothing stands out to me.At least theoretically either very wide or very narrow baffles should image well. The worst are the ones that are as wide as an average head.
- Home
- Loudspeakers
- Multi-Way
- What are some good example of baffle design to improve diffraction