A mid range unit - say about 4" - in a suitable sealed box. Remind me of
the difference between mounting it on the rear of the baffle, front, or
recessed flush to it? I've seen all done on commercial designs.

--
*If a pig loses its voice, is it disgruntled?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Once upon a time on usenet Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
A mid range unit - say about 4" - in a suitable sealed box. Remind me
of the difference between mounting it on the rear of the baffle,
front, or recessed flush to it? I've seen all done on commercial
designs.

It's all about time alignment with the tweeter. My rule of thumb with my
previous home-made speakers is if it's a flattish cone I rear mount it but
if it's a deep cone I front mount it. I try to keep the respective
voicecoils of the tweeter and squawker as close as possible to the same
plane relative to the front baffle.

But there's not much science behind that, just experience and gut feelings.
Hopefully someone more knowledgeable will chime in.
--
Shaun.

"Humans will have advanced a long, long way when religious belief has a cozy
little classification in the DSM*."
David Melville (in r.a.s.f1)
(*Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders)

On 6/04/2018 8:25 AM, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
A mid range unit - say about 4" - in a suitable sealed box. Remind me of
the difference between mounting it on the rear of the baffle, front, or
recessed flush to it? I've seen all done on commercial designs.


**Flush mount mitigates diffraction effects.

--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

In article ,
Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 6/04/2018 8:25 AM, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
A mid range unit - say about 4" - in a suitable sealed box. Remind me of
the difference between mounting it on the rear of the baffle, front, or
recessed flush to it? I've seen all done on commercial designs.


**Flush mount mitigates diffraction effects.

How would diffraction manifest itself? Ie, the audible effect?

--
*WHERE DO FOREST RANGERS GO TO "GET AWAY FROM IT ALL?"

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Fri, 06 Apr 2018 10:44:43 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 6/04/2018 8:25 AM, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
A mid range unit - say about 4" - in a suitable sealed box. Remind me of
the difference between mounting it on the rear of the baffle, front, or
recessed flush to it? I've seen all done on commercial designs.


**Flush mount mitigates diffraction effects.

How would diffraction manifest itself? Ie, the audible effect?

Tiny changes in frequency response, particularly off-axis if done
right. Symmetry is the enemy. You ideally want every diffracting
surface at a different distance from the cone centre. Off-centre in a
rectangular baffle is pretty good.

d

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

On 6/04/2018 7:44 PM, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 6/04/2018 8:25 AM, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
A mid range unit - say about 4" - in a suitable sealed box. Remind me of
the difference between mounting it on the rear of the baffle, front, or
recessed flush to it? I've seen all done on commercial designs.


**Flush mount mitigates diffraction effects.

How would diffraction manifest itself? Ie, the audible effect?


**Usually, image quality. Diffraction effects seem to cause a rather
diffuse image. I believe John Dunlavy was the first to deal with the
problem:

https://patents.justia.com/patent/4167985

As a consequence, listening to many of Duntech's speakers resulted in a
surprisingly good ability to recreate the original space. Much like a
well set-up pair of Quad ESLs can manage.

John used absorbent felt, around the drivers on the baffle to achieve this.

--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

In article ,
Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 6/04/2018 7:44 PM, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 6/04/2018 8:25 AM, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
A mid range unit - say about 4" - in a suitable sealed box. Remind me of
the difference between mounting it on the rear of the baffle, front, or
recessed flush to it? I've seen all done on commercial designs.


**Flush mount mitigates diffraction effects.

How would diffraction manifest itself? Ie, the audible effect?


**Usually, image quality. Diffraction effects seem to cause a rather
diffuse image. I believe John Dunlavy was the first to deal with the
problem:

https://patents.justia.com/patent/4167985

As a consequence, listening to many of Duntech's speakers resulted in a
surprisingly good ability to recreate the original space. Much like a
well set-up pair of Quad ESLs can manage.

John used absorbent felt, around the drivers on the baffle to achieve
this.

The LS 3/5a has a rectangle of felt round the tweeter, but not the
bass/midrange.

--
*And don't start a sentence with a conjunction *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 7/04/2018 8:02 PM, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 6/04/2018 7:44 PM, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 6/04/2018 8:25 AM, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
A mid range unit - say about 4" - in a suitable sealed box. Remind me of
the difference between mounting it on the rear of the baffle, front, or
recessed flush to it? I've seen all done on commercial designs.


**Flush mount mitigates diffraction effects.

How would diffraction manifest itself? Ie, the audible effect?


**Usually, image quality. Diffraction effects seem to cause a rather
diffuse image. I believe John Dunlavy was the first to deal with the
problem:

https://patents.justia.com/patent/4167985

As a consequence, listening to many of Duntech's speakers resulted in a
surprisingly good ability to recreate the original space. Much like a
well set-up pair of Quad ESLs can manage.

John used absorbent felt, around the drivers on the baffle to achieve
this.

The LS 3/5a has a rectangle of felt round the tweeter, but not the
bass/midrange.


**The LS3/5a is the most over-rated piece of junk ever to be foisted on
the audio industry. It's continued existence is adequate evidence that
most listeners believe what some reviewers say, rather than listening
for themselves.

Don't get me started on LS3/5a speakers. And don't tell me how the BBC
designed them. The idiot who designed them should be shot.

--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

In the days before near-field monitoring became popular, there was a company called Auratone which made small sound cubes that fitted nicely on each end of a recording desk.They were very popular. The first models had the speaker mounted behind the baffle, but later they became flush mounted - most likely for the reason that Don and Trevor mention.

Iain

Agreed.

Iain