Onken is a japanese company (I think the principle there goes by that name as well?) that popularized the old Ultraflex design under the Onken moniker, starting sometime around the early 1980's (not too sure about the date) the Onken W was designed by the same company.
There is a ubiquitous onken calculator in excel format available from lots of sites, just google onken, the design equations are there.
There is a ubiquitous onken calculator in excel format available from lots of sites, just google onken, the design equations are there.
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=78756
Anybody seen these
http://www.da-vinci-audio.com/unikate/unicum.htm
looks like onkens with horn baffles?
Anybody seen these
http://www.da-vinci-audio.com/unikate/unicum.htm
looks like onkens with horn baffles?
Greets!
FWIW, many years ago someone mentioned that the formulas/guidelines he sent me were from Jacques Mahul's Petite Onken's article in l'Audiophile, but not which issue that was. Unfortunately, one of the formulas in the vent design segment had a typo and in the ~four months between when he sent them and I got around to writing him about it, he 'disappeared'.......as in his mailing address in Quebec was no longer valid with no forwarding one, so the 416 Onken except with a newer ceramic motor was the only one I built until JMLC graciously reviewed/corrected my SS some years later.
Anyway, to me the Onken alignment is just a starting point same as a T/S max flat one is. Indeed, JLMC noted in a joelist thread that the Onken Co.'s designs were small stand mounts and didn't conform to the Jensen's guidelines (which I assume is based solely on reverse engineering one since I don't believe they published any), so didn't have its 'sound'.
That said, in reviewing my various correspondence, JMLC mentions that he found that the constant 0.55 in lieu of 0.39 in the Fb formula was better for Qts > 0.33 drivers if low 'n' factors are used, with n = 2 for his Cabasse 30BZ18 Onken, though he still wound up blocking off a couple of vents before he was satisfied with it.
Bottom line, once you move away from a ~clone of the Jensen Ultraflex, an 'Onken' can be whatever you want it to be.
GM
FWIW, many years ago someone mentioned that the formulas/guidelines he sent me were from Jacques Mahul's Petite Onken's article in l'Audiophile, but not which issue that was. Unfortunately, one of the formulas in the vent design segment had a typo and in the ~four months between when he sent them and I got around to writing him about it, he 'disappeared'.......as in his mailing address in Quebec was no longer valid with no forwarding one, so the 416 Onken except with a newer ceramic motor was the only one I built until JMLC graciously reviewed/corrected my SS some years later.
Anyway, to me the Onken alignment is just a starting point same as a T/S max flat one is. Indeed, JLMC noted in a joelist thread that the Onken Co.'s designs were small stand mounts and didn't conform to the Jensen's guidelines (which I assume is based solely on reverse engineering one since I don't believe they published any), so didn't have its 'sound'.
That said, in reviewing my various correspondence, JMLC mentions that he found that the constant 0.55 in lieu of 0.39 in the Fb formula was better for Qts > 0.33 drivers if low 'n' factors are used, with n = 2 for his Cabasse 30BZ18 Onken, though he still wound up blocking off a couple of vents before he was satisfied with it.
Bottom line, once you move away from a ~clone of the Jensen Ultraflex, an 'Onken' can be whatever you want it to be.
GM
bickeler said:
Greets!
Apparently they are either clueless or intentionally mirepresenting what those cabs are, which are the original Altec A7 cab, a crude mass loaded BLH with a truncated front loaded midbass horn, though theirs are tuned a bit lower like later A7s: http://www.lansingheritage.org/images/altec/catalogs/1954-home/page09.jpg
Here's an Onken horn: http://ndaviden.club.fr/plancaisse/onkdouble.html
GM
I just got the news that my Onken enclosures are finished, I will be picking them up in about a week and a half. I should have the woofers about a week or so after that.
The 4333 mid horns are checked out and tuned up, the 2402's are on their way here as are the parts for my first pass x-over design. I am thinking about Fostex T900/T925 horn tweeters later on as a possible upgrade..
I have some work to do on the cabs before installing the drivers, but that will be all done long before the woofers get here.
The 4333 mid horns are checked out and tuned up, the 2402's are on their way here as are the parts for my first pass x-over design. I am thinking about Fostex T900/T925 horn tweeters later on as a possible upgrade..
I have some work to do on the cabs before installing the drivers, but that will be all done long before the woofers get here.
Greets!
Yeah, apparently anything with a vent and/or has a Butterworth alignment can be an 'Onken'.
Not these, but dual 515B's in both Altec 815 horns converted to vented that the Onken appears to be based on, and of course the 210/211 horns I had at home. The latter had a lower Fc, but both were indeed 'scary' when it was time to go 'live'.
GM
Yeah, apparently anything with a vent and/or has a Butterworth alignment can be an 'Onken'.
Not these, but dual 515B's in both Altec 815 horns converted to vented that the Onken appears to be based on, and of course the 210/211 horns I had at home. The latter had a lower Fc, but both were indeed 'scary' when it was time to go 'live'.
GM
Onken Horns????
Interesting GM. Perhaps you can help me with this. I am interested in that type of enclosure like the Altecs as well. Is the horn on the front to increase a dropping higher frequency response from a bass driver? I thought it must be otherwise the mid would be out of balance with the lows. How do you calculate how such a horn loads the driver in order to calculate the reflex ( Onken ) cabinet behind it or is this still done the old way, by guess, experience and listening?
Some musical instrument speakers seem to respond to the calculations on that spreadsheet but all reasonably large boxes even with 10" speakers. The seem to simulate well but don't know how they would sound.
jamikl
Interesting GM. Perhaps you can help me with this. I am interested in that type of enclosure like the Altecs as well. Is the horn on the front to increase a dropping higher frequency response from a bass driver? I thought it must be otherwise the mid would be out of balance with the lows. How do you calculate how such a horn loads the driver in order to calculate the reflex ( Onken ) cabinet behind it or is this still done the old way, by guess, experience and listening?
Some musical instrument speakers seem to respond to the calculations on that spreadsheet but all reasonably large boxes even with 10" speakers. The seem to simulate well but don't know how they would sound.
jamikl
bickeler said:
Those sure look like VOTT A7s to me! Or maybe a smaller version of the A7. In that photo they don't look big enough to be the A7. Certainly not what is generally called an Onken, or Ultraflex.
I had a pair of VOTT style cabs built around 12" drivers once, kind of of a mini A7 (they might have had a number). Made by University Sound, I think. Not bad, but not like a full grown A7.
Oddly enough there is an Onken/Ultraflex drawing on the page. But not in the photos. They must be using a lot of delay for those "satellites."
And using the those bass cabs "under 60 Hz". Hmmmm.... What could the driver be?
Re: Onken Horns????
Greets!
It's normally to increase a horn driver's gain to match its stepped response: http://www.lansingheritage.org/images/altec/specs/components/515b/page02.jpg
There may be some specialized math routine to calc vented horn speakers such as this or the Altecs that I'm not aware of, but it would only apply to an optimized alignment where the rear Vb is tuned for enough gain to match the horn's gain (severely underdamped alignment), but the only way I know how to do it is to keep adjusting the cab's tuning until it lines up with the horn's. For the rest, the rule-of-thumb is to tune it to the horn's flare frequency, or ~55 Hz for the A7 and ~35 Hz for the 210/211. This can be calc'd with any decent vented box calculator. The stock 815 has a sealed rear chamber loaded with dual 411-16As, a much higher excursion 'sub' driver.
Here's a smaller Altec factory 'Onken', basically a compact A7 cab and compact dual driver cab (basically two A7 horns) except with standing wave inducing parallel sides: http://www.lansingheritage.org/images/altec/catalogs/1993-pro/1993-40.JPG and a custom two way 'Onken': http://www.lansingheritage.org/images/altec/catalogs/1993-pro/1993-32.JPG
MI drivers typically do extremely well in a HIFI app up to the point where their designed in distortion begins 'coloring' its output with break-up modes and non-linearities, so horn loading is required if you want reasonably clean dynamic headroom. Then again, some folks prefer what these drivers can add to the music, so as always YMMV.
GM
Greets!
It's normally to increase a horn driver's gain to match its stepped response: http://www.lansingheritage.org/images/altec/specs/components/515b/page02.jpg
There may be some specialized math routine to calc vented horn speakers such as this or the Altecs that I'm not aware of, but it would only apply to an optimized alignment where the rear Vb is tuned for enough gain to match the horn's gain (severely underdamped alignment), but the only way I know how to do it is to keep adjusting the cab's tuning until it lines up with the horn's. For the rest, the rule-of-thumb is to tune it to the horn's flare frequency, or ~55 Hz for the A7 and ~35 Hz for the 210/211. This can be calc'd with any decent vented box calculator. The stock 815 has a sealed rear chamber loaded with dual 411-16As, a much higher excursion 'sub' driver.
Here's a smaller Altec factory 'Onken', basically a compact A7 cab and compact dual driver cab (basically two A7 horns) except with standing wave inducing parallel sides: http://www.lansingheritage.org/images/altec/catalogs/1993-pro/1993-40.JPG and a custom two way 'Onken': http://www.lansingheritage.org/images/altec/catalogs/1993-pro/1993-32.JPG
MI drivers typically do extremely well in a HIFI app up to the point where their designed in distortion begins 'coloring' its output with break-up modes and non-linearities, so horn loading is required if you want reasonably clean dynamic headroom. Then again, some folks prefer what these drivers can add to the music, so as always YMMV.
GM
panomaniac said:
The driver is a Supravox 400 EXC. But they don`t say what supply voltage. The Mammut sub from Blackforest Audio uses a similar field coil driver from Fertin.
http://www.blackforestaudio.de/FertinTechDataFLB20/fertintechdataflb20.htm
Thanks for the reply GM. These upper bass-mid horns don,t seem to be practical as the speaker cone size decreases. They don't seem to model in horn response or on the MJK sheets either.
I tried to model an Onken using a 10" musical instrument speaker available locally. Came out at around 200 Litres but with quite good low end - down to just above 30Hz, 94dB at 1W. I modelled the vents as a back horn in Horn Response but as it was only 1 vent with a 1cm increase in taper from throat to mouth to get it to model I got a weird result although it did show the extension the SS predicted with that size cabinet. It had a weird large negtive spike at 200 Hz in group delay but this was probably due to modelling it as a single port. I modelled it in bass box Pro with same specs and there was no negative spike. Just slightly too high at 30Hz which I could live with if I did this. Modelled 6 X rectangular ports for this.
jamikl.
I tried to model an Onken using a 10" musical instrument speaker available locally. Came out at around 200 Litres but with quite good low end - down to just above 30Hz, 94dB at 1W. I modelled the vents as a back horn in Horn Response but as it was only 1 vent with a 1cm increase in taper from throat to mouth to get it to model I got a weird result although it did show the extension the SS predicted with that size cabinet. It had a weird large negtive spike at 200 Hz in group delay but this was probably due to modelling it as a single port. I modelled it in bass box Pro with same specs and there was no negative spike. Just slightly too high at 30Hz which I could live with if I did this. Modelled 6 X rectangular ports for this.
jamikl.
Greets!
You're welcome!
Hmm, I've used 12" drivers in the smaller horns and they had the same gain/BW as with 15", they just needed different rear chamber Vb/tuning. Anyway, they were just examples, not necessarily meant as something to build for your app.
True MI drivers have very limited Xmax, so without a lot of acoustic gain can't be tuned low without risking audible distortion.
Unless the vents are well damped they will have both odd and even harmonics beginning at their 3rd harmonic that will comb filter with the driver's output. modeling it in MJK's PORTED WS is maybe a bit more accurate and you can play with stuffing of the vent to see out it affects output. Position the vent in the center with the driver somewhere above it and don't worry if the two would physically overlap since he simplifies the computation by having the vent's output exit in the same location as the driver. This is why if you set both at the same point the WS won't plot a response.
Few programs including BB pro can model the effects of large and/or long vents, hence no vent pipe(s) harmonics effect on the FR. To get the kind of smooth response most programs predict requires an acoustic ratio cab with the driver ~centered and vent(s) at the bottom that are considerably smaller in area than the driver's Sd and < a few inches long.
GM
You're welcome!
Hmm, I've used 12" drivers in the smaller horns and they had the same gain/BW as with 15", they just needed different rear chamber Vb/tuning. Anyway, they were just examples, not necessarily meant as something to build for your app.
True MI drivers have very limited Xmax, so without a lot of acoustic gain can't be tuned low without risking audible distortion.
Unless the vents are well damped they will have both odd and even harmonics beginning at their 3rd harmonic that will comb filter with the driver's output. modeling it in MJK's PORTED WS is maybe a bit more accurate and you can play with stuffing of the vent to see out it affects output. Position the vent in the center with the driver somewhere above it and don't worry if the two would physically overlap since he simplifies the computation by having the vent's output exit in the same location as the driver. This is why if you set both at the same point the WS won't plot a response.
Few programs including BB pro can model the effects of large and/or long vents, hence no vent pipe(s) harmonics effect on the FR. To get the kind of smooth response most programs predict requires an acoustic ratio cab with the driver ~centered and vent(s) at the bottom that are considerably smaller in area than the driver's Sd and < a few inches long.
GM
I don't recall all the details of the fairly recent discussion on the Joelist regarding the Onken enclosures - not any horn loaded versions. But, the upshot was that they perform well if used with a ZFB tube amp, and not particularly well without.
Of course, one might presume that if one used a driver of high enough Qt, then one might get the same results with a higher DF amplifier.
Personally, I have never heard or found any of these "earlier", "vintage" designs to go particularly low, like below 40 Hz. Of course, there is the potential for corner placement, wall/floor placement and other room modes to provide "lift" at lower freqs - which perhaps accounts for some of the better reports on the Onken's performance?
A few on the Joelist claim that with the ZFB tube amp that they get down to ~20Hz. I am skeptical about that claim.
I am also dubious about the early claim that it is actually a low Q "filter" - it seems more likely that it is just a port that is tuned too low and therefore performs poorly... but I'm just guessing about that, having not tried to model it in any sim software... and in the original design there is nothing at all stopping lots of reflected and transmitted midbass and midrange energy from eminating from the rather large port area - out of phase, and delayed.
As far as the A7s flare being 50Hz., I dunno, but the mouth size surely won't support 50 Hz. The real gain from that horn is almost certainly at higher freqs so that there is not a big gap in sensitivity where it has to meet some sort of horn on the top...
My feeling is that neither of these old designs will yield really top notch performance by todays standards, although they might be stepping off points to move forward from.
_-_-bear
Of course, one might presume that if one used a driver of high enough Qt, then one might get the same results with a higher DF amplifier.
Personally, I have never heard or found any of these "earlier", "vintage" designs to go particularly low, like below 40 Hz. Of course, there is the potential for corner placement, wall/floor placement and other room modes to provide "lift" at lower freqs - which perhaps accounts for some of the better reports on the Onken's performance?
A few on the Joelist claim that with the ZFB tube amp that they get down to ~20Hz. I am skeptical about that claim.
I am also dubious about the early claim that it is actually a low Q "filter" - it seems more likely that it is just a port that is tuned too low and therefore performs poorly... but I'm just guessing about that, having not tried to model it in any sim software... and in the original design there is nothing at all stopping lots of reflected and transmitted midbass and midrange energy from eminating from the rather large port area - out of phase, and delayed.
As far as the A7s flare being 50Hz., I dunno, but the mouth size surely won't support 50 Hz. The real gain from that horn is almost certainly at higher freqs so that there is not a big gap in sensitivity where it has to meet some sort of horn on the top...
My feeling is that neither of these old designs will yield really top notch performance by todays standards, although they might be stepping off points to move forward from.
_-_-bear
Greets!
With a high DF amp and no series resistance of consequence, a n = 5.0 - 6.34 alignment performs just like any big vent ~T/S max flat alignment so if a low Qts driver is used in a large cab it will be very overdamped, ergo no LF to speak of if not corner loaded. Zfb amps OTOH need a low Qts driver in a big cab otherwise it will be severely underdamped.
20 Hz is doable in-room if a low Fs driver tuned low is used and there's enough room gain regardless of whether it's Zfb or high DF driven.
Typical Onkens are tuned fairly high and a vent is a low pass filter with a Q that's dependent on how hard it can be driven, i.e. the driver's Qes and the amp's ability to feed it enough power/control it at Fb, so a typical Zfb amp is going to 'lay down' near/at Fb, making the vent a variable low Q filter. Personally, I prefer a strong amp for consistancy and adjust the alignment as required to ~blend with the room.
The A7 is a truncated ~110 Hz expo flare with a half size mouth so begins unloading around 242 Hz and is done by ~175 Hz where the rear cab's crude mass loaded BLH extends it to 55 Hz, effectively covering the entire human vocal range. If driven with a matching impedance tube amp and its baffles are installed like it was voiced with, it has a flat enough response that was determined by Bell Labs to be ideal for high intelligibility while doing the rest of the available audible spectrum signal 'good enough' for music/movie soundtracks, though it's woefully inadequate for some of today's wide BW/fast transient sources. If you only listen to vinyl or similar spec sources though, you can do a lot worse, especially if their prosound heritage is toned down somewhat to make them suitable for a typical HIFI app.
GM
With a high DF amp and no series resistance of consequence, a n = 5.0 - 6.34 alignment performs just like any big vent ~T/S max flat alignment so if a low Qts driver is used in a large cab it will be very overdamped, ergo no LF to speak of if not corner loaded. Zfb amps OTOH need a low Qts driver in a big cab otherwise it will be severely underdamped.
20 Hz is doable in-room if a low Fs driver tuned low is used and there's enough room gain regardless of whether it's Zfb or high DF driven.
Typical Onkens are tuned fairly high and a vent is a low pass filter with a Q that's dependent on how hard it can be driven, i.e. the driver's Qes and the amp's ability to feed it enough power/control it at Fb, so a typical Zfb amp is going to 'lay down' near/at Fb, making the vent a variable low Q filter. Personally, I prefer a strong amp for consistancy and adjust the alignment as required to ~blend with the room.
The A7 is a truncated ~110 Hz expo flare with a half size mouth so begins unloading around 242 Hz and is done by ~175 Hz where the rear cab's crude mass loaded BLH extends it to 55 Hz, effectively covering the entire human vocal range. If driven with a matching impedance tube amp and its baffles are installed like it was voiced with, it has a flat enough response that was determined by Bell Labs to be ideal for high intelligibility while doing the rest of the available audible spectrum signal 'good enough' for music/movie soundtracks, though it's woefully inadequate for some of today's wide BW/fast transient sources. If you only listen to vinyl or similar spec sources though, you can do a lot worse, especially if their prosound heritage is toned down somewhat to make them suitable for a typical HIFI app.
GM
GM wrote:
I am curious about how the vent is a low pass filter? Not a bandpass filter?
To the extent that any bends in the path of a sound wave tend to act like a low pass filter (ie. they attenuate the highs) I suppose that the vents in an Onken act like a low pass. Is this what you mean?
Otherwise, I expected them to be tuned low, not high...
And, what mechanism are you citing above wherein one gets a "variable" low pass filter with a ZFB amp??
What actually makes the vent in the Onken "low Q"??
_-_-bear
I am curious about how the vent is a low pass filter? Not a bandpass filter?
To the extent that any bends in the path of a sound wave tend to act like a low pass filter (ie. they attenuate the highs) I suppose that the vents in an Onken act like a low pass. Is this what you mean?
Otherwise, I expected them to be tuned low, not high...
And, what mechanism are you citing above wherein one gets a "variable" low pass filter with a ZFB amp??
What actually makes the vent in the Onken "low Q"??
_-_-bear
Greets!
A vent is a half WL resonant pipe so can only pass its fundamental and all its harmonics, which are damped based on the pipe's Q. When combined with a speaker box, this system becomes a bandpass filter.
In the cab's passband, the assumption is that a condition of ~uniform particle density exists, so there's no bends between the driver and vent. IOW it's one big air plug mass acting on the smaller air plug masses in the vents.
When I say 'high', I mean above the driver's Fs, which is what you get with drivers that work well in n = 6.34 alignments.
I've yet to use a Zfb amp that does well in the LF and as the driver demands more power to drive the vent, it rolls off with increasing demand, ergo it becomes a variable Q response. Not having delved into amp design much, I'm not sure why this is.
Onken's have a lower vent Q than a typical BR cab of equivalent net Vb due to its much larger combined air mass plug which has a wider effective BW due to greater acoustic gain.
GM
A vent is a half WL resonant pipe so can only pass its fundamental and all its harmonics, which are damped based on the pipe's Q. When combined with a speaker box, this system becomes a bandpass filter.
In the cab's passband, the assumption is that a condition of ~uniform particle density exists, so there's no bends between the driver and vent. IOW it's one big air plug mass acting on the smaller air plug masses in the vents.
When I say 'high', I mean above the driver's Fs, which is what you get with drivers that work well in n = 6.34 alignments.
I've yet to use a Zfb amp that does well in the LF and as the driver demands more power to drive the vent, it rolls off with increasing demand, ergo it becomes a variable Q response. Not having delved into amp design much, I'm not sure why this is.
Onken's have a lower vent Q than a typical BR cab of equivalent net Vb due to its much larger combined air mass plug which has a wider effective BW due to greater acoustic gain.
GM
GM said:
A good assumption at low frequencies - my earlier comments referred to "midbass & midrange" and higher frequencies, iirc, which due to the very large vent area permits a fair amount of rather undiluted, and out of phase information to freely flow.
Geez, I feel ignorant, but I am not sure what an "n=6.34 alignment" is!
That's pretty simple. A Zfb amp has one single impedance value where the amp delivers maximum output. At all other impedances, above and below that value it produces *less* output. Typical vented speakers will exhibit a rather large bit of impedance increase at the resonant points, ergo the amp produces less output, ergo the frequency response is rather different than that of the low output impedance amp/high DF amp.
Which, btw, is often used by folks to "extend" the response of cabinets like the Onken...
Ok, lower vent Q. Waz a "BR cab"? Now, wider effective bandwidth due to... "greater acoustic gain"?? Lost me here. I would have thought that high Q vents have greater "gain". I follow the greater air mass - but the greater air mass also has greater effective Sd, ergo it (the air in the vent) has to move less to produce the same output as a smaller (typical) vent...
_-_-bear
bear said:
Sigh.... It always makes me sad to read things like that. But if you haven't heard a great A7 or Onken system, how would you know?
I consider myself lucky to have heard and worked with both. Properly implemented, there is no other system I've ever heard that sounds better than the A7 with an Altec multicell top. No matter what the vintage, size, technology, price. Nothing else sounds as much like real music.
Having worked in the music world and having heard many, many, top end systems there is no other I'd rather own than a good A7 with Altec multicell. That's saying a lot, as there are some amazing systems out there.
I don't know what "Today's Standards" might be, but if there are to reproduce something that sounds like real music played by real people, (no matter what style) the A7 can meet those standards better than just about anything else. And you needn't even believe me. Some of the articles linked to earlier in this thread say the same thing. Those are reviews by people I have never met, but they are listening to the same system.
Sorry Bear, I don't mean to pick on you. My older Pro Sound buddies used to laugh at me, too, when I mentioned the A7. So many of the old boxes did not sound great, but that's just because they were poorly, cheaply made. The design itself, if well built, is amazing.
Unfortunately great systems like this are very rare, so are almost impossible to audition. Too bad.
Modern systems all try to do the same thing in a smaller, cheaper (sometimes) package. I've found that it really doesn't work. Even many giant systems don't do it.
Some of the old designs can really surprise you. Our grandfathers were smarter than we give them credit for.
panomaniac said:
Well, I guess your presumption is funny.
Lessee... how many A7s have I heard? Hard to count.
How many used in home hi-fi?
Maybe too many.
Include Herb Reichert's "famous" system in the "Fire House."
Now, I have not heard all that many Onkens, maybe only half a dozen... maybe a few more here and there. Hard to recall everything I've heard over the years.
Ok?
I guess that depends on your point of reference?
Also that depends on what you've heard in horns besides the venerable A7.
Also that depends on which horns and which drivers you're referencing here??
Fwiw, I use and own Altec 1003s, 803s, and very modified 203s... as well as ESLs, ribbons and dynamic drivers (like Focals etc...).
Well, perhaps your personal lack of familliarity with "todays standards" accounts for your opinion and point of reference??
Are you suggesting that a stock, unmodified Altec A7 is a reference grade speaker system??
Sorry Bear, I don't mean to pick on you. My older Pro Sound buddies used to laugh at me, too, when I mentioned the A7. So many of the old boxes did not sound great, but that's just because they were poorly, cheaply made. The design itself, if well built, is amazing.
Unfortunately great systems like this are very rare, so are almost impossible to audition. Too bad.
Modern systems all try to do the same thing in a smaller, cheaper (sometimes) package. I've found that it really doesn't work. Even many giant systems don't do it.
Some of the old designs can really surprise you. Our grandfathers were smarter than we give them credit for.
No offense taken, but the A7 has numerous flaws in stock form - thus the articles on "improving"/modifying them. It is true that they sound loud!
Also, they're going to sound way better in an appropriate room, ie. LARGE!! And, forget about low bass in stock form, unless you have some monster room mode going to work for you...
Imho, if you want to go horn style, there are way better ways to go for the bass and midbass than a stock A7 cab, for the top end, the 300Hz multicell Altec/WE horns with a really GREAT compression driver (not a 288, 290, etc) can be quite excellent in a home system. I use them. You need a better driver...
Look at the curve here: http://www.bearlabs.com/NEXT/COMPFRII.jpg
No EQ. No special effort to make it look good.
It won't look like this with a 288 on it, guaranteed.
_-_-bear
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.