audible benefit to flush mount 8" ? (nt)

Status
This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.
Diffraction arround the bezel. It's especially important with higher frequency drivers (tweeters, fullrange drivers), but all benefit from it. Not-flushmounted drivers can alter the sound very much. It's the same principle as baffle step, only much higher up in frequency
 
I wouldn't worry about it too much. If you can do before and after measurements it would be interesting. The diffraction is going to relate to wavelength and the depth of the frame edge. A full range driver will be beaming at high frequencies and they won't reach the edge anyway.
 
I wouldn't go quite so far as 'all'; some designs like BMRs, the flat-cone TBs, and even some shallow profile units where a dustcap is bonded to the end of the VC and used like a central dome are less directional than others. Usually more so than a regular dome tweeter to be sure, but flush-mounting is still advisable in those cases. For others / larger drivers, those with large roll surrounds etc., where the polars certainly do narrow with rising frequency, it's mostly a question of aesthetics. If you have the facilities / ability to do it & the basket is designed for said, then I probably would since I can't think of a good reason not to. If it's problematic to implement and the general driver type isn't likely to benefit, then it's not something to lose much sleep over from a performance POV.
 
Last edited:
If you can do before and after measurements it would be interesting
Yes! Another day and the same word spreads from your mouth!
What would you precisely would you want to measure?
That tiny little range of frequencies that has the same WL of the obstacle it has to surpass ( the WL itself) and it's reflected on that surface ( moving target: mostly it's the surround suspension) and then interfering with the next wave while it annihilates...
And what laboratory has the technique to do it, I mean, repeatable and moreover, what's to measure in sound?
 
well, the effect is there, it's measured in the past nummerous times, but it's not dramatic. So if you don't want to flushmount, it's not a big issue. And many don't.

I prefer to do it, also from esthetical view, but also because i hear the (minimal) difference.
 
it's slightly more ragged in the highs. I did test it years ago (with the first pair of Alpair 10.3 that i used) to see it myself, and it's minimal (+/- 2dB in my test), but it's there. But it's not dramatic i said before, so not worth to think about it much for me. If you can't easely flush mount, don't bother that much. With most drivers, with a small bezel, it will be even less than with the Alpair 10.3 that has a big bezel that is 1cm thick. There are many factors that are way more important than that. But it's not that there is no difference.
 
Ok, if it's audible it's audible. So I suggest the OP does it both ways and lets us know. I shpuld have known better than to post in such a thread :rolleyes:

I know it can be tricky to measure as pico says, I think it's one of those situations where a simulation is quite useful. How does the frame edge diffraction show up in measurements?

You asked for data, and it was provided above. See the link. Short version: it can be audible, and it can be measurable, depending on driver type and implementation. Personally I suggest the OP flush mounts providing the facilities are available to do so and if the driver is designed for it (i.e. not a surface-mount basket), since there are no downsides and it generally improves the appearance. It may have an audible effect, although unlikely on an 8in wideband driver. Without knowing exactly what it is, we can't say with absolute certainty, but assuming it's a wideband, then the balance of probability is that it will be mostly cosmetic.
 
Last edited:
Status
This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.