Speaker Asylum

Really?!!!!!!!!!

203.129.42.149

This Post Has Been Edited by the Author

In Reply to: RE: Diffraction and front baffle and cabinet design posted by villastrangiato on April 17, 2012 at 11:59:56

"you'll find that the responses in figure 15,16, and 17 (the rectangular box) have the best response. The sphere with offset tweeter (figure 6) is not a practical design and you didn't specify an offset driver which makes a significant difference as the centered driver on a more practical circular baffle (figure 8) is the worst case (which is what I was referring to). "

A significant error. The drivers used were a single WR/FR driver, no tweeters. The sphere in Fig.6 is itself offset so that you can see the driver clearly. In any case, put any driver on a sphere and it will be centred, by definition, as would any dot be, no!?

So, offsetting a driver on a sphere is simply impossible. Fig. 6 has the smoothest FR. Despite being centred.

A sphere is not a circular baffle as it does not have an edge at all. A circular baffle has a sharp edge. There are NO Fig.s for a circular baffle on that page, for two conics? yes.

Even a truncated sphere with a sliced (circular baffle) is measurably superior to a 90-degree edge box, and audibly so. This audible superiority may have a secondary cause - that curved surfaces suppress bending waves / are self damping.

Practical / real spheres are truncated and thus do not have the predicted single/audible internal standing wave, either. Just in case you want to bring that up.

It is true that for modern materials baffle truncation is not essential, yet Gallo's spheres still didn't have that problem, because all real drivers have volume. Eggs are theoretically better but are even more expensive.

Mind how you go. :-)!

Note that a post in response is preferred.

Warmest

Timothy Bailey

The Skyptical Mensurer and Audio Scrounger

And gladly would he learn and gladly teach - Chaucer. ;-)!

'Still not saluting.'

Follow Ups: