[ebag4]

When researching "H" baffles, the only consideration I have read is the distance from the driver to the ends of the housing ("L") and the overall lenth of the housing ("D").  Is there any issue with the area of the housing?  Is it a situation where as long as the driver fits into the cross section of the housing and you don't taper the ends then the outcome will be satisfactory?

Thanks for any insight you can offer.

Best,
Ed

[454Casull]

AFAIK the larger the area the lower the closed-pipe effect.

[Rudolf]

H-baffles are basicly quarter-wavelength transmission lines. Everything Martin J. King tells about TMLs on http://www.quarter-wave.com applies to H-baffles too. As MJK has pointed out, the effective length of a H-baffle is not "L", but Leffective = "L” + 0.6 x Reffective. Where Reffective is the radius of a circle with the same area as the H-baffle housing.

There is not very much to gain by making the baffle wider than the driver needs. And by keeping "L" the same or shorter as Reffective you savely avoid a prominent resonance peak at the upper end of the response range.
Did you look at http://www.quarter-wave.com/OBs/U_and_H_Frames.pdf too?

[ebag4]

Thanks for the responses guys.

Rudolf, thanks for the link to the MJK document, I had not seen it.

Thanks,
Ed

[EProvenzano]

...and you don't taper the ends then the outcome will be satisfactory?....

What do you mean by tapering the ends?
My goal to design an elegant looking H-baffle that will have significant WAF might be dashed!    Please explain.

Thank you!

[ebag4]

...and you don't taper the ends then the outcome will be satisfactory?....

What do you mean by tapering the ends?
My goal to design an elegant looking H-baffle that will have significant WAF might be dashed!    Please explain.

Thank you!

I was referring to the end of the baffle being the same crossection throughout, not reducing the exit of the baffle.  Hope that makes sense.

Best,
Ed

[mightym]

apologies, I posted on the wrong thread.