Because baffle step rolls off at 6dB/octave till the transition point. Notice that F2 will *always* be double of F1, which is = one octave higher.
Basically:
1. A driver mounted on a baffle will show a 6dB increase in output at the baffle step frequency.
2. We need to counter this so that till that frequency, the output is 6dB higher.
3. We choose to use a second driver to offset this gain, by increasing the output below the baffle step frequency by 6dB.
4. Driver is connected in parallel to do this, but this results in the same output curve, only 6dB higher.
5. So we have to filter the frequencies so that the -6dB point of the 'lower' driver is = baffle step frequency (F2).
6. This will mean that the combination will output 6dB more in terms of raw response till the baffle step frequency, but once mounted on the baffle will produce a perfectly (within driver limits) linear response.
7. Since the -6dB point of a 6dB per octave crossover is at the crossover frequency and the rolloff perfectly matches (inversely) the baffle step curve, a 6dB/octave crossover works the best for this approach.
8. Therefore, we choose a 6dB/oct crossover with the XO frequency = F2 of the drivers on baffle.
Hope that clears it up. It's actually a very elegant solution.
Remember that a x.5 system (yours is 1.5) system is by nature inherently fully compensated for baffle step, so it may sound boomy in small rooms or if placed very close to the walls.
Cranky,
Please review below circuit. The CLC block ignores the reactances of parallel FR network. Please let me know your comments.
Attachments
Last edited: