Presented October 27, 1950

An AES Paper

Direct Radiator
Loudspeaker Enclosures
HARRY F. OLSON"

A comprehensive analysis of the effect of cabinet configuration

on the sound distribution pattern and overall response-frequency characteristics of loudspeakers.
HE PRINCIPAL FACTORS which influence the performance of a directradiator loudspeaker are the mechanism itself, the acoustical impedance presented to the back of the mechanism by the enclosure, and the outside configuration of the enclosure. The major portion of the work involving cabinet research, development, and manufacture has been directed towards the acoustical impedance presented to the back of the loudspeaker mechanism by the enclosure. The volume of the cabinet and the internal damping means play the most important role in determining the acoustical impedance presented to the back of the loudspeaker. I n other words, most of the considerations concerning the design of cabinets for direct-radiator loudspeakers have involved the volume or overall dimensions of the cabinet which-together with the mechanismdetermines the low-frequency performance. The third factor, namely, the exterior configuration of the cabinet, influences the response of the loudspeaker system due to diffraction effects produced by the various surface contours of the cabinet. The diffraction effects are usually overlooked and the anomalies in response are unjustly attributed to the loudspeaker mechanism. Therefore. in order i o point up the effects of dif: fraction, it appeared desirable to obtain the performance of a direct-radiator loudspeaker mechanism in such fundamental shapes as the sphere, hemisphere, cylinder, cube, rectangular parallelepiped, cone, double cone, pyramid, and double pyramid. I t is the purpose of this paper to present the results of the diffraction studies made upon these fundamental shapes. The response-

frequency characteristics of a directr a d i a t o r l o u d s ~ e a k e rm e c h a n i s m mounted in the& different housings yield fundamental information regarding the effect of the outside configuration of the cabinet upon the performance of this combination. From this study it is possible to evolve a cabinet shape which has the least effect in modifying the fundamental performance of a directradiator loudspeaker mechanism.
Characteristics o f the Sound Source

angle a to the pressure for an angle

a=O.
--

I , = Bessel function of the first

order,

R = radius of the piston, in centimeters,

a = angle between the axis of the

In the experimental determination of the performance of direct-radiator loudspeaker mechanisms in various shaped

piston and the line joining the point of observation and the center of the piston, and A. = wavelength, - in centimeters. The upper frequency limit for this investigation will be placed at 4000 cps. The reason for selecting this limit is that the enclosures which will be used

Fig. 2 Direct-radiator loudspeaker mechanism enclosures. The small circle with the dot in the center represents the speaker unit.

* RCA Laboratories, Princeton, New Jersey

enclosures, some consideration must be given to the radiating system. These considerations include the directional characteristics of the sound source and the sound power output characteristics of the sound source as a function of the frequency. In order to obtain the true diffraction effects which are produced by the different enclosures, the radiation emitted by the sound source must be independent of the direction. Since the diaphragm of the direct-radiator loudspeaker mechanism used in these tests is relatively very small, it can be assumed that it is a piston source. The directional characteristics of a piston source are given by ~ ~ ~ ( F a) s i n

I
Fig. 1.

SECTIONAL

VIEW

R, =

Sectional view of the loudspeaker mechanism.

h where R,= ratio of the pressure for an

27rR sin a

(1)

are relatively large. For example, the linear dimensions are eight to ten wavelengths at 4000 cps. I t will be stipulated that the radiation from the cone of the loudspeaker mechanism at this frequency shall be down not more than 1.0 db for a = 90 deg. as compared to a = 0 deg. This insures a reasonably nondirectional sound source even a t the upper end of the frequency range, that is, at 4000 cps. Of course, at lower frequencies the response discrepancy with respect to angle is much less. T o satisfy the above requirements, the diameter of the diaphragm or cone must be in. Accordingly a small direct-radiator loudspeaker mechanism employing a cone in. in diameter was designed, built, and tested. A sectional view of the loudspeaker mechanism is shown in Fig. 1. Measurements indicated that the directional perfofmance agreed with that predicted by equation (1). The next consideration is the sound

34

AUDIO ENGINEERING

NOVEMBER, 1951

MONITORINO LOUDSPEAKER

RCA-BAI4A

AYPLIEIER

RCA-$86

OSCILLATOR

mental resonant frequency .of .the system. . In other words, the performance characteristics depicted in.. this paper are, for all practical purposes, the characteristics which will be obtained if conventional direct-radiator loudspeaker mechanisms are used in these enclosures.
Enclosures
4

I I I F R, EE , F, IE U ROOM J L, , , , , , , , ,

Fig. 3. Schematic diagram of the apparatus for obta~ningthe response-frequency characteristics of loudspeakers.

power output calibration of the sound source. The sound power output of a ,piston sound source radiating into & solid angles and operating in the frequency region in which the diameter of the piston is less than one-quarter wavelength1 is given by

where p= density of air, in gms./cu. cm., c= velocity of sound, in cm./sec., a= 2 d f=frequency, in cps, . S=area of the diaphragm, in sq. cm., i=r.m.s. velocity of the dmphragm, in cm./sec., and k= r.&.s. +olume current produced by the mechanism, in cu. cm./ Sec. Equation ( 2 ) shows that the sound power output PT Of the sound source will be independent of the frequency f, if the velocity & , of the piston is inversely proportional . to the frequency. The characteristics depicted in this paper have been reduced to 'a sound source of this type, namely, that wh& it radiates into 4n solid angles the sound power output will be independent of the frequency. Since the directivity pattern of the sound source is independent of the frequency, the sound pressure, under these cond'ltions, will also be independent of the frequency. It may be mentioned in passing that, in the case of a direct-radiator loudspeaker mechanism operating in the frequency range below the ultimate acoustical radiation resistance, the velocity of the cone must be inversely proportional to the frequency in order to obtain constant sound power output, because the acoustical radiation resistance is proportional to the square of the. frequency. In order to obtain this type of motion, the system must be mass controlled, which is the natural state of affairs in the direct-radiator type of loudspeaker mechanism above the funds.
1 If the upper frequency limit is placed a t 4000 cps, the diameter of the %-in. conewill be less than one-quarter wavelength in the frequency range below 4000 cps.

Fig. 4. Equipment set-up for obtaining the response;frequency characteristics of loudspeakers.

The encjosures used in these experiments are depicted in Fig. 2. The sheet metal sphere shown at (A) is 2 ft. in diameter. The loudspeaker mechanism Is mounted with the cone approximately fludh with the surface. The sheet metal hemisphere shown at (B) is 2 ft. in diameter with the back closed by a flat board of hard wood. The loudspeaker mechanism is mounted upon the zenith of the hemisphere with the cone of the loudspeaker mechanism approximately flush with the surface. The sheet metal cylinder shown at (C) is 2 ft. in diameter and 2 ft. in length. The ends of the cylinder were closed by plywood boards of hard wood. The loudspeaker mechanism is mounted in the center of one end with the cone of the loudspeaker mechanism mounted flush with the surface. The cylinder shown at (D) is of the same size as that of (C). In (D) the cone of the loudspeaker mechanism is. mounted approximately flush upon the cylindrical surface midway between the ends. The sides of the wood cube shown at (E) are 2 ft in length. The loudspeaker mechanism is mounted in the center of one face with the cone flush with the surface. The base of the sheet metal cone shown at (F) is 2 ft. in diameter. The height of the cone is 1 ft. The base of the cone is closed by

Fig. 5. Microphone and rmpll directradiator loudspeaker mechanism of Fig. 1 under test in the free-field room.

a board of hard wood. The loudspeaker mechanism is mounted in the apex of the cone. The cone was truncated to accommodate the small loudspeaker mechanism. The double cone of (G) consists of two cones, each of the same size as that of the single cone of (F), with the bases placed edge to edge. The loudspeake; mechanism is mounted in the apex of one of the cones. The length of the edges of the square base of the wood pyramid shown at (H) is 2 ft. The height of the pyramid is 1 ft. The base of the pyramid is closed by a board of hard wood. The loudspeaker mechanism is mounted in the apex of the pyramid. The pyramid was truncated to accommodate the small loudspeaker mechai s m . The doublt pyramid of ( I ) consists of two pyramids, each of the same size as that of the single pyramid of (H), with the bases placed edge to edge. The loudspeaker mechanism is mounted in the apex of one of the pyramids. The truncated pyramid of (J) is mounted upon a rectangular parallelepiped. The length of the edges of the truncated surface is 1 ft. The height of the truncated pyramid is 6 in. The lengths of the edges of the rectangular parallelepiped are 1 ft. and 2 ft. The loudspeaker mechanism is mounted in the center of thb truncated surface. The lengths of the edges of the rectangular parallelepiped of (T() are 2 ft. and 3 ft. The loudspeaker .qechanism is mounted midway between two long edges and 1 ft. from one short edge. At (L) a rectangular truncated pyramid is mounted upon a rectangular parallelepiped. The lengths of the edges of the rectangular parallelepiped are 1, 2, and 3 ft, The lengths of the edges of the truncated surface are 1 ft. and 2% ft. The height of the truncated :pyramid is 6 in. One surface of the cpyramid and one surface of the parallelepiped lie in the same plane.

FIG. 6

FREWNCY

IN

CYCLES

PER

SECOND

FIG. 8

E D

FIG. 1 0

&rS
*)

-5

-m ,w

zoo

a00

.oo
IN

.oo a m o
PER

FREQUENCI

CYCLES

YCONO

,om rwo

FIG. 12

FIG. 13

measurement

Apparatus and Techniques

I00

200

M O .w
IN

M .

U)O

'(OO

two
SECOW

< The small loudspeaker

TREWENCV

IN

CYCLES

PER

SECOND

FREWENCI

CYCLES

PER

- .-

mechanism of
FIG. 14 FIG. 15

.Fig. 1 was mounted in the enclosures ;shown in Fig. 2. I n obtaining true dif.fraction effects it is important that red +kction effects produced by room in ;~hich the response-frequency character{tsticis obtained be reduced to a neglig~ible minimum. Therefore, all the re$pnse-frequency characteristics depicted this paper were obtained in the free. deld room2. of the Acoustical Labora"Qry of the RCA Laboratories. A i ,schematic diagram of the apparatus used !for obtaining the response-frequency @haracteristics, along with detailed gesignations of the components are ~hown in Fig.3. The complete recording %$tern--including the RCA-44B vel~city microphone, B A l A amplifier, and ;&eeds and Northrup Speedomax re$order-was calibrated by the free I [Continued on Page 591 i

PQ

FREQUENCY

IN

CYCLES

PER

SECOND

I
FIG. 17

I
-

FIG. 1 6

I
IN CYCLES
-

a zH. F. Olson, J. Acous. Soc. Am., Vol. $6, No. 2, p. 96, 1943.
$Olson, Elements of Acoustical Engirreering, D. Van Nostrand Company, @ J e w York, 2nd Edition, 1947, p. 359.

100

am

sw roo
IN

m .

.oe low
PER

,ow
SECOND

8-

. m o

FREQUENCY
-

PER

SECOND

FREQUENCY

CYCLES

Figs. 6 to 17. Response-frequency characteristic of a small ditect-radiator loudspeaker mechanism mounted in the enclosures of Fig. 2.

38

AUDIO ENGINEERING

NOVEMBER,1951

LOUDSPEAKER ENCLOSURES
field reciprocity m e t l ~ o d . ~ A ? sinusoidal input was applied to the loudspeaker 5y5tem under test by means of the comb i n a t i o n RCA-68B beat-frequency oicillator and a BA-14A amplifier. T h e voltage applied to the loudspeaker systein was measured by means of a Ballantine voltmeter. T h e measuring apparatus is shown in Fig. 4, and the microphone and the small loudspeaker mechanism of Fig. 1 under test in the free field iound room a r e shown in Fig. 5. T h e response-frequency characteristics illustrated and described in the sections \vhich follo~v were obtained by means of the apparatus and arrangements dexribed above.
Sphere

tion of a small direct-radiator sound source in which the volume current is inversely proportional to tlie frerluency and a large spherical enclosure is shown in Fig. 6. I t will be seen that the response is uniform and free of peaks and dips. This is due to the fact that there a r e no sharp edges o r discontinuities to set up diffracted waves of a definite phase pattern relation with respect to the primary sound emitted by the loudspeal<er. T h e diffracted \\raves a r e uniformly distributed as to phase and amplitude. Therefore, the transition from radiation by the loudspeaker meclianism into 4 p solid angles to radiation into 2T solid angles takes place uniformly with respect to the frequency. I t will be noted that the sound pressure increases unif o r n ~ l yin this transition frequency. T h e ultimate pressure is 6 db lligher than the sound pressure where the climension of the sphere is a small fraction of the wavelength.
Hemisphere

primary and diffracted waves a r e out of phase. T h e minima will occur a t 430, 860, 1290, etc. cps. I t will be seen that this agrees with the experimental results.
Cylinder

T h e first consideration will be the combination of the direct-radiator loud5peaker mechanisni of Fig. 1 and the ipherical enclosure as shown a t ( A ) in Fig. 2. T h e axial response-frequency characteristic thus obtained was corrected s o that the volume current produced by the mechanism was inversely proportional to the frequency, as previously described. T h e 'esponse-frequency characteristic6* of the combina-

H. F. Olson, RCA Review, Vol. 6, No. 1, p. 36, 1941. 5 Olson, Elements of Acoustical Enqitzeerilz,q, D. Van Nostrand Company, New York, 2nd Edition, 1947, p. 345. The response-frequency characteristics depicted in tliis paper were obtained on enclosures having the dimensions given. The response-frequency characteristics for cnclosui-es of other dimensions can be obtained by multiplying the ratio of the linear ditnensions of the enclosure given in tliis paper to the linear dimensions of the ne\v enclosure by the frequency of the response-frequency characteristic given in this paper. For example: if the linear dimensions of the new enclosures are two times those of the enclosures described, the frequency scales of Figs. 6 to 17 inclusive should be multiplied by one-half. 7 The theoretical and experimental sound pressures on a sphere as a function of the frequency for an impinging plane wave of constant intensity have been investigated by G. W. Stewart, Pkys. Rev., Vol. 33, No. 6, p. 467. 1911, S. Ballantine, Phys. Rev., Vol. 32, No. 6, p. 988, 1928 and Muller, Black and Dunn, J. Acous. Soc. Am., Vol. 10, No. 1, p. 6, 1938. The results reported hy tticse investigators agree with those depicted in Fig. 6. This is to be expected from the reciprocity theorem which states that under appropriate conditions the source and observation points may be interchanged without altering the response frequency characteristics of the systein. See Olson, Blements of Acoustical Engineeritzg, D. Van Nostrand Company, New York, N. Y., 1947, p. 21.

T h e axial response-frequency characteristic of the loudspeaker inecl~anismof Fig. 1 nlounted in the hemispherical enclosure of ( B ) , Fig. 2, is shown in Fig. 7. T h e sharp discontinuity at the boundary of the spherical and plane surfaces produces a strongly diffracted wave. There is a phase difference between the primary and diffracted waves which results in peaks ant1 dips in the response-frequency cl~aracteristic correspontling to in and out of phase relationships between the primary and diffracted sound. A physical explanation of the phenomena is as follows: T h e sound flows out in all possible directions from the sound source. T h e sound which follows the contour of the spherical surface encounters a sudden change in acoustical impedance a t the intersection of the plane and spherical surface. A reflected wave is sent out at this point in all possible directions. T h e distance from the diaphragn~of the loutlspeaker mechanism to the circular diffracting edge is p / 2 feet. The distance between the plane of the diaphragm and the plane containing circular dlgracting edge is 1 ft. Therefore, the difference in path between the primary and the diffracted wave a t the observation o r measurement point on the axis is ( p / 2 + I ) ft. T h e sound wave which follolvs the contour of the spherical surface encounters a decrease in acoustical impedance a t the boundary of the spherical and plane surfaces, and the diffracted or reflected wave suffers a phase change of 180 deg. Therefore, when the distance ( p / 2 + 1 ) ft. corresponds to odd multiples of one-half wavelength, there will be maxima of response because the primary and diffracted waves a r e in phase. T h e maxima will occur at 215, 645, 1075, etc. cps. I t will be seen that tliis agrees with experimental results. When the distance ( p / 2 + 1 ) ft. corresponds to n~ultiplesof the wavelength, there will be minima in the response hecause the

The axial response-frequency cl~aracteristicQf the loudspeaker mechanism of Fig. 1 mounted in the center of one end of the cylinder of ( C ) , Fig. 2 is shown in Fig. 8. T h e sharp boundary a t the intersection of the plane and cylindrical surface introduces a strongly diffracted wave. T h e distance from the mechanism to the circular boundary is 1 it. Tlicl-efore, since the diaphragm and the edge lie in the same plane, the path difference between primary and diffracted wave is 1 it. Followi~ig the explanation of tlie preceding section, there should be luaxinia of response at 550, 1650. 2750, 3550, etc. cps, and there sl~oultlbe minima of response a t 1100, 2200. 3300, etc. cps. I t will be seen that there is remarkable agreement with the experiniental results of Fig. 8. I t is also interesting to note that the variations in response a r e very great, being of the order of 10 clb. The axial response-frequency characteristic of the loudspeaker mechanisin of Fig. 1 tnounted in the cylindrical surface of the cylinder of ( D ) , Fig. 2, is s11own in Fig. 9. Again the sharp boundary between the cylindrical and the plane surfaces produces a diffracted wave. However, the pat11 difference between tlie primary and diffracted wave is not confined to a single discrete distance. Therefore, the maxima and minima of response a r e not as pronounced as in tlie case of ( C ) , as shown in Fig. 8. Fro111 the response frequency characteristic of Fig. 9, it would appear that the effective distance between the primary and diffracted wave is about 1.17 it. As would be expected, this means that the forward portion of the diffracting edge plays the predominant part.
Cube

T h e axial response-frequency cliaracteristic" of tlie loudspeaker mechanism of Fig. 1 mounted in the center of one of the faces of the cube ( E ) , of Fig. 2, is shown in Fig. 10. T h e sharp boundary at the edges of the cube produces a strongly diffracted wave. T h e average path between the n~echanism and the
8 The theoretical and experimental sound pressures on the center of the face of a cylinder as a function of the frequency have been investigated by Muller, Black and Dunu, J. Acozls. Sac. Am., Vol. 10, No. 1, p. 6, 1938. The results reported by these investigators agree with those depicted in Fig. 8. This is to be expected from a consideration of the reciprocity theoreni. Sce footnote 7. " T h e theoretical and experimental sound pressures on the center of a face of a cube as a function of tlie frequency have been investigated by Muller, Black and Dunn, J . Arolls. Soc. Ai~z., Vol. 10, No. 1, p. 6, 1938. The results reported by these investigators agl-ee with those depicted in Fig. 10. This is to be expected from a consideration of the reciprocity theorem. See footnote 7.

AUDIO ENGINEERING

NOVEMBER, 1951

edges is'about 1.2 ft. Therefore, since the diaphragm and the edges lie in the same plane, the path difference between the primary and diffracted waves is 1.2 ft. Following the explanations of the preceding sections, there, should be maxima of response at 460, 1380, 2300, 3200, etc. cps, and there should be minima of response at 920, 1840, 2760, etc. cps. There is reasonably good agreement with the experimental results of Fig. 10.
Cone

The axial response of the loudspeaker mechanism of Fig. 1 mounted in the apex of the cone, ( F ) of Fig. 2, is shown in Fig. 11. The sharp boundary a t the base of th,e cone produces a diffracted wave. The distance from the mechanism to this edge is 1.3 ft. The distance between the plane of the diaphragm of the mechanism and, the plane of the base is 0.95 ft. Theref~re,the difference in path between the primary and diffracted waves is 2.25 ft. Following the explanations of the preceding sections, there should be maxima of response at 250, 750, 1250, etc. cps. and there should be minima of response a t 500, 1000, 1500, 2000, etc. cps. There is very good agreemenx with the experimental results of Fig. 11. Another interesting fact is that the average magnitude of the response does not increase as rapidly with frequency as in the case of the examples in the preceding sections. This is due to the fact that the free space suhtended by the loudspeaker mechanism is 2.6 steradians as compared to 2~ steradians for most bf the other systems considered in the preceding sections. Therefore, the ultimate sound pressure occurs a t a higher frequency than in the case of enclosures in which the loudspeaker subtends ZT steradians. The axial response of the loudspeaker mechanism of Fig. 1 mounted in the apex of the double cone, (G) of Fig. 2, is shown in Fig. 13. The sharp boundary at the bases of the cones produces a diffracted wave. The phase differences between the primary and diffracted waves are the same as those of the single cone. T h e performances of the single and double cone are about the same, as will be seen by comparing Figs. 11 and 12.
\

frequency characteristicsr; is 6iini'la-f to' that of the cone of a precding secti~n. As *in the case of the cone, 't$e ultimate response occurs at a reldtlvely high frequency. The axial respolnse of the loudspeaker mechanism of Fig. 1 mounted in the apex of the double pyramid, ( I ) of Rig. 2, is shown in Fig. 14, The sharp boundary at the base of the pyramid produces a diffracted wave. The phase differences between the primary and diffracted waves are the same as those of the single cone. The performance of the single and double ,cone are about +e$ame, as will be seen by comparing Figs. 13 and 14.
Truncated Pyramid and Rectangular Parallelepiped Combination

mechanism, because of the wide variations in response produced by diffraction from the sharp edges of this cabinet.
Rectangirlar Truncated Pyramid and Parallelepiped Combination

From the preceding examples, it will be seen that wide variations in the response-frequency characteristics occur when there is a sharp boundary or edge upon the surface of the enclosure which produces a strongly diffracted wave. The diffracted wave is- further accentuated when all paths from the mechanism to the boundaries or edges are the same. The truncated pyramid and rectangular parallelepiped combination shown at (J) in Fig. 2 is designed with the object of reducing sharp boundaries on -the front portion of the enclosure. Furthermore, the distances from the mechanism and the edges are not all the same. The response frequency charac- ' teristic of the loudspeaker mechanism of Fig. 1 mounted ifi the enclosure (J) is'shown in Fig. 15. I t will be seen that the response is quite uniform and free of large maxima and minima. This bears out the idea that the reduction of sharp boundaries on the surface of the ehclosure and the elimination of equal path lengths from these boundaries to the mechanism will yield smoother response frequency characteristics.
Rectangular Parallelepiped

From the data given the preceding sections is is possible to devise many cabinet shapes which will reduce the effects of diffractions in modifying the response frequency characteristics of the loudspeaker mechanism. An example of the application of the principles outlined in this paper is shown . a t (L) in Fig. 2. In this cabinet the diffraction effects have been ameliorated by the reduction of abrupt angular discontinuities on the surface of the cabinet and the elimination of equal paths from these discontinuities to the mechanism. At the same time a practical exterior configuration has been retained which is not undesirable from an esthetic standpoint. The response-frequency characteristic of the loudspeaker n~echanism of Fig. 1 mounted in the enclosure (L) is shown in Fig. 17. It will be seen that the response-frequency characteristic is quite smooth.
Conclusions
'

Pyramid

The axial response of the loudspeaker mechanism of Fig. 1 mounted in the apex of !he pyramid, (A) of Fig. 2, is shown in Fig. 13. The sharp boundary a t the base produces a diffracted wave. The average distance from the mechan i s to ~ this edge is 1.6 ft. The distance 'between the plane of the diaphragm of the mechanism and the plane of the base is 0.95 ft. Therefore, the difference in path between the primary and diffradted waves is 2.55 ft. Following the explanations of the preceding sections, there should be maxima of response at 220, 660, 1100, etc. cps, and minima a t 440, 880, 1320, etc. cps. There is very good agreement with the experimental results of Fig. 13. The shape of-the response-

The rectangular parallelepiped in all its possible variations in dimensions is the most common direct-radiator loudspeaker enclosure. One of the obvious reasons for this state of affairs is that this !shape is the simplest to fabticate. This is unfortunate, because the rectangular parallelepiped produces diffraction effects which adversely modify the response-frequency characteristic of a direct-radiator loudspeaker mechanism. The response-frequency curve of Fig. 16 was obtained with the toudspeaker mechanism of Fig. 1 mounted in the rectangular parallelepiped of (K), -Fig. 2. The pronounced minima in the response a t 1000 and 2000 cps are due to shorter distances from the mechanism to the upper and side edges. The minimum in response at 500 cps is due to the longer distance from the mechanism to the low& edge. The variations in response, due to diffraction eEects by the cabinet, are of the order of 6 to 7 db. The response frequency characteristic of Fig. 16 is typical of the response obtained with this' type of enclosure. Therefgre, this cabinet shape is unsuitable forhousing a direct-radiator loudspeaker'

The response-frequency characteristics, which depict the performance of a direct-radiator loudspeaker mechanism in various enclosures of fundamental shapes, show that the outside configuration plays an important part in determining the response as a function of frequency. For example, in some of the enclosures the variation in response produced by diffraction exceeds 10 db. All of the response-frequency characteristics depicted in this paper were taken on the axis of the loudspeaker mechanism and enclosure combination. In this connection, it should be mentioned that the variations in response are mitigated for locations off the axis. The reason for using the axial response is that the reference response-frequency characteristic of a direct-radiator loudspeaker is always taken on or near the axis. Practically all serious listening to direct-radiator loudspeakers is carried out on or near the axis. The response of a loudspeaker in an enclosure will be modified by the directivity pattern of the mechanism, because the diffraction effects are influenced by the direction of flow of sound energy from the diaphragm. However, the performance in the frequency range in which the dimensions of the cone are less than a wavelength will not be markedly different. The experiments described in this paper show that the deleterious effects of diffraction can be reduced by eliminating all sharp boundaries on the front portion of the enclosure upon which the mechanism is mounted, so that the amplitude of the diffracted waves will be reduced in amplitude and by making the distances from the mechanism to the diffracting edges varied so that there will be a random phase relationship between the primary and diffracted sound waves.

64

AUDIO ENGINEERING

NOVEMBER, 1951