In Reply to: Re: Bafflesize posted by andyr on October 28, 2006 at 01:58:44:
Well, in terms of the "large as possible" comment, that was a bit of an exaggeration- you wouldn't want it to take up the whole room.In terms of the triangle concept- I think there is a lot of merit to having the baffle narrower at the top than the bottom. At the bottom, the floor would be used as a boundary to increase the effective baffle area and improve bass response. In addition, the narrower baffle extensions at the top would interfere less with the high frequency dispersion and reflected sound at ear level (especially with line sources and their very controlled high frequency dispersion). This lack of high frequency boundary interference would preserve the "open" and "airy" sound.
I was thinking had a few thoughts and ideas:
• Curve around to the back from the flat front of the panel (limit any diffraction from sharp edges on the front and early reflections on the back), with the top being narrow and the bottom wider.
• Integrated into the frame/baffle structure rather than just tacked on.
• Asymmetrical profiles to match the asymmetry of the driver placementMaybe I should cut up a couple sonotubes and play around...
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Re: Bafflesize - lne937s 14:36:47 10/31/06 (1)
- Re: Bafflesize - andyr 17:44:25 10/31/06 (0)