Nice work! The best and most scientific would be to staple a thick felt on the front and on the edges fiber glass insulation, but since science wasn't able to refine simple two way design for last 100 years just do what your wife/GF will find attractive and will allow you to put in the living room. So you can listen together and not alone or with your dog in garage or the cellar.
Beyond something?
This will give a strong beaming speaker system going back to the 50s and 60s of the last century:
Siemens Klangfilm etc.
Sounds great to me, I’m not running a theater, I’m sitting in front of my system listening to music 😉 “Beaming” could also be called
“focused”, which means high efficiency and less room interaction. It’s not a negative, just an option. I think wheels have been in use for many millennia and we still seem to think a rolling circle is hard to beat.
“focused”, which means high efficiency and less room interaction. It’s not a negative, just an option. I think wheels have been in use for many millennia and we still seem to think a rolling circle is hard to beat.
Well, even if you're not running a theater a shifting of image from the left to right with a turn of a head may be bothersome to some. Multiway horn rectifies this problem to a degree. CD horns supposedly solve that but the balance is is not as natural as horns without a slot. It may sound great but if you listen to speech through a CD horn and then through an open horn the difference is obvious as demonstrated by Bruce Edgar. Everything is a compromise to a degree and squeezing every drop of bandwidth from a single horn is not an optimal solution. Pick your poison
There have been some advances regarding horn design recently: http://www.at-horns.eu/exar-story.html
Controlled directivity, smooth polars, very low diffraction, good low-frequency extension. We can have all of this with the modern devices.
Controlled directivity, smooth polars, very low diffraction, good low-frequency extension. We can have all of this with the modern devices.
Yeah, consider the driver's pipe end correction on a baffle k = 0.732r
15PR400's Sd = 857 cm^2
radius = ((857*4)/pi) = ~16.52 cm
k = ~16.52 cm*0.732 = ~12.1 cm
driver eff. dia. = (2*16.52)+12.1 = ~45.12 cm/17.77 "
baffle eff. dia. = pipe end correction on a baffle k = 0.732r = ~9.52" + 26" = ~35.52"
baffle frequency = ~13543/2/35.52 = 190.7 Hz, down in the 'boom/punch', 'warmth' BW, so IME a good place to 'hide'/'blend' in a bit of driver/baffle (euphonic?) 'ripple'.
Just Baltic birch, the exposed edges were trimmed down with a giant bottom bearing trim bit, like you'd use for veneer or laminates, except scary big. Just a quick clean up sand to 120, there will be a lot more fussy sanding then spray with black lacquer, but the edge grain will stay visible with clear finish. Now I"m going to go spend a few hours figuring out what GM just said and learn something
OK GM I'm stumped again. This calls for a list, apologies for my density. I added numbers to your lines above, and will use them to call out my questions:Yeah, consider the driver's pipe end correction on a baffle k = 0.732r
15PR400's Sd = 857 cm^2
1. radius = ((857*4)/pi) = ~16.52 cm
2. k = ~16.52 cm*0.732 = ~12.1 cm
3. driver eff. dia. = (2*16.52)+12.1 = ~45.12 cm/17.77 "
4. baffle eff. dia. = pipe end correction on a baffle k = 0.732r = ~9.52" + 26" = ~35.52"
5. baffle frequency = ~13543/2/35.52 = 190.7 Hz, down in the 'boom/punch', 'warmth' BW, so IME a good place to 'hide'/'blend' in a bit of driver/baffle (euphonic?) 'ripple'.
3. So you add the corrected baffle radius to the true baffle diameter?
4. where is the 9.52" coming from?
5. Fine with the math, but I don't catch your Georgia humor, how it relates to whether to add a radius to the baffle edges or not? And my baffle is only 22" wide, so using your formula I get 214.8Hz, still not too bad, I'm hoping the ports will prop up the FR enough to avoid BSC and loss of sensitivity, but there might be a sag in the midbass range, I'll know soon enough when I start measuring 🧐
My conclusion is that any audible discontinuities a baffle's sharp corners/whatever might generate will at worst be lost in the speaker's musical output primarily due to its low amplitude and perceived in a part of the human hearing BW where we would have a hard time noticing it unless considerably louder than the surrounding music/noise.
The horns allowing so, not the painting of same. Syntax error? Sorry; can't assume anything in this game.
I recall this being briefly discussed here several years back.
https://www.diyaudio.com/community/threads/beyond-the-ariel.100392/page-606
Searching [ james romeyn rear reflecting tweeters ] there’s some notable hits, such as post # 10,590. https://www.audiocircle.com/index.php?topic=149798.20
Also, here https://www.diyaudio.com/community/threads/what-are-the-benefits-of-rear-firing-tweeters.222708/
https://www.diyaudio.com/community/threads/late-ceiling-splash.332507/
But given the HF response of the DCM-50, what would be your reasons for adding supertweeters, and utilized in that manner? Whatever new conclusions may be drawn for such solutions with a given speaker build, I hope there might now be renewed and indepth discussion of specific HF drivers used in such rear wall and/or ceiling reflecting configurations.
Last edited:
Regardless of cost or the appropriate horn (s), based on what you've listened to and/or would expect due to their construction (e.g. diaphragm composition), how might you rate these?
https://www.eighteensound.it/en/products/hf-driver/1-4/16/ND1480BE
https://www.usspeaker.com/radian 745neoBepb-1.htm
https://usspeaker.com/rcf nd950.2.0-1.htm
https://usspeaker.com/B&C-DCM50-1.htm
And would that choice also be governed by the quality of one's source material: Well mastered CDs, but also IF lots of much treasured music only available on compressed and/or "congested" sounding CDs?
