Baffle wars

[Theta]

Skinny tower makers will brag on their lack of early reflection while wide baffle speakers makers tell you early reflections are a good thing.
This is just one contradiction of speaker design, even Tool contradicts himself when referring to his writings and his actual choice of speakers. Most speaker designer are competent engineers yet they all pursue a different approach, so where is the science?

 

[Zek]

 

[Deleted member 21219]

Science is (potentially) unlimited understanding of the universe in which we live. Engineering is (realistically) dealing with the limited capacity that we have to relate to that potential, so engineering is basically a list of successful compromises.

Science explains the various mechanisms active on the surface of the sun. Engineering explains why we can't walk on it ... yet.

Jim

 

[YSDR]

Theta!​

What is early reflection in your view in the context of narrow and wide baffles? We know how baffle shapes and sizes affects the sound so this is science. Do you want to know how baffle size affects our perceptions of the reproduced sound and why one engineer chooses narrow ond the other chooses wider loudspeaker baffle?

 

[Zek]

Engineering explains why we can't walk on it ... yet.

 

[Theta]

Theta!​

What is early reflection in your view in the context of narrow and wide baffles? We know how baffle shapes and sizes affects the sound so this is science. Do you want to know how baffle size affects our perceptions of the reproduced sound and why one engineer chooses narrow ond the other chooses wider loudspeaker baffle?

Knowing how baffle size affects reproduction is great, so what now?

 

[YSDR]

Knowing how baffle size affects reproduction is great, so what now?

Does that mean you know how baffle size affects the sound reproduction (in measurements or in our perception)? Please state clearly what you want to know!

 

[Theta]

We both know what the measurement say, I also assume that speaker designers also agree with these measurements. It is just one aspect of speaker design, and maybe a minor one. Since there appears to be no consensus on these and other measurement regarding speaker design these and other perimeter measurement could be considered useless in applied science.

 

[Theta]

View attachment 350494

Thanks for pointing that out, I may have missed it, apparently lots of speaker designers have also missed it.

 

[Matt_Holland]

Skinny tower makers will brag on their lack of early reflection while wide baffle speakers makers tell you early reflections are a good thing.

Could you clarify what you mean by this? Baffle edge diffraction? Or front/side wall reflection?

 

[Theta]

Baffle edge diffraction

 

[Curvature]

Skinny tower makers will brag on their lack of early reflection while wide baffle speakers makers tell you early reflections are a good thing.

You meant edge diffraction, not early reflections?

Regardless, both elements are engineering problems that can and have been optimized in modern designs.

Kef uses coaxial, waveguide-integrated drivers with side-mounted (LS60) or front-mounted (Reference series) drivers. Revel uses complex baffle design with a waveguide (Salon 2), or waveguides (Performa series). JBL uses waveguided horns in a rounded baffle.

List goes on.

The results are in the measurements and controlled listening tests.

A lot of "contradictions" are misapplied logic.

 

[Theta]

You meant edge diffraction, not early reflections?

Regardless, both elements are engineering problems that can and have been optimized in modern designs.

Kef uses coaxial, waveguide-integrated drivers with side-mounted (LS60) or front-mounted (Reference series) drivers. Revel uses complex baffle design with a waveguide (Salon 2), or waveguides (Performa series). JBL uses waveguided horns in a rounded baffle.

List goes on.

The results are in the measurements and controlled listening tests.

A lot of "contradictions" are misapplied logic.

I am aware and in agreement with all the above; but all the science and research is done, directed and applied because of the aesthetics and furniture aspect of the product; in other words marketing, therefore useless, and not science dedicated to making the best outstanding speakers one could manufacture. By the way, you can say it is a matter of taste, but the speakers you mention are decent, they are nowhere near state of the art, yet expensive in their respective class..

 

[YSDR]

The results are in the measurements and controlled listening tests.

Yes, but the problem wth those results is that they are done with completely different loudspeakers with many variables. If one want to know what edge diffraction does to the sound, the test needs only one variable, which in this case is the baffle size, because the OP interested in this as he wrote.

Recently I experimented with narrow and 'rounded as possible' versus wide and not rounded/flat baffle for the same speaker. They were EQ-ed to the same/similar on-axis response, the off axis responses was reasonable in both cases but the rounded-narrow version looked more uniform in the graphs. After weeks and months of listening I say I prefer the sound of the wider and flat baffle compared to the narrow and rounded. Of course it's possible that someone would prefer the sound of the narrower baffle. But it needs to be mentioned that on the wide baffle, the drivers are placed in offset arrangement, so different distances to the baffle edges for different directions so the edge diffraction effects are mitigated somewhat.

 

[sigbergaudio]

Speaker design is an endless list of compromises, including visual aesthetics. The different designers don't necessarily disagree with the science (or each other), they just choose different compromises.

 

[Curvature]

I am aware and in agreement with all the above; but all the science and research is done, directed and applied because of the aesthetics and furniture aspect of the product; in other words marketing, therefore useless, and not science dedicated to making the best outstanding speakers one could manufacture. By the way, you can say it is a matter of taste, but the speakers you mention are decent, they are nowhere near state of the art, yet expensive in their respective class..

What's an example of state of the art then? They are all very good speakers. the JBL M2 is still among the best speakers ever made.

You are reasoning yourself into circles. What matters in the end is the result.

 

[Curvature]

Yes, but the problem wth those results is that they are done with completely different loudspeakers with many variables. If one want to know what edge diffraction does to the sound, the test needs only one variable, which in this case is the baffle size, because the OP interested in this as he wrote.

Recently I experimented with narrow and 'rounded as possible' versus wide and not rounded/flat baffle for the same speaker. They were EQ-ed to the same/similar on-axis response, the off axis responses was reasonable in both cases but the rounded-narrow version looked more uniform in the graphs. After weeks and months of listening I would say I prefer the sound of the wider and flat baffle compared to the narrow and rounded. Of course it's possible that someone would prefer the sound of the narrower baffle. But it needs to be mentioned that on the wide baffle, the drivers are placed in offset arrangement, so different distances to the baffle edges for different directions so the edge diffraction effects are mitigated somewhat.

A baffle is the front of the speaker. The sound is the final radiation pattern.

Without comprehensive measurements and controlled listening your impressions are your own. On-axis EQ is insufficient when you don't know the off-axis radiation.

My criteria for speakers is radiation control down to several hundred Hz. That can be achieved through a wide baffle, horn or slot/driver-based cardioid radiation. All other baffle and edge effects appear in the on-axis/off-axis measurements. There is no mystery.

 

[YSDR]

Without comprehensive measurements and controlled listening your impressions are your own. On-axis EQ is insufficient when you don't know the off-axis radiation.

It's my own, I know. I know the off-axis radiaton of both versions and of course they are differs from each other.
As I said, the narrow-rounded baffle had more uniform off-axis response but subjectively I preferring the sound of the larger baffle in this case. Maybe you would prefer it too, despite the less uniform off-axis response. Who knows?