When building speakers and designing crossovers, I found that 1/2 foam on the baffle or strips (like MK and others use) removes the edge diffraction - it's easy to see the difference when measuring using a mic and something like REW and changing nothing else other than adding/removing the foam. Another method that's usually used for home theatre installs, is to place them in the wall - a 'baffle wall' (ideally not touching the wall but isolated from it). No edges, so no detraction, plus you get a 6db bass boost as the bass can't wrap around the speaker. Also, the off axis response is pretty important too. In blind tests, the speakers with the best off axis also have the best 'sound power' and generally get picked as being a 'better speaker' by listeners in those blind tests. Being able to see the speakers you are comparing or even knowing the prices tend to skew results, and pretty much every time. Floyd Toole did some interesting research and talks about what makes a good speaker here: ruclips.net/video/zrpUDuUtxPM/видео.html
Difraction occurs when obstacle or gap size is similar to the wavelength of the wave. On subwoofer frequencies wavelenght is mutch greater than sub enclosure and shape do not matters.
I have made two pairs of DIY spherical speakers using IKEA bowls glued together (and good internal damping, drivers and crossovers). One set 4 spheres and the other two spheres. The elimination of diffraction distortion makes the speakers "fade" into the background and create a broader sound stage. Any issue of standing waves on the inside can be simply addressed by inserting a small ball into the sphere, offset if possible. Spheres are less prone to resonances anyway as they are the strongest enclosures and resonance can only be produced by pulsating. This is contrasted with individual boards that can vibrate in typical "box" style speakers.
I bet those sound good I have demonstrated improved decibel scores and obvious improve sound quality to the ears by using thick wall PVC pipe and integrating it into the corners of my speaker boxes so airflow is improved and staining waves are addressed. That combined with the use of aero ports completely smooths and improves the response of a ported setup. It will also help sealed as well
Im curious on having this quantified. In terms of time, how much extra time would you feel it would take to give X% improvement in overall performance/quality. I may not be asking the right question the right way so if you can help me understand in detail the tradeoffs with comparisons maybe. Standard build vs spherical with quantifications please? Thx 🙏 in advance for your valuable time.
@@chokechange for the best length easiest and most detailed explanation of this I would go to hexibase channel here on RUclips he has several videos showing computer analysis of the differences. In simple terms bass is nothing more than air moving around, and right angles are always going to slow down air flow which results in less Bass. The more edges you round the better the airflow the better the bass
Thanks for this! I'll also add what to me is maybe even more critical than diffraction changing the frequency response: it messes up the time domain. As you said, diffraction from the baffle edge acts as a mini-speaker repeating the original signal at a later time, like an echo. While the distance from the tweeter to the edge is short, our ears are amazingly good at picking up the repeating sound as a clue to position the speaker in space. It also smears the wanted, recorded clues to position instruments in the audio. The result is no hope of "making the speaker disappear" and bad/worsened imaging in general. Personally, I'd pick a disappearing speaker with excellent imaging over a ruler flat frequency response any day, but in this case, you don't have to pick one: reducing edge diffraction helps with both. In addition to asymmetry, round-overs, and chamfers, you can use waveguides ("aims" the waves forward so it never reaches the 90-degree spread) and even felt, or preferably combine several methods.
I once read a (Danish Hi-Fi magazine) measured diffraction from commercial speakers, and the same speakers with 2.5cm Rockwwol on the front with speaker cutouts, the measured differences was dramatic, and so was the sound, to the better
The enclosure example at 9:07 looks like a nearly identical enclosure to my Emotiva B1+. They sound fantastic for a fairly cheap speaker! I’m putting four of them in my theater room for surrounds. I really think everyone that loves getting a bargain should give them a try.
Edge diffraction can be used constructively to unify the tweeter and muds. Classic infinity used to do that. New kef uses the entire baffle as a source of deliberate diffraction. The best enclosure for a speaker in mono is a rounded baffle. The best for a stereo pair is much more complicated otherwise the BBC would have just gotten two mono speakers and called it a stereo pair but instead they created the first reference stereo speakers the LS3 5as
I use a pair of Munro EGG 100 speakers in my studio as monitors. As the name implies, they are egg-shaped, tweeter in the top, woofer in the bottom, and they sound absolutely fantastic! With a little help from a program called SonarWorks, these are what I use to track, mix and listen on. I am happy to have you confirming the intrinsic quality of this design in your video.
A point about different dimensions: You also want to avoid numbers that are related to each other by fractions that use small numbers. For example, you don't want two dimensions where one is 2/3rds the other or 1/2 the other or 3/4ths the other. This is because the ripples in the frequency response curve for each distance will line up with each other at some frequency if you do that. If the dimensions are things like 7/12ths each other this doesn't happen as much. When it comes to selecting a box's overall dimensions, you also want to apply the rule of making the dimensions not the same and not related by small numbered fractions. This is because of a second order effect that makes smaller but non-zero ripples in the frequency response.
Or just apply a large roundover to your cabinet and proper directivity-control to your mid- and high-frequency driver, problem solved. You want to minimize diffraction where ever possible. When you focus on the on-axis response to optimize your baffle dimensions the aberations will simply be shifted to the off-axis response where they still affect the sound signature of the speaker, but won't show up in your on-axis measurement. Off-axis response is almost as imporant as on-axis and should never be overlooked. Follow Earl Geddes' and Floyd Toole's work for more information.
@@iliketoast-q9b Roundovers reduce but don't eliminate the diffraction issue. Any practical roundover is a lot less than a wavelength of the sound. When I have music playing, I am usually doing something so I end up being at various locations vs the speakers.
@@kensmith5694 Diffraction usually happens in the upper-midrange and higher. So the roundover is approaching similar wavelengths and is very effective if it's more than just a few millimeters. Keeping the edge away from the driver further minimizes diffraction and with controlled directivity(waveguides) it becames a managable issue.
@@kensmith5694 That's not upper-midrange. Think 4kHz and up, which is approx. 8.5cm long and the half- and quarter wavelengths are already well within practical roundover radius. And it only gets shorter from there.
one thing to add: the directivity, or radiation pattern of your speaker also determines how much the edge diffraction takes effect. if you put a waveguide or horn in front of your speaker, edge diffraction is less of an issue. also with a lot of 3-way speaker designs, where often the mid-driver is very close to the tweeter, the shape of it can cause diffraction to happen aswell.
Aside from roundovers and chamfered baffles diffraction is an afterthought for most speakers in my opinion. Good video though, I'm definitely going to be looking to see what speakers have equal top/side distance for tweeters.
Totally, but that's because such speakers are designed for aesthetics where minimalism (and therefore minimal baffle being the driver) is key. It's unfortunate, but it needs to be done in a lot of cases to be successful as many people keep these things in a living room, where it would very often need to fit in (think WAF). Well, and sometimes the designer doesn't entirely know what they're doing too...
Hence why I have built my sphere loudspekaers. You have the video on my channel. Best is no standing waves inside and strong ”Shell”. The stereo perspective of the sound is immense like a surround sound if one have the room for it
*While it's clearly pointed out here that a spherical baffle is superior for minimizing edge diffraction comb filtering of the sound waves emanating externally of the enclosure, I wonder if there would be any issues with standing waves developing inside of the spherical enclosure, or if the spherical shape would minimize and diffract internal standing waves, being that the driver is not at the center of the orb, but rather, installed in the surface of it?...* 🤔
For my vehicle, tube is the best shape. Its solid and lightweight. All my speakers in the car are in tubes. But for home SQ, I totally understand the diffraction issue and that sphere concept is awesome.
This is out of scope for the video, I just figured I'd drop this here in case ppl were wondering why spherical speakers aren't common. The one problem with a sphere is that you either have to use a full range driver instead of a tweeter, or deal with horrific phase issues in the crossover between the mid and tweeter. You almost always want the distance between the tweeter and midrange/midwoofer to be as small as possible. Because at the crossover if they are far apart they can start to cancel output, and you might even be able to hear the sound coming from two places.
I'm reminded of Olsen's early research on this. He has very similar diagrams. Two thoughts: 1. Is not the amount of beveling / round-over required frequency dependent? 2. If one calculates diffraction from the speaker center, then does it not change with the distance to the edge? For example, going 90° from the center gives a different frequency then if one went at 45°? Does this not mitigate the effects somewhat by spreading them over a wider range of frequencies? Thanks for another great presentation!
For 1. Yes. In general a smaller baffle is going to be better, and will push the diffraction to higher frequencies. For 2. Also yes! That's why a square performs much better than a cylinder
@@blakebrockhaus347 Agreed. Forgive me if I tend to put my understandings in the form of questions. Part of it is that I want to help people think. Thanks my friend!
@@brucermarino never ask for forgiveness with such things! I imagine it helps many people cement what they've learned in the video, it also helps the person confirming/correcting your understanding since you've already summarised it! If this was my video, this would be the exact kind of comment that I'd be hoping for!
@@blakebrockhaus347 Smaller baflles will push standing waves due to edge-diffraction to higher frequencies. But that doesn't mean smaller baffles are better or that they will diffract at higher frequencies only. The further the distance from the edge the lower the spl will be and hence diffraction-effects will be minimized, so larger baffles can be the way to go. Either way roundovers should be as large as you can get away with. Also waveguides should be used where possible and those should be big as well. Though past 18" is not necessary with hifi since directivity needs to be controlled down to 700 Hz for critical listening, not further.
When I was first working, so that is in the 1970’s, a workmate of mine built speakers he claimed had the best design possible. I do not know what was inside, but they were a fiberglass sphere. And I have to say, they just had something in the sound they produced.
Thats nice in theory. But how much impact has it whilst listening in the room. That on its own produces lots of delayed diffractions.I still concur with your proposition though.
I like these kind of videos especially your speaker build videos way better than the live videos where your collaborating with another you tuber. These are obviously more planned, thought out and edited for what you want to say.
I think this explains the love for klipsch's RP600M speakers vs their R-51M speakers and other speaker designs, they're chamfered in edge design but also in the horns cone VS my own R-51M which can be harsh and have a horrible ring around 2khz on certain songs where theres presence there. I still love them though, flawed or not in design. I'll upgrade to a chamfered designs in the future thanks
How big a problem is edge diffraction - what % of the sound wave is diffracted and how audible is it? Presumably each frequency is diffracted at a different angle - I jmagine only the higher frequencies are significantly diffeacted significantly.
had this idea many years ago. didnt know much but made a fiberglass enclosure with a styrofoam ball to try it. as i didnt know or have the tools to measure it. i left the project (was around my early 20s).maybe should give it a go again.
Great video. I'm doing a second baffle that will sit flush and around my 8" 3 way bookshelf speakers im building on my channel. May add some angle and body work to second baffle now after watching your video. Thanks and I enjoy the live stream
Great video as always. I made my speakers with the driver centered not knowing about diffraction. After researching i actually used some leftover car speaker foam rings to surround my baffle. They helped my response a ton, wish i could have done a before after measurement because it absolutely killed off some of the bad diffraction issues.
Thank you. I know it is more work, but I wish you had actually proved your point by building and measuring frequency response. That would have made this video a lot more valuable.
It seems that this principal is seen most concretely when looking at open baffle speakers. Some of these things have huge baffles for tiny drivers. In other news, I’m just finding this channel. Excellent stuff - subscribed!
Question: I had a pair of Canton ergo DC 122 floorstanding speakers in the late 90s. It had a aluminum/magnesium metal tweeter with a 6 inch midrange and two 9 inch woofers for bass. Beautiful German speakers. But it had velvet, and it was very thick velvet cloth, on the front baffle. Was that done for reducing diffraction?
Interesting. This would have been more understandable if you had comparison speakers to demonstrate your theory. Logically, what your saying makes sense but just like telling someone about how a roller coaster feels, they have to see, hear, and feel it for themselves to understand. 👍😎
So what about offsets in a tube, mostly just curious what happens to the graphs. My uncle has a woodshop for making bowls and things, It would be real easy to do spheres of almost any size any wood thickness for speakers. Don't even need to be spheres, could be square with the hollowed out being a sphere. Could be oblong, what ever you want. What would be you ultimate speaker design? Best sounding diy audio that doesn't crush me financially. Assuming wood and labor is free.
I'm curious what a result would by not having a tweeter installed on a baffle at all, rather "free mounted" by some sort of non-interfering support, say a mast. Does the edge of the tweeter housing itself introduce defraction of its own that requires a proper baffle mount in order for it to be corrected?
Here's an easy tip: when you are looking at a speaker and find Genelec logo, you know it is good. Joking aside, you should look at the Genelec 8000 series speaker for an example of nearly optimal basic design.
Interesting do you still frequent Parts Express's tech section as i'd be interested to know what you think of the edge difrraction on my 3d printed Ghettoblaster (ie based on sharp one from the 80's using 1.5 inch drivers)
I wish I had measuring equipment. I built a JL 13W3 in a 2.5cft tube enclosure with the internal diameter that matched the speaker cut out. The length was factored to match the enclosure requirement. The tube was peripherally ported to JL's recommendation 24hz, and the port length was about 40" and hight was somewhere about 3/8". It's been years since I did the maths and built the box, so don't number and wordsmith me. I can tell you the sub sounded terrific in the truck and orientation it was mounted in. I ran 600w JL amp. So the question: Did I get lucky?
Not generally someone who ever cared about this...until I bought a Tesla. Am constantly blown away by the sound quality. I mean, I listened to music as a kid. My brother was a notable musician and when I hear songs from my childhood in the Tesla. Wow! Totally appreciate the sound quality and it has me asking...how do they do that?
We have several of the same tabletop games. I would go with the roundover or chamfer technique to improve a speaker enclosure and minimize edge diffraction. Easy to do with any DIY enclosure build.
@3:47 what difference would it make if the driver were the same size diameter as the pvc pipe? Do the drivers themselves have significant edge diffraction?
This vid may explain why 2" tweeters in a block of polystyrene with a single wrap of duct tape for added wall strength,then both speakers wedged into the corners of my ute dash against the windscreen sound so good vs in a door,(didn't think a door would be the best place since woofer was there just lower, that & cutting non std holes). I figured at the time sound bounced of the angled glass (dash is angled as well) would be a good option, however for whatever reason the placement of hung low woofers & high mounted tweeters blends the sound really well better than i ever thought as in the end putting tweeters there was just easier lol .I was expecting high pitch & not very good however it was the perfect place for them.
Great video! I've got some old JBL lx-22 with rounded over uprights on the front. They sound pretty good. I always wondered if there was a reason for it. Thx!
Why then do some companies do the inverted baffle face.. I can see how that helps with losses in directional positions but then you also have increased this refraction issue I’d argue exponentially as you’re focusing the refraction now at the listener? I’ve seen some very high end towers that the front baffle is concave
I recently purchased the knock-down 12" PA stage monitor cabs from Parts Express. I'm planning on using the Dayton Audio 6.5x12 waveguides in this one. The baffle on these cabs is recessed an inch and a half. Obviously, I'm left wondering how horrendous this might sound in terms of edge diffraction now (something I started paying attention to about 5 minutes ago). Is there anything I can do to mitigate this? Does it matter as much with a horn loaded tweeter?
Good question, horns throw the sound so I believe defraction is minimal. I would suggest apply foam or felt around the horn or the entire front baffle.
Yeah the shape of the baffle on a subwoofer really doesn't matter. But it makes a huge difference on mid-range and tweeters. Remember the distance from the center of the speaker to the edge determines the frequency.
So what about Square speakers in rectangular enclosures like Sony's APM line from the 80's? I might have to try that thing with the Ikea Bowls. Seriously
couldn't you set the edge from the tweeter as far that the frequence where you switch to a midsdriver like 3000hz has just enough wavelength to not reach the edge i mean a 3khz wave is nearly 10cm long..
A sphere is the best shape for a mono speaker. Try making them stereo image. See if it's possible to create a 3D sound field. Here's the thing, a speaker on axis clear of walls directed at you can be a great center speaker or a great mono speaker. Split the speaker into a stereo image and suddenly now the ideal speaker must account for lateral stereo sum roll off just like two drivers, or a main an a sub have to transition evenly. 2 spheres can't produce a 3D stereo image. All it can do at best is pan left and right and pass mono speaker tests.
The cabinet shape has nothing to do with stereo image. Stereo pairing speakers actually masks diffraction artifacts and your best bet to testing speakers is by listening in mono first, then optimize the design based on that. The lateral roll-off with speakers is due to beaming, not stereo-pairing. Hence why controlled directivity is an important design criteria irrespective of the number of speakers in your system. I'm being pedantic, but a stereo image can also never be 3D, it can be 2D at best.
Just wondering. What if I built a tweeter using a larger pvc pipe, but have it of set to one side. I know it wouldn't be perfect, but how would it compar to the rest of the designs. It would be easy and quick to build.
Hi any possibility of making a video on tuned bass trap please... Either diaphramatic or helmholtz including basic calculations. Big chunks or absorption material doesn't do much for bass. Tuned bass traps would be a very useful and interesting video .... 😊👍
8 month old video so not really expecting a response but would be cool. This video got me to thinking that perhaps what you discussed could also extend to headphones somewhat and lend into the egg shape design choice that can be seen in many headphones. Am I on track? I know it's different but seems plausible to me.
This is a highly debated subject. You can find experts like Dr. Earl Geddes who believes it is the most important aspect of speaker building, while you can find some other experts who aren’t sure how important it is. In basic audio theory, a db change is the audible. So anything that changes the response by over a db should be audible.
@@Toid I'd like someone make a video on youtube by making 2 identical sets of speakers where only difference is box rounding. And listen to some music out of these to determine whether there is any actual difference
to some degree this is possible. but your off axis response will be even worse if you try to correct for it, since the diffraction frequency also depends on the angle.
Not easily. Diffraction occurs not at just one frequency, but many and the notches are very sharp. Plus, equalization typically uses IIR filters but diffraction is essentially an FIR effect where fs = infinity.
Despite the theoretical discussion I really wonder whether there is an audible difference when tested. I look at 99.9% of speakers including almost all of the excellent speakers being sold and I see speakers down the centre line of the box. There is so much bounce in a real room that unless you are measuring in a farmers field 20 feet in the air I have a bit of a problem believing this.
I have thought about this for a long time. Build two sets of speakers, otherwise identical, but one with a carefully engineered front, and one with a rudimentary and imperfect baffle shape and layout. Then record both of them in the same position with real word music of good recording quality in a real world listening room, and switch between the two recordings. Seeing graphs is important to understand a problem but hearing it in real world conditions would give you a much better perspective concerning the magnitude of the effect. My two cents: You will have a hard time hearing the difference.
It's all physics and engineering, and very well documented! In a room, it's slightly lessened due to all kinds of reflections but it's definitely there. We typically assume the baffle provides a gain of +6dB, so for frequencies longer than that, they will no longer be fully supported by the baffle, hence the change in the response. Sharp edges, sharp changes in response, etc, etc. As I said, it's all very well documented, so if doubtful it shouldn't be difficult for you to find some good documentation on the topic 👍
@@westelaudio943 we don't use "real world music" for testing since it can be difficult to dissect the response from it, baffles can and do make massive difference to the sound. If it didn't in your situation it may be that your different baffles happened to effect the response in the same way for that position, but if they're different shapes, I can guarantee you that their off axis behaviour will be different, and that results in it interacting with your room differently as well
@@Elliott-Designs I don't use music for testing - I use sweeps and noise. I take measurements - from two feet away and near field, off axis etc. I know the procedure, I'm not a dilettante trying to justify his ineptitude. But I'm not talking about testing - I'm talking about _listening_ , after all, we should not forget that's what speakers are for. And if a design guideline doesn't actually improve my listening experience or for some reason even makes it worse it's probably not worth considering, even if it sounds good _on paper_ I guess. In short, if the options are KEF LS-50 or Acoustic Research AR-1, I will always pick the latter. It measures horribly - but have you heard a good blues on it?
2nd video on this subject after the video U recommended weeks ago. Still, this info is beyond my brain capacity. I will just buy speaker plans. Add 45 degree edges to the front panel. 😀
This is all a technical perspective but now I would like to hear what these differences sound like in the real world. In my limited awareness it seems like most of the speakers I've ever seen have centred drivers and sharp, square shapes as well as sharp edges. Are most speakers bad? Would it be good design to have soft sound absorbing material on the front of the speaker, or at least something around the edges? I did find this video interesting. I'm currently trying to figure how to make proper box design for some very small drivers which I'm repurposing from an old Bose desktop speaker system (the companion 2 series II).
Sharp edges aren’t ideal, but he also to keep in mind that they are by far the easiest and cheapest to make for manufactures. If you ever noticed high-end manufactures, they don’t actually have sharp edges. They either have a chamfer or a large round over. Even looking at speakers like definitive technology as you can see the large round over on all four sides. Or you can take a look at some thing like bowers and Wilkins and see how their designs differ from the big box brands. There have been quite a few speakers that have actually put absorption material on the front of the speakers to help absorb diffraction. So that definitely can’t help if that something that you want to do. I don’t think many manufactures do that just because of looks more than anything else. As far as the audibility, you’ll find a long discussion on whether people believe it to be audible or not. You can absolutely measure it and see it’s effects on the frequency response. The respons is easily measured, and within the Audible band. Dr. Earl Geddes actually believes that diffraction is very important and should be taken care of.
I'm supposed to believe that diffraction off the edge of a speaker is a thing when I can't even tell the difference between whether or not my grill is installed?
COMMENTING TO HELP THE ALGORITHM!! =) .. Great topic ..and always important .. regardless of what source or format camp people are in. Acoustics follow physics.. not personal taste =)
It involves a lot of personal taste, if you use your speakers to listen to your favourite records, instead of only trying to reproduce a sweep as accurately as possible :) Graphs and measurements exist for a reason - but they're not everything.
First of spherical cabinets are not the optimal shape and circular baffles are not necessarily bad, if a large roundover is applied, made a comment about that earlier. Secondly even if a speaker design is suboptimal in some respect, does not mean that it can't sound pleasant. "Sounds good" is very subjective anyway and we humans have biases, very strong biases, that we are unaware of. Look up Floyd Toole, he showed how what we see coupled with preconceived notions can totally change what we hear in terms of sound quality.
The s400 is a waveguide that is then mounted on a baffle. The waveguide itself is designed for controlled dispersion by the manufacturer. The diffraction wouldn't happen until it meets the baffle (assuming it is flush mounted). So the diffraction will happen at the edges of the baffle.
@@shiraz1736 If the waveguide is flush with the front baffle, then it will not have hit an edge to diffract off of until it hits the edge of the cabinet.
![Stromae, Pomme - “Ma Meilleure Ennemie” (from Arcane Season 2) [Official Visualizer]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/1F3OGIFnW1k/mqdefault.jpg)
When building speakers and designing crossovers, I found that 1/2 foam on the baffle or strips (like MK and others use) removes the edge diffraction - it's easy to see the difference when measuring using a mic and something like REW and changing nothing else other than adding/removing the foam. Another method that's usually used for home theatre installs, is to place them in the wall - a 'baffle wall' (ideally not touching the wall but isolated from it). No edges, so no detraction, plus you get a 6db bass boost as the bass can't wrap around the speaker. Also, the off axis response is pretty important too. In blind tests, the speakers with the best off axis also have the best 'sound power' and generally get picked as being a 'better speaker' by listeners in those blind tests. Being able to see the speakers you are comparing or even knowing the prices tend to skew results, and pretty much every time.
Floyd Toole did some interesting research and talks about what makes a good speaker here:
ruclips.net/video/zrpUDuUtxPM/видео.html
Difraction occurs when obstacle or gap size is similar to the wavelength of the wave. On subwoofer frequencies wavelenght is mutch greater than sub enclosure and shape do not matters.
I have made two pairs of DIY spherical speakers using IKEA bowls glued together (and good internal damping, drivers and crossovers). One set 4 spheres and the other two spheres. The elimination of diffraction distortion makes the speakers "fade" into the background and create a broader sound stage. Any issue of standing waves on the inside can be simply addressed by inserting a small ball into the sphere, offset if possible. Spheres are less prone to resonances anyway as they are the strongest enclosures and resonance can only be produced by pulsating. This is contrasted with individual boards that can vibrate in typical "box" style speakers.
I bet those sound good I have demonstrated improved decibel scores and obvious improve sound quality to the ears by using thick wall PVC pipe and integrating it into the corners of my speaker boxes so airflow is improved and staining waves are addressed. That combined with the use of aero ports completely smooths and improves the response of a ported setup. It will also help sealed as well
Im curious on having this quantified. In terms of time, how much extra time would you feel it would take to give X% improvement in overall performance/quality. I may not be asking the right question the right way so if you can help me understand in detail the tradeoffs with comparisons maybe. Standard build vs spherical with quantifications please? Thx 🙏 in advance for your valuable time.
@@chokechange for the best length easiest and most detailed explanation of this I would go to hexibase channel here on RUclips he has several videos showing computer analysis of the differences.
In simple terms bass is nothing more than air moving around, and right angles are always going to slow down air flow which results in less Bass. The more edges you round the better the airflow the better the bass
But where would you put stuff on a sphere... isn't that why they call them book shelf speakers
@@simonlinser8286 Not sure understand the question --- I only build floor standing.
Thanks for this! I'll also add what to me is maybe even more critical than diffraction changing the frequency response: it messes up the time domain. As you said, diffraction from the baffle edge acts as a mini-speaker repeating the original signal at a later time, like an echo. While the distance from the tweeter to the edge is short, our ears are amazingly good at picking up the repeating sound as a clue to position the speaker in space. It also smears the wanted, recorded clues to position instruments in the audio. The result is no hope of "making the speaker disappear" and bad/worsened imaging in general.
Personally, I'd pick a disappearing speaker with excellent imaging over a ruler flat frequency response any day, but in this case, you don't have to pick one: reducing edge diffraction helps with both. In addition to asymmetry, round-overs, and chamfers, you can use waveguides ("aims" the waves forward so it never reaches the 90-degree spread) and even felt, or preferably combine several methods.
I once read a (Danish Hi-Fi magazine) measured diffraction from commercial speakers, and the same speakers with
2.5cm Rockwwol on the front with speaker cutouts, the measured differences was
dramatic, and so was the sound, to the better
The enclosure example at 9:07 looks like a nearly identical enclosure to my Emotiva B1+. They sound fantastic for a fairly cheap speaker! I’m putting four of them in my theater room for surrounds. I really think everyone that loves getting a bargain should give them a try.
I immediately thought "What a beautiful speaker", the angles and the colour just makes it pop.
Edge diffraction can be used constructively to unify the tweeter and muds. Classic infinity used to do that. New kef uses the entire baffle as a source of deliberate diffraction.
The best enclosure for a speaker in mono is a rounded baffle. The best for a stereo pair is much more complicated otherwise the BBC would have just gotten two mono speakers and called it a stereo pair but instead they created the first reference stereo speakers the LS3 5as
I use a pair of Munro EGG 100 speakers in my studio as monitors. As the name implies, they are egg-shaped, tweeter in the top, woofer in the bottom, and they sound absolutely fantastic! With a little help from a program called SonarWorks, these are what I use to track, mix and listen on. I am happy to have you confirming the intrinsic quality of this design in your video.
A point about different dimensions:
You also want to avoid numbers that are related to each other by fractions that use small numbers. For example, you don't want two dimensions where one is 2/3rds the other or 1/2 the other or 3/4ths the other. This is because the ripples in the frequency response curve for each distance will line up with each other at some frequency if you do that. If the dimensions are things like 7/12ths each other this doesn't happen as much.
When it comes to selecting a box's overall dimensions, you also want to apply the rule of making the dimensions not the same and not related by small numbered fractions. This is because of a second order effect that makes smaller but non-zero ripples in the frequency response.
Or just apply a large roundover to your cabinet and proper directivity-control to your mid- and high-frequency driver, problem solved. You want to minimize diffraction where ever possible. When you focus on the on-axis response to optimize your baffle dimensions the aberations will simply be shifted to the off-axis response where they still affect the sound signature of the speaker, but won't show up in your on-axis measurement. Off-axis response is almost as imporant as on-axis and should never be overlooked. Follow Earl Geddes' and Floyd Toole's work for more information.
@@iliketoast-q9b Roundovers reduce but don't eliminate the diffraction issue. Any practical roundover is a lot less than a wavelength of the sound.
When I have music playing, I am usually doing something so I end up being at various locations vs the speakers.
@@kensmith5694 Diffraction usually happens in the upper-midrange and higher. So the roundover is approaching similar wavelengths and is very effective if it's more than just a few millimeters. Keeping the edge away from the driver further minimizes diffraction and with controlled directivity(waveguides) it becames a managable issue.
@@iliketoast-q9b 1KHz -> 34cm
@@kensmith5694 That's not upper-midrange. Think 4kHz and up, which is approx. 8.5cm long and the half- and quarter wavelengths are already well within practical roundover radius. And it only gets shorter from there.
The best speakers i ever listened to were housed in concrete spheres.
They clearly weren't portable but they were so clear. Amazing.
Zero resonance for sure.
one thing to add: the directivity, or radiation pattern of your speaker also determines how much the edge diffraction takes effect. if you put a waveguide or horn in front of your speaker, edge diffraction is less of an issue. also with a lot of 3-way speaker designs, where often the mid-driver is very close to the tweeter, the shape of it can cause diffraction to happen aswell.
Aside from roundovers and chamfered baffles diffraction is an afterthought for most speakers in my opinion. Good video though, I'm definitely going to be looking to see what speakers have equal top/side distance for tweeters.
Totally, but that's because such speakers are designed for aesthetics where minimalism (and therefore minimal baffle being the driver) is key. It's unfortunate, but it needs to be done in a lot of cases to be successful as many people keep these things in a living room, where it would very often need to fit in (think WAF). Well, and sometimes the designer doesn't entirely know what they're doing too...
Hence why I have built my sphere loudspekaers. You have the video on my channel. Best is no standing waves inside and strong ”Shell”. The stereo perspective of the sound is immense like a surround sound if one have the room for it
*While it's clearly pointed out here that a spherical baffle is superior for minimizing edge diffraction comb filtering of the sound waves emanating externally of the enclosure, I wonder if there would be any issues with standing waves developing inside of the spherical enclosure, or if the spherical shape would minimize and diffract internal standing waves, being that the driver is not at the center of the orb, but rather, installed in the surface of it?...* 🤔
For my vehicle, tube is the best shape. Its solid and lightweight. All my speakers in the car are in tubes.
But for home SQ, I totally understand the diffraction issue and that sphere concept is awesome.
This is out of scope for the video, I just figured I'd drop this here in case ppl were wondering why spherical speakers aren't common.
The one problem with a sphere is that you either have to use a full range driver instead of a tweeter, or deal with horrific phase issues in the crossover between the mid and tweeter. You almost always want the distance between the tweeter and midrange/midwoofer to be as small as possible. Because at the crossover if they are far apart they can start to cancel output, and you might even be able to hear the sound coming from two places.
One of the most useful vids I have ever seen on the topic.
I'm reminded of Olsen's early research on this. He has very similar diagrams. Two thoughts:
1. Is not the amount of beveling / round-over required frequency dependent?
2. If one calculates diffraction from the speaker center, then does it not change with the distance to the edge? For example, going 90° from the center gives a different frequency then if one went at 45°? Does this not mitigate the effects somewhat by spreading them over a wider range of frequencies?
Thanks for another great presentation!
For 1. Yes. In general a smaller baffle is going to be better, and will push the diffraction to higher frequencies.
For 2. Also yes! That's why a square performs much better than a cylinder
@@blakebrockhaus347 Agreed. Forgive me if I tend to put my understandings in the form of questions. Part of it is that I want to help people think. Thanks my friend!
@@brucermarino never ask for forgiveness with such things! I imagine it helps many people cement what they've learned in the video, it also helps the person confirming/correcting your understanding since you've already summarised it! If this was my video, this would be the exact kind of comment that I'd be hoping for!
@@Elliott-Designs Thanks Elliott. I very much appreciate your comment. I guess my training as a professor of philosophy and theology shows :)
@@blakebrockhaus347 Smaller baflles will push standing waves due to edge-diffraction to higher frequencies. But that doesn't mean smaller baffles are better or that they will diffract at higher frequencies only.
The further the distance from the edge the lower the spl will be and hence diffraction-effects will be minimized, so larger baffles can be the way to go. Either way roundovers should be as large as you can get away with. Also waveguides should be used where possible and those should be big as well. Though past 18" is not necessary with hifi since directivity needs to be controlled down to 700 Hz for critical listening, not further.
Some speakers put thin strips felt around the drivers. Is that for edge diffraction?
yes
I used foam car speaker door rings. Helped a ton with my bad diffraction
When I was first working, so that is in the 1970’s, a workmate of mine built speakers he claimed had the best design possible. I do not know what was inside, but they were a fiberglass sphere. And I have to say, they just had something in the sound they produced.
Thats nice in theory. But how much impact has it whilst listening in the room. That on its own produces lots of delayed diffractions.I still concur with your proposition though.
I like these kind of videos especially your speaker build videos way better than the live videos where your collaborating with another you tuber. These are obviously more planned, thought out and edited for what you want to say.
I think this explains the love for klipsch's RP600M speakers vs their R-51M speakers and other speaker designs, they're chamfered in edge design but also in the horns cone VS my own R-51M which can be harsh and have a horrible ring around 2khz on certain songs where theres presence there. I still love them though, flawed or not in design. I'll upgrade to a chamfered designs in the future thanks
How big a problem is edge diffraction - what % of the sound wave is diffracted and how audible is it? Presumably each frequency is diffracted at a different angle - I jmagine only the higher frequencies are significantly diffeacted significantly.
had this idea many years ago. didnt know much but made a fiberglass enclosure with a styrofoam ball to try it. as i didnt know or have the tools to measure it. i left the project (was around my early 20s).maybe should give it a go again.
Great video. I'm doing a second baffle that will sit flush and around my 8" 3 way bookshelf speakers im building on my channel. May add some angle and body work to second baffle now after watching your video. Thanks and I enjoy the live stream
Great video as always. I made my speakers with the driver centered not knowing about diffraction. After researching i actually used some leftover car speaker foam rings to surround my baffle. They helped my response a ton, wish i could have done a before after measurement because it absolutely killed off some of the bad diffraction issues.
hey, you put the baffle on the inside of the speaker or the outside?
Thank you. I know it is more work, but I wish you had actually proved your point by building and measuring frequency response. That would have made this video a lot more valuable.
It seems that this principal is seen most concretely when looking at open baffle speakers. Some of these things have huge baffles for tiny drivers.
In other news, I’m just finding this channel. Excellent stuff - subscribed!
Question: I had a pair of Canton ergo DC 122 floorstanding speakers in the late 90s. It had a aluminum/magnesium metal tweeter with a 6 inch midrange and two 9 inch woofers for bass. Beautiful German speakers. But it had velvet, and it was very thick velvet cloth, on the front baffle. Was that done for reducing diffraction?
It absolutely was. I have nto personally tested that, but there are some proponents of this.
In the old David Weems books on speaker building, some of the cabinets had small squares of felt surrounding the tweeters to minimize diffraction.
Interesting. This would have been more understandable if you had comparison speakers to demonstrate your theory. Logically, what your saying makes sense but just like telling someone about how a roller coaster feels, they have to see, hear, and feel it for themselves to understand. 👍😎
So what about offsets in a tube, mostly just curious what happens to the graphs. My uncle has a woodshop for making bowls and things, It would be real easy to do spheres of almost any size any wood thickness for speakers. Don't even need to be spheres, could be square with the hollowed out being a sphere. Could be oblong, what ever you want. What would be you ultimate speaker design? Best sounding diy audio that doesn't crush me financially. Assuming wood and labor is free.
If you can be a long way from the center, I suspect a tube would be fine but that makes for a big tube.
I'm curious what a result would by not having a tweeter installed on a baffle at all, rather "free mounted" by some sort of non-interfering support, say a mast.
Does the edge of the tweeter housing itself introduce defraction of its own that requires a proper baffle mount in order for it to be corrected?
I've seen it done on some. It definitely looks nice, but I can't say how different it sounds.
Yes. The tweeter housing will result in diffraction.
Some of the best speakers have a two foot wide and three foot tall baffle like Klipsch Cornwall, JBL 4367, etc.
There is a point to be had hear that the larger the baffle, the lower the diffraction point which can have some great results.
@@Toid It also pushes the baffle step lower as well, as you of course know because I learned it from you. Thanks!
Here's an easy tip: when you are looking at a speaker and find Genelec logo, you know it is good.
Joking aside, you should look at the Genelec 8000 series speaker for an example of nearly optimal basic design.
Interesting do you still frequent Parts Express's tech section as i'd be interested to know what you think of the edge difrraction on my 3d printed Ghettoblaster (ie based on sharp one from the 80's using 1.5 inch drivers)
This is a very important part of speaker building
We actually talked about the sphere design. Still trying to figure this one out.
Avantones, open baffle designs that go up to tens of thousands, a few models of SVS subs, are all wrong?
I wish I had measuring equipment.
I built a JL 13W3 in a 2.5cft tube enclosure with the internal diameter that matched the speaker cut out. The length was factored to match the enclosure requirement.
The tube was peripherally ported to JL's recommendation 24hz, and the port length was about 40" and hight was somewhere about 3/8".
It's been years since I did the maths and built the box, so don't number and wordsmith me.
I can tell you the sub sounded terrific in the truck and orientation it was mounted in.
I ran 600w JL amp.
So the question:
Did I get lucky?
Not generally someone who ever cared about this...until I bought a Tesla. Am constantly blown away by the sound quality. I mean, I listened to music as a kid. My brother was a notable musician and when I hear songs from my childhood in the Tesla. Wow! Totally appreciate the sound quality and it has me asking...how do they do that?
We have several of the same tabletop games.
I would go with the roundover or chamfer technique to improve a speaker enclosure and minimize edge diffraction. Easy to do with any DIY enclosure build.
So if the sphere is best. Why is it so rare. Orbs are the only ones I can think of.?
... thank you sir! a very critical point discussed very successfully here.
@3:47 what difference would it make if the driver were the same size diameter as the pvc pipe? Do the drivers themselves have significant edge diffraction?
This vid may explain why 2" tweeters in a block of polystyrene with a single wrap of duct tape for added wall strength,then both speakers wedged into the corners of my ute dash against the windscreen sound so good vs in a door,(didn't think a door would be the best place since woofer was there just lower, that & cutting non std holes). I figured at the time sound bounced of the angled glass (dash is angled as well) would be a good option, however for whatever reason the placement of hung low woofers & high mounted tweeters blends the sound really well better than i ever thought as in the end putting tweeters there was just easier lol .I was expecting high pitch & not very good however it was the perfect place for them.
What about another layer of 3/4” with a flaired bevel surrounding all the drivers to cut on edge diffraction?
Great video!
I've got some old JBL lx-22 with rounded over uprights on the front.
They sound pretty good. I always wondered if there was a reason for it. Thx!
so, in wall should be great, because they can be seen as infinite baffle right?
As far as diffraction goes, it depends on how close it is to a corner.Typically it is far enough away that diffraction isn't really an issue.
Why then do some companies do the inverted baffle face.. I can see how that helps with losses in directional positions but then you also have increased this refraction issue I’d argue exponentially as you’re focusing the refraction now at the listener?
I’ve seen some very high end towers that the front baffle is concave
I recently purchased the knock-down 12" PA stage monitor cabs from Parts Express. I'm planning on using the Dayton Audio 6.5x12 waveguides in this one. The baffle on these cabs is recessed an inch and a half. Obviously, I'm left wondering how horrendous this might sound in terms of edge diffraction now (something I started paying attention to about 5 minutes ago). Is there anything I can do to mitigate this? Does it matter as much with a horn loaded tweeter?
Good question, horns throw the sound so I believe defraction is minimal. I would suggest apply foam or felt around the horn or the entire front baffle.
The shape from the thumbnail is actually okay, especially with subs. Curve the whole front baffle as well and you get an ls50
Yeah the shape of the baffle on a subwoofer really doesn't matter. But it makes a huge difference on mid-range and tweeters. Remember the distance from the center of the speaker to the edge determines the frequency.
So what about Square speakers in rectangular enclosures like Sony's APM line from the 80's?
I might have to try that thing with the Ikea Bowls. Seriously
have you heard the old Sonab OD11's? The tweeter is NOT in an enclosure.
couldn't you set the edge from the tweeter as far that the frequence where you switch to a midsdriver like 3000hz has just enough wavelength to not reach the edge i mean a 3khz wave is nearly 10cm long..
Is there any point to having a sphere behind the plane of the speaker over a cylinder exactly the same size as it?
A sphere is the best shape for a mono speaker. Try making them stereo image. See if it's possible to create a 3D sound field. Here's the thing, a speaker on axis clear of walls directed at you can be a great center speaker or a great mono speaker. Split the speaker into a stereo image and suddenly now the ideal speaker must account for lateral stereo sum roll off just like two drivers, or a main an a sub have to transition evenly.
2 spheres can't produce a 3D stereo image. All it can do at best is pan left and right and pass mono speaker tests.
The cabinet shape has nothing to do with stereo image. Stereo pairing speakers actually masks diffraction artifacts and your best bet to testing speakers is by listening in mono first, then optimize the design based on that.
The lateral roll-off with speakers is due to beaming, not stereo-pairing. Hence why controlled directivity is an important design criteria irrespective of the number of speakers in your system.
I'm being pedantic, but a stereo image can also never be 3D, it can be 2D at best.
Great video. I’m a new subscriber after watching it
Yours is the best pronunciation of "football" I have encountered.
Good show
A sphere is already perfect in its simplicity complicated isn't always better people should pay attention to that
Do you have a basics video or Playlist for designing speakers?
That explains why the Adam a7x has the slanted corners. Really want a pair one day
Dominion in the video! Love that game lets go! Thank you for the information.
Great game! Glad to see others enjoy it as well!
Just wondering. What if I built a tweeter using a larger pvc pipe, but have it of set to one side. I know it wouldn't be perfect, but how would it compar to the rest of the designs. It would be easy and quick to build.
I could also cut the pipe on a angle on both ends.
Yes, it will reduce the magnitude of ripples of the frequency response.
For dome tweeters more diffraction, ribbon and amt you just worry about sides. not top and bottom.
You can still use the cylinder but put the speakers transversely. And also offset.
Hi any possibility of making a video on tuned bass trap please... Either diaphramatic or helmholtz including basic calculations. Big chunks or absorption material doesn't do much for bass. Tuned bass traps would be a very useful and interesting video .... 😊👍
The last part of the video really made me want to design a completely new type of speaker box, but I’ve never seen anything like
My round Gallo Acoustics A”Divas sound great but they definitely need a good quality subwoofer.
8 month old video so not really expecting a response but would be cool. This video got me to thinking that perhaps what you discussed could also extend to headphones somewhat and lend into the egg shape design choice that can be seen in many headphones. Am I on track? I know it's different but seems plausible to me.
Thanks Nick…Great information!!!
Leaving theory and analysis aside, can human ear detect any sound difference between speaker in sharp-edged enclosure and in rounded-edge enclosure?
This is a highly debated subject. You can find experts like Dr. Earl Geddes who believes it is the most important aspect of speaker building, while you can find some other experts who aren’t sure how important it is. In basic audio theory, a db change is the audible. So anything that changes the response by over a db should be audible.
@@Toid I'd like someone make a video on youtube by making 2 identical sets of speakers where only difference is box rounding. And listen to some music out of these to determine whether there is any actual difference
Does this also apply to a guitar extension speaker?
Great explanation! Wondering if manufacturers are using more DSP to overcome diffraction effects so they can have whatever look they want.
to some degree this is possible. but your off axis response will be even worse if you try to correct for it, since the diffraction frequency also depends on the angle.
Thank you sir for that quick tip on diffraction.
But if you know the frequency, you can fix it with a crosaover/dsp right?
Not easily. Diffraction occurs not at just one frequency, but many and the notches are very sharp. Plus, equalization typically uses IIR filters but diffraction is essentially an FIR effect where fs = infinity.
So my Cones of Dunshire speakers are okay?
How is diffraction with horns?
Despite the theoretical discussion I really wonder whether there is an audible difference when tested. I look at 99.9% of speakers including almost all of the excellent speakers being sold and I see speakers down the centre line of the box. There is so much bounce in a real room that unless you are measuring in a farmers field 20 feet in the air I have a bit of a problem believing this.
I have thought about this for a long time. Build two sets of speakers, otherwise identical, but one with a carefully engineered front, and one with a rudimentary and imperfect baffle shape and layout. Then record both of them in the same position with real word music of good recording quality in a real world listening room, and switch between the two recordings.
Seeing graphs is important to understand a problem but hearing it in real world conditions would give you a much better perspective concerning the magnitude of the effect.
My two cents: You will have a hard time hearing the difference.
@@westelaudio943, man, that's awesome you did some testing! 🤙
It's all physics and engineering, and very well documented! In a room, it's slightly lessened due to all kinds of reflections but it's definitely there. We typically assume the baffle provides a gain of +6dB, so for frequencies longer than that, they will no longer be fully supported by the baffle, hence the change in the response. Sharp edges, sharp changes in response, etc, etc. As I said, it's all very well documented, so if doubtful it shouldn't be difficult for you to find some good documentation on the topic 👍
@@westelaudio943 we don't use "real world music" for testing since it can be difficult to dissect the response from it, baffles can and do make massive difference to the sound. If it didn't in your situation it may be that your different baffles happened to effect the response in the same way for that position, but if they're different shapes, I can guarantee you that their off axis behaviour will be different, and that results in it interacting with your room differently as well
@@Elliott-Designs
I don't use music for testing - I use sweeps and noise. I take measurements - from two feet away and near field, off axis etc.
I know the procedure, I'm not a dilettante trying to justify his ineptitude.
But I'm not talking about testing - I'm talking about _listening_ , after all, we should not forget that's what speakers are for. And if a design guideline doesn't actually improve my listening experience or for some reason even makes it worse it's probably not worth considering, even if it sounds good _on paper_ I guess.
In short, if the options are KEF LS-50 or Acoustic Research AR-1, I will always pick the latter. It measures horribly - but have you heard a good blues on it?
2nd video on this subject after the video U recommended weeks ago. Still, this info is beyond my brain capacity. I will just buy speaker plans. Add 45 degree edges to the front panel. 😀
Stupid question... what happens if you put a spherical enclosure within a larger, more regular shaped case?
Well, the external shape is the important part for diffraction
This is all a technical perspective but now I would like to hear what these differences sound like in the real world.
In my limited awareness it seems like most of the speakers I've ever seen have centred drivers and sharp, square shapes as well as sharp edges. Are most speakers bad?
Would it be good design to have soft sound absorbing material on the front of the speaker, or at least something around the edges?
I did find this video interesting. I'm currently trying to figure how to make proper box design for some very small drivers which I'm repurposing from an old Bose desktop speaker system (the companion 2 series II).
Sharp edges aren’t ideal, but he also to keep in mind that they are by far the easiest and cheapest to make for manufactures. If you ever noticed high-end manufactures, they don’t actually have sharp edges. They either have a chamfer or a large round over. Even looking at speakers like definitive technology as you can see the large round over on all four sides. Or you can take a look at some thing like bowers and Wilkins and see how their designs differ from the big box brands.
There have been quite a few speakers that have actually put absorption material on the front of the speakers to help absorb diffraction. So that definitely can’t help if that something that you want to do. I don’t think many manufactures do that just because of looks more than anything else.
As far as the audibility, you’ll find a long discussion on whether people believe it to be audible or not. You can absolutely measure it and see it’s effects on the frequency response. The respons is easily measured, and within the Audible band. Dr. Earl Geddes actually believes that diffraction is very important and should be taken care of.
@@Toid I've got some B&W bookshelf speakers, I'll have to have a close look at them.
Silly question but genuine. Are we talking about rounding enclosure from inside or outside?
Great question. We’re talking about the outside
That's why those old Sony stereo speakers sounded great
Nautilus... can you explain that?
Good stuff!
I was looking at those MouKeys when I purchased my Moukey amp. I love the amp its clean and simple
They are really bad. The worst sounding speakers I've ever heard. That to hear the amp is good
@@Toid do you still have them? Maybe I could send you the speakers I build and you could do a unbiased comparison
@@BericBuilds Do I still have the Moukeys? Yes. I am always willing to do an unbiased opinion, but I can't right now. I am really busy.
LX Mini...... famous speaker that is built in pipes..... thoughts ?
opinion on the OB-4 Magic radio?????
I'm supposed to believe that diffraction off the edge of a speaker is a thing when I can't even tell the difference between whether or not my grill is installed?
COMMENTING TO HELP THE ALGORITHM!! =) ..
Great topic ..and always important .. regardless of what source or format camp people are in.
Acoustics follow physics.. not personal taste =)
Thank you for helping the algorithm! I appreciate it!
after watching this ... I'm going to add .. Bowers & Wilkins D4 Tweeter Housing **
@@Toid - lol.. =) Doing what I can while trying to avoid a comment section war over nothing. =)
It involves a lot of personal taste, if you use your speakers to listen to your favourite records, instead of only trying to reproduce a sweep as accurately as possible :)
Graphs and measurements exist for a reason - but they're not everything.
@@westelaudio943 ...Tell us something we dont know 🙏🙏
So why do we see so very few commercial sphere speakers?
What about low frequency drivers? Subwoofers are supposed to be non directional, so…
So... I should remove the iron spikes around my cabinet?
I guess that depends on what you're doing with them 😁
What about the "snail shell" shape?
If circular baffles are bad, can you please explain why the LX mini sounds so good?
First of spherical cabinets are not the optimal shape and circular baffles are not necessarily bad, if a large roundover is applied, made a comment about that earlier. Secondly even if a speaker design is suboptimal in some respect, does not mean that it can't sound pleasant. "Sounds good" is very subjective anyway and we humans have biases, very strong biases, that we are unaware of. Look up Floyd Toole, he showed how what we see coupled with preconceived notions can totally change what we hear in terms of sound quality.
@@iliketoast-q9b Doesn't really answer the question. Have you heard the Linkwitz LX mini or LX 521
@@listeningto8371 The question is invalid, which I explained why.
@@iliketoast-q9b Yes. But you didn't answer it.
@@listeningto8371 Could be any number of reasons, since sound quality is highly subjective under normal conditions.
Talk about the Cerwin Vega Earthquake speaker design
So why does the s400 wave guide work fine , isn’t it nearly the same principle as having a cylinder around the tweeter?
The s400 is a waveguide that is then mounted on a baffle. The waveguide itself is designed for controlled dispersion by the manufacturer. The diffraction wouldn't happen until it meets the baffle (assuming it is flush mounted). So the diffraction will happen at the edges of the baffle.
@@Toid I thought most of the sound would be dispersed away from the enclosure at the edge of the waveguide.
@@shiraz1736 If the waveguide is flush with the front baffle, then it will not have hit an edge to diffract off of until it hits the edge of the cabinet.
@@Toid I’m surprised that the wave guide isn’t set 5-10mm proud of the cabinet if the cabinet has such a noticeable effect. Thanks for replying ✌️
You know what sucks? A sphear is the best for diffraction on the outside but the worst for standing waves on the inside!
Not if you have an object such as a pole of ball on the inside.
From what you're explaining, it sounds like KEF's LS50 is an idea baffle design.
Maybe, but no way I'm gonna put that thing in my living room, :D
@@westelaudio943 ?????
@@shiraz1736
I meant to say, it's a hideous speaker, the KEF LS-50.
I guess B&W knew this When making their signatures