If you refer to me, then I'm merely trying to figure out if whether a woofer needs to have the same properties as a midrange, to take over the lower midrange - because I find it better to use a smaller midrange all together, which makes a woofer necessary to fill in the area of 100-500hz - which is troublesome for a 4-5" if you want just moderate clean splThis is a midrange topic and a lot of what you do is discuss the resonant domain behavior, which is quite irrelevant for most midrange applications. Sorry for this interruption, but we’d rather be discussing cone profiles and motor assemblies or the need for a phase plug.
But apparently - specs doesn't really matter for active systems with closed boxes... so I'll just buy the nicest looking driver that fits my build and be happy with it 
Maybe.... you have to be happy with the choice too, but I don't want fine.... I want 95% awesome"Indeed it has the 2kHz bump on all axis'. So that would be an easy fix with EQ Well, with active DSP filters it is.... have no clue when it comes to passive design"
In my humble opinion, one can get amazing results with most materials
Agree. And the opposite is true because implementation is more important. Two-way is very easy. Three-way is much much trickier. Often a wise decision to make a big two-way that can cover very low frequency.
buth the cone break up due to the long exursion for the low end and the little movements for the mid area in a standalone driver is a no no... too much break ups !
I never heard a good two ways being as good as good 3 ways. Just my expereience though. But i dream as many of a good horn designed for home purpose only for the good coax drivers able of an easy 700 to 800 hz coupled to a 10 or 12" below... I'm not sure it can be made without DSP though... the hifi classic drivers have a flatter response... And for me active means also not good enough ADC/DAC, a trade off I don't want to do as I find sources to be of a first importance in the final result.
I never heard a good two ways being as good as good 3 ways. Just my expereience though. But i dream as many of a good horn designed for home purpose only for the good coax drivers able of an easy 700 to 800 hz coupled to a 10 or 12" below... I'm not sure it can be made without DSP though... the hifi classic drivers have a flatter response... And for me active means also not good enough ADC/DAC, a trade off I don't want to do as I find sources to be of a first importance in the final result.
Last edited:
That's true. But not many good 3 ways around. Many commercial 3-way speakers are not good. Non-commercials could be worse. If you have sensitive ears, you are cursed.
I’m afraid they cannot live with any normal sound reproduction device
Seriously, are you using subwoofer? Minimum 2 subwoofers required. And gambling with the knobs to find a proper acoustical blend? Seriously, this is best midrange thread. And that's why it is relevant. Because some people still think that when the midrange is best, the whole system will sound great. Or, when equalized, all midranges sound the same...
Who said it had to be normal
Whitout good bass.... you cant really appreciate the midrange quality - let alone the tweeter
I would think:
If the edge is "touching" the driver the diffraction is indistinguishable to that of the bare driver. Yes, a bare driver without a baffle has diffraction of course. It will diffract around its perimeter. And there is no resemblance between its direct sound and what is coming from step angels i.e. the edges.
//
Hi TNT,
yeah there are many ways to think the up and down sides. Let me write more about the line of thought I had a diffraction "sound source" at the baffle/speaker edge won't sound the same as the driver like you say, but if the edge is as close as possible (the driver size) the diffracted sound interferes as little as possible with the direct sound causing off axis anomalies since the diffraction "source" is as close as the driver edges itself. It is a simplified thought experiment that considers a mid driver on a multiway speaker.
If I assume a baffle whose edges cause maximum diffraction I can imagine the whole baffle being a sound source. As you know bigger sound source starts beaming at lower frequencies due to interference between sound emanating from different sides of the source. Due to this interference I can now imagine the baffle diffraction has worse effect on the loudspeaker off axis response when the baffle edges are relatively close but not touching the driver. As we shrink the baffle to the size of the driver the baffle becomes similar sized sound source as the driver itself and causes as few off axis anomalies as possible. The interference might be above the crossover frequency if you can cross to a (tweeter) at frequency where the mid driver is still omni (wavelengths longer than the baffle dimensions). Another thing with the diffraction "sound source" is that it has a time delay. Driver sized baffle has minimum time delay on the diffracted sound, that interferes with the direct sound.
If I imagine very large baffle, diffraction would be a bit less due to attenuation with distance between driver and the edge but the time delay gets longer as well. Off axis anomalies get worse the bigger the baffle is since the apparent source is bigger. If one makes a big baffle, better make it as big as possible to try counteract the worse interference with attenuation.
I'm not sure what is good and what is bad but from the thought experiment I could very well conclude there are some worse and better baffle sizes in between the extremes. Minimum baffle size might not be possible since it was a multiway speaker and maximum size might be too big so one ends up somewhere in the middle. Roundovers or waveguides are a very good way to get less diffraction so one can concentrate on the other issues in a loudspeaker design. Roundovers and waveguides have trade off as cost and maybe on visual appearance, compared to a traditional rectangle box, but they are worth it I think.
edit. afterthought on a big waveguide: even if the waveguide mouth edge had bad diffraction, the time delay of the diffraction is very close to the direct sound. Due to this a waveguide without baffle is better than a baffle with or without a waveguide. Maybe this is why ATH4 thread simulations on waveguides with rollback have almost no diffraction at all, a wave launcher.
yeah there are many ways to think the up and down sides. Let me write more about the line of thought I had
a diffraction "sound source" at the baffle/speaker edge won't sound the same as the driver like you say, but if the edge is as close as possible (the driver size) the diffracted sound interferes as little as possible with the direct sound causing off axis anomalies since the diffraction "source" is as close as the driver edges itself. It is a simplified thought experiment that considers a mid driver on a multiway speaker.If I assume a baffle whose edges cause maximum diffraction I can imagine the whole baffle being a sound source. As you know bigger sound source starts beaming at lower frequencies due to interference between sound emanating from different sides of the source. Due to this interference I can now imagine the baffle diffraction has worse effect on the loudspeaker off axis response when the baffle edges are relatively close but not touching the driver. As we shrink the baffle to the size of the driver the baffle becomes similar sized sound source as the driver itself and causes as few off axis anomalies as possible. The interference might be above the crossover frequency if you can cross to a (tweeter) at frequency where the mid driver is still omni (wavelengths longer than the baffle dimensions). Another thing with the diffraction "sound source" is that it has a time delay. Driver sized baffle has minimum time delay on the diffracted sound, that interferes with the direct sound.
If I imagine very large baffle, diffraction would be a bit less due to attenuation with distance between driver and the edge but the time delay gets longer as well. Off axis anomalies get worse the bigger the baffle is since the apparent source is bigger. If one makes a big baffle, better make it as big as possible to try counteract the worse interference with attenuation.
I'm not sure what is good and what is bad but from the thought experiment I could very well conclude there are some worse and better baffle sizes in between the extremes. Minimum baffle size might not be possible since it was a multiway speaker and maximum size might be too big so one ends up somewhere in the middle. Roundovers or waveguides are a very good way to get less diffraction so one can concentrate on the other issues in a loudspeaker design. Roundovers and waveguides have trade off as cost and maybe on visual appearance, compared to a traditional rectangle box, but they are worth it I think.
edit. afterthought on a big waveguide: even if the waveguide mouth edge had bad diffraction, the time delay of the diffraction is very close to the direct sound. Due to this a waveguide without baffle is better than a baffle with or without a waveguide. Maybe this is why ATH4 thread simulations on waveguides with rollback have almost no diffraction at all, a wave launcher.
Last edited:
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.