Internally a completely different layout, though externally it does look like a 1/4 width version of Nelson's J-Lo. I never thought of that before -I'd completely forgotten about it; don't ask me how! 
Taking this size difference into account, how about the [PJ] Harvey Horn? (my musical Goddess, and suitably diminutive in proportions) I could go with that.
Oh yeah -final side is now solidly glued. Bit of sanding to do, and then (leaving finish aside) the first cab will be complete. I got delayed today cleaning the garage out. Oh well.
Cheers
Scott
Just for the sake of it, here's a nice picture of Polly Harvey to enjoy. Somewhat smaller than J-Lo, but on the whole, much nicer IMHO. 
Taking this size difference into account, how about the [PJ] Harvey Horn? (my musical Goddess, and suitably diminutive in proportions) I could go with that.
Oh yeah -final side is now solidly glued. Bit of sanding to do, and then (leaving finish aside) the first cab will be complete. I got delayed today cleaning the garage out. Oh well.
Cheers
Scott
Just for the sake of it, here's a nice picture of Polly Harvey to enjoy. Somewhat smaller than J-Lo, but on the whole, much nicer IMHO.
Attachments
I haven't fired it up yet. Might wait until I've completed the second enclosure. But for what it's worth, here are some pictures of the first test mule, in all it's raw MDF, unpainted, and non-veneered glory. Sorry it's not very pretty yet guys -I'm sure all of you can do a million times better, but it's solid and accurate to the plans. I haven't yet added the bracing panels to the mouths -deliberate as I wanted to find out just how badly they'll resonante. The second enclosure that I'll start tomorrow will have them in, for comparison.
The brown you can see on the edges is sealant: I like to be sure of these things with prototypes. The white on some panels is a very thin skim of flexible filler (a la classic car restoration), just to get the surfaces perfectly flat, as I'll eventually get around to painting / veneering them.
The brown you can see on the edges is sealant: I like to be sure of these things with prototypes. The white on some panels is a very thin skim of flexible filler (a la classic car restoration), just to get the surfaces perfectly flat, as I'll eventually get around to painting / veneering them.
Attachments
Hi guys
Glad you like them. Re the increasing of the width, it depends on what your objective is. Probably efficiency will be boosted, and theoretically they'll go deeper, though I'd be wary about trying to go too deep using small drivers with limited Xmax. I'll have a look later. It might be good for the larger 6 1/2in drivers, though the path-length is a little too short to do them full justice.
Glad you like them. Re the increasing of the width, it depends on what your objective is. Probably efficiency will be boosted, and theoretically they'll go deeper, though I'd be wary about trying to go too deep using small drivers with limited Xmax. I'll have a look later. It might be good for the larger 6 1/2in drivers, though the path-length is a little too short to do them full justice.
It's about time we settled on a name. Will have a word with Dave & let you know.
The existing MathCad worksheets can simulate the 1/2 space response of double horns as in this respect, they're not much different to a single horn.
Theoretically it's easy: just design a BLH with a response you like in MathCad. When you come to double it (i.e draw out the plans), keep the CC as is, and reduce the size of each throat and mouth by 1/2 over the original, so the total CSA of throat and mouth remains identical to the single horn you originally designed. Horn length remains unchanged.
Unfortunately in practice it's not as easy as that, as you need to keep in the forefront of your mind mind that the total reflection boundary condition seen will be considerably less than MathCad predicts due to the upper mouth being shifted away from the floor, so you have to account for this in the design stages or the response will be, frankly, vile. That's the hard bit, as you already have to know something about the in-room behaviour of enclosures etc. when you design it, and then how to compensate. Fun, isn't it?
The existing MathCad worksheets can simulate the 1/2 space response of double horns as in this respect, they're not much different to a single horn.
Theoretically it's easy: just design a BLH with a response you like in MathCad. When you come to double it (i.e draw out the plans), keep the CC as is, and reduce the size of each throat and mouth by 1/2 over the original, so the total CSA of throat and mouth remains identical to the single horn you originally designed. Horn length remains unchanged.
Unfortunately in practice it's not as easy as that, as you need to keep in the forefront of your mind mind that the total reflection boundary condition seen will be considerably less than MathCad predicts due to the upper mouth being shifted away from the floor, so you have to account for this in the design stages or the response will be, frankly, vile. That's the hard bit, as you already have to know something about the in-room behaviour of enclosures etc. when you design it, and then how to compensate. Fun, isn't it?
Scottmoose said:
This is not my understanding: with horns, excursion is controlled by the horn loading, and beneath the horn cutoff, the driver becomes a direct radiator: so a larger horn would tend to reduce the excursion requirements of the driver by damping cone motion in lower bass more than a smaller horn.
Fired them up earlier. They work. Very well. Some detail tweaks to make to the CC damping, and you'll want to use BB ply for a proper version as MDF does the sound of acoustic guitar few favours, but otherwise it's relatively plain sailing. Imaging in my front room was frightening, and gererally tone is great. The Wicker Man OST sounded fantastic.