Excellent response for "natural baffle step"? *PIC*

[gc1]

http://www.hautparleur.fr/_audax/ap170g2.jpg


Would this response level out (with small/narrow baffles) to provide a near idea "natural" baffle step?

Thanks, GC

[rudyjakubin]

> Would this response level out (with
> small/narrow baffles) to provide a near idea
> "natural" baffle step?

> Thanks, GC

A Zoebel should help immensely. The impedence curve rises sharply past 1K..

[Pete Schumacher ®]

> Would this response level out (with
> small/narrow baffles) to provide a near idea
> "natural" baffle step?

> Thanks, GC

Looks pretty darn close!

[gc1]

Thanks Rudy and Pete, but now I'm totally confused :-)
I just started studying baffle step... and I get the impression that it's meaning refers to the response rise in tweeters, and the drop in woofers; centering at -roughly- 1K (with small baffles). If this is correct, would this woofer's peaking response [roughly 100hz-700hz] level out (downward to bass rolloff) as the frequency drops from 1K?

GC

> Looks pretty darn close!

[curt_c]

http://i139.photobucket.com/albums/q288/cc00541/AP170G2.gif?t=1174083035


Here's how it models...
40ltrs at 40 Hz. 8" x 14.5" baffle.
The box model is spliced at 300 Hz, which caused the sharp peak at that frequency, but in general here's what you will get:

C

[damkor]

It would work. You'd need to deal with the funny response after 1kHz, hopefully cross it close to 2kHz. The bump Curt gets from his predictor is partly from the 8" baffle I think. Use a 9.5" wide baffle, and round over the edges.

> to the response rise in tweeters, and the
> drop in woofers; centering at -roughly- 1K
> (with small baffles).

The response rise from any speaker on a baffle. It may be centered at 700Hz in this case. So, that's out of range of the tweeter, which will be flat.

[gc1]

Thanks Damkor... What I've been thinking the last week-to-10-days, is maybe making most of my designs that use 6.5" and above; with wider [old school] baffles... and 5.25" and down; with narrower baffles.
BTW... after listening to [in the test boxes] these Audax with Audax/Polydax 1" domes, I decided on the 2.0K to 2.6K xover range... that's what's great about active; you can change it with different music, recordings, etc!!

Thanks again (and thanks Curt),
GC

> It would work. You'd need to deal with the
> funny response after 1kHz, hopefully cross
> it close to 2kHz. The bump Curt gets from
> his predictor is partly from the 8"
> baffle I think. Use a 9.5" wide baffle,
> and round over the edges.

> The response rise from any speaker on a
> baffle. It may be centered at 700Hz in this
> case. So, that's out of range of the
> tweeter, which will be flat.

[damkor]

> What I've been thinking the
> last week-to-10-days, is maybe making most
> of my designs that use 6.5" and above;
> with wider [old school] baffles... and
> 5.25" and down; with narrower baffles.

If you're interested in the effect of baffle width, you should use this program, "The Edge" that simulates the effect of the baffle. Notice how the peak that is part of the baffle effect moves up as you narrow the baffle.

<A HREF="http://www.tolvan.com/edge/help.htm">http://www.tolvan.com/edge/help.htm</A>

The main advantage to a narrow baffle, IMO, is aesthetics. Arguably, you get less of the baffle acting as a disperser of sound. But you should consider the effect when planning for your presumably flat target frequency response.