Okay, last two questions before I start the table saw and commit to my build of a z-horn heruka for my Fostex 168e full range drivers.
Why do people build double horns (with the opening on the top and bottom). Is it simply to extend bass response?
Also, how does the "ron" Austin A166 Mk II sound. I know it's made for the 166 but will it sound good with the 168e? Seems like a lot of folks like the Austin built for the Fostex 126.
The Austin A166MK II looks like it might be an easier build than the Heruka?
Why do people build double horns (with the opening on the top and bottom). Is it simply to extend bass response?
Also, how does the "ron" Austin A166 Mk II sound. I know it's made for the 166 but will it sound good with the 168e? Seems like a lot of folks like the Austin built for the Fostex 126.
The Austin A166MK II looks like it might be an easier build than the Heruka?
germpod said:I only have experience with Harveys using fe126 drivers but I built mine because I really like the look of double horns. I will try other enclosures but doubt that I will not be able to beat the look of my Harveys.
There are likely much better reasons for double horns though
I'm no horn expert, but I'd say that the double horn affords a greater total area for the horn mouth on an "affordable" footprint. Frankly, unless you have things on the wall that you need to access, most of the space above a speaker is wasted. If you (or your S.O.) like the look of a vertical double horn, then it's a good way to go.
Best Regards,
TerryO
Dont know, never heard one. PPL who have built the A166/168 truly like them. Corner loaded to the low 40s,wall loaded to the mid 40s.
Effective mouth size,corner loaded , is very large using the deflectors as it turns the horn into a front firing and allows controlled expansion from the corner thru the distance of the cab sides where the wavefront recombines to form a singular front.
I designed in a great deal of mechanical damping at low frequencies and let the TL/horn action do the work. This gives greater cone control so higher SPLs can be achieved without distortion.
Once you understand the loadin(damping) curve you design in a XO that allows the horn action to roll off and the Fc becomes something like an IB with the higher frequency waves attenuating in the horn path.
The A166/168 is probably the best application of the Austin principal which is a tight initial (low M) flare rate exiting into a conical flare (lowers LF distortion) which interfaces with a wave splitter (deflector) which continues expansion along the cab sides which recombines to form a singular wavefront.
All in all its a time consuming effort with my clunky programming,probably Martin can develop somthing more user friendly.
ron
Effective mouth size,corner loaded , is very large using the deflectors as it turns the horn into a front firing and allows controlled expansion from the corner thru the distance of the cab sides where the wavefront recombines to form a singular front.
I designed in a great deal of mechanical damping at low frequencies and let the TL/horn action do the work. This gives greater cone control so higher SPLs can be achieved without distortion.
Once you understand the loadin(damping) curve you design in a XO that allows the horn action to roll off and the Fc becomes something like an IB with the higher frequency waves attenuating in the horn path.
The A166/168 is probably the best application of the Austin principal which is a tight initial (low M) flare rate exiting into a conical flare (lowers LF distortion) which interfaces with a wave splitter (deflector) which continues expansion along the cab sides which recombines to form a singular wavefront.
All in all its a time consuming effort with my clunky programming,probably Martin can develop somthing more user friendly.
ron
There's a few reasons which I've mentioned in the revised text for the Spawn page & should hopefully appear shortly.
Assuming forward-firing, greater mouth size for the footprint is one reason; there's more tuning flexibility (i.e there are 'interesting' things you can do
), & imaging is better than a shorter, wider box in left-right & front-back domains.
TC when he first doubled over one of his favourite horn designs also noted improved midbass punch over the single design. Was this just because he'd doubled over an existing cabinet? Ultimate extension is unlikely to have changed for him, but the transition from QW to horn-loading would have occured at a lower frequency due to the larger mouth. FWIW, I suspect this was partly, but not entirely it, because I've noticed even with the BVR types, or those specifically designed from the outset as double horns, the over-under mouth layout does give a particularly dynamic sounding midbass.
Are these types ultimately 'better' than other appoaches? I don't think so; they're just different. Another option for people should they wish.
Assuming forward-firing, greater mouth size for the footprint is one reason; there's more tuning flexibility (i.e there are 'interesting' things you can do
), & imaging is better than a shorter, wider box in left-right & front-back domains. TC when he first doubled over one of his favourite horn designs also noted improved midbass punch over the single design. Was this just because he'd doubled over an existing cabinet? Ultimate extension is unlikely to have changed for him, but the transition from QW to horn-loading would have occured at a lower frequency due to the larger mouth. FWIW, I suspect this was partly, but not entirely it, because I've noticed even with the BVR types, or those specifically designed from the outset as double horns, the over-under mouth layout does give a particularly dynamic sounding midbass.
Are these types ultimately 'better' than other appoaches? I don't think so; they're just different. Another option for people should they wish.
Hello,
in my double horns:
Saxophon, Trombone, Posaune,
i realized a new construction feature:
membran movement cross setting for bass
and bass horn mouth distance to reduce
150-300 Hz.
The enclosure is smaller as for one driver
same bass, and smaller without press chambers
by using mouth distance.
Trombone free plan, cheap and a lot of 3" drivers work.
http://www.hm-moreart.de/24.htm
in my double horns:
Saxophon, Trombone, Posaune,
i realized a new construction feature:
membran movement cross setting for bass
and bass horn mouth distance to reduce
150-300 Hz.
The enclosure is smaller as for one driver
same bass, and smaller without press chambers
by using mouth distance.
Trombone free plan, cheap and a lot of 3" drivers work.
http://www.hm-moreart.de/24.htm
Attachments
A builders comments.
That's why I'm so excited about Ron's Austin designs.
So much more advanced modeling, being able to combine horn action with TL action, etc.
I built a pair for 166s and they are unreal.
Smooth Frequency Response to 40 Hz, then gradual roll off.
Pink Floyd playing as loud as my Klipsch 301 PA speakers, and the cone barely moves...
Unscrew the driver a little to give a slight air leak, volume goes down, SQ goes way down, and its moving in & out like crazy.
Sound stage is bigger than the room, and as my wife said, you can point to exactly where each timpani is.
I'm gonna put my HDTs on Audiogone.
Robert
That's why I'm so excited about Ron's Austin designs.
So much more advanced modeling, being able to combine horn action with TL action, etc.
I built a pair for 166s and they are unreal.
Smooth Frequency Response to 40 Hz, then gradual roll off.
Pink Floyd playing as loud as my Klipsch 301 PA speakers, and the cone barely moves...
Unscrew the driver a little to give a slight air leak, volume goes down, SQ goes way down, and its moving in & out like crazy.
Sound stage is bigger than the room, and as my wife said, you can point to exactly where each timpani is.
I'm gonna put my HDTs on Audiogone.
Robert
Yeah, the lower horn could be tuned ~1/2 octave higher or whatever is appropriate to the design to balance the response of the two paths, should that be wanted. The really simple BVRs also have some interesting scope for tuning, as the slot-vents are easy to adjust, like any BR box. I prefer your take though Ron, with the curve you added to Chang to combine the two into a single vent.. much simpler & more elegant solution. There's beauty in simplicity (and symmetry).
I can't do refined like Ron sadly, so for long-path boxes I have to resort to more traditional approaches -hyperbolic, max-gain designs damped to taste (OK, I try to pull a few of Olson's tricks with the filter chamber & layout of the initial expansion to squeeze as much as I can from the basic design). Doesn't stop me learning / wanting to learn of course & using different flare profiles for different stages is something I'm very interested in.
I can't do refined like Ron sadly, so for long-path boxes I have to resort to more traditional approaches -hyperbolic, max-gain designs damped to taste (OK, I try to pull a few of Olson's tricks with the filter chamber & layout of the initial expansion to squeeze as much as I can from the basic design). Doesn't stop me learning / wanting to learn of course & using different flare profiles for different stages is something I'm very interested in.
There's beauty in simplicity
I am simple (a Texan) so its easy.
Doesn't stop me learning / wanting to learn of course & using different flare profiles for different stages is something I'm very interested in.
The problem (and question) is that a singular math formula dosent cover the actual physics of wave expansion , unless its under ideal conditions. There is a "hidden" loss in pressure/wave conversion as well as thermal loss. Any time you convert one form of energy to another there is a conversion loss that is due to the efficency of the conversion. All of the losses have to be calculated in to arrive at the actual end result.
I know its a diferent approach, but efficency of any system is a sum total of all aspects of the system.
ron
"the hardest thing you can do is to make something simple"
I am simple (a Texan) so its easy.
Doesn't stop me learning / wanting to learn of course & using different flare profiles for different stages is something I'm very interested in.
The problem (and question) is that a singular math formula dosent cover the actual physics of wave expansion , unless its under ideal conditions. There is a "hidden" loss in pressure/wave conversion as well as thermal loss. Any time you convert one form of energy to another there is a conversion loss that is due to the efficency of the conversion. All of the losses have to be calculated in to arrive at the actual end result.
I know its a diferent approach, but efficency of any system is a sum total of all aspects of the system.
ron
"the hardest thing you can do is to make something simple"
Actually all of the basic math i started with has become lost in modification of programming.
The more i study the aspects of wave/energy/pressure conversion i keep seeing a difference in what the "greybeards" postulated. They aimed for "ideal" without considering the additional losses that occur during the trip thru an expanding volume. the actual loss thru thermal was never considered, the expansion and molecular transfer wasent factored in.
Its all a multi factored loss that has to be considered.
ron
The more i study the aspects of wave/energy/pressure conversion i keep seeing a difference in what the "greybeards" postulated. They aimed for "ideal" without considering the additional losses that occur during the trip thru an expanding volume. the actual loss thru thermal was never considered, the expansion and molecular transfer wasent factored in.
Its all a multi factored loss that has to be considered.
ron
A double A166 perhaps??
TC said that doubling the Fostex BLH with the FE166ES-R created a wonderful speaker... "You can double the factory design, will be very heavy. Keep the rear chamber the same volume or slightly larger (you can always add mass to make smaller. Stunning system like no other."
Since the A166 seems the highest performing design for this speaker, would doubling it give it more performance?
If the deflectors are used on both top too, will ceiling loading increase the LF output?
amt
TC said that doubling the Fostex BLH with the FE166ES-R created a wonderful speaker... "You can double the factory design, will be very heavy. Keep the rear chamber the same volume or slightly larger (you can always add mass to make smaller. Stunning system like no other."
Since the A166 seems the highest performing design for this speaker, would doubling it give it more performance?
If the deflectors are used on both top too, will ceiling loading increase the LF output?
amt
No. Or not exactly.
OK, the thing to understand about the late Terry Cain (the world is emptier for his passing, but much enriched for the time he spent here) is that Terry was more a designer than an engineer.
WRT the Fostex boxes, he was right in a sense. You can double them over (or most of them anyway). It completely alters the flare-rate as you're doubling the expansion while keeping length constant, but the benefits of the greater volume, and horn-loading to a lower frequency make it worth it generally IMO, over the standard cabinets. It's not as effective as a box designed from scratch as a double-horn, but it does work. It works for a lot, not just Fostex designs as it happens, though there are additional caveats I won't bore you with here.
Now, with the A166, this is one of the most advanced BLH designs on the planet. Possibly the most. Everything has been carefully optimised by Ron for a specific purpose -you muck about with this at your peril. It'd probably work passably doubled over, but all the careful precision design / engineering is lost.
OK, the thing to understand about the late Terry Cain (the world is emptier for his passing, but much enriched for the time he spent here) is that Terry was more a designer than an engineer.
WRT the Fostex boxes, he was right in a sense. You can double them over (or most of them anyway). It completely alters the flare-rate as you're doubling the expansion while keeping length constant, but the benefits of the greater volume, and horn-loading to a lower frequency make it worth it generally IMO, over the standard cabinets. It's not as effective as a box designed from scratch as a double-horn, but it does work. It works for a lot, not just Fostex designs as it happens, though there are additional caveats I won't bore you with here.
Now, with the A166, this is one of the most advanced BLH designs on the planet. Possibly the most. Everything has been carefully optimised by Ron for a specific purpose -you muck about with this at your peril. It'd probably work passably doubled over, but all the careful precision design / engineering is lost.
I had guessed that if it were a viable option, someone would have discussed/tried it by now.
So if I want to give a DBLH a go, is the Hiro my best bet. It is shown as simply a narrowed Sachiko. Once the plans are published, will they reflect this or are there changes in the design?
Im really interested in finally trying my FE166ES-Rs in a BLH. I know Rons design is probably the top performer but I cant corner load and I admit that the doubled horn has an undeniable appeal that screams out to me.
amt
So if I want to give a DBLH a go, is the Hiro my best bet. It is shown as simply a narrowed Sachiko. Once the plans are published, will they reflect this or are there changes in the design?
Im really interested in finally trying my FE166ES-Rs in a BLH. I know Rons design is probably the top performer but I cant corner load and I admit that the doubled horn has an undeniable appeal that screams out to me.
amt
I suspect the A166 won't really need corner loading, though it might like it to give of its best.
Of the doubled designs, Hiro should do OK. The long-path boxes were intended for the large magnet drivers, which are better able to drive a long horn without loosing their HF in the process. There are some adjustments but the box basically follows the larger Sachiko design.
Of the doubled designs, Hiro should do OK. The long-path boxes were intended for the large magnet drivers, which are better able to drive a long horn without loosing their HF in the process. There are some adjustments but the box basically follows the larger Sachiko design.
Im really interested in finally trying my FE166ES-Rs in a BLH. I know Rons design is probably the top performer but I cant corner load and I admit that the doubled horn has an undeniable appeal that screams out to me.
Then do it. It will be an easier build, however without summing the two mouths there are response problems. I originally designed the A166 for corner loading and the deflector was originally a "box", but you lose around 5 Hz between corner vrs. wall/floor loading.
To truly design, and i have never made the effort, a double horn based on the Austin principal would take a great deal of effort and the gains would be very small as the pressures involved would still be the same, but distributed over two horn paths.
Still the Curvy Chang ,with a 207, IMO would be hard to beat. Its two different operating principals involved. The A166 being a more realistic LF response with a greater build difficulty and the Curvy Chang being slightly less response, realistic sense, but a much more simple build.
All depends on what your goals are.
ron
is that Terry was more a designer than an engineer.
I could never approach TC in his fit,form or finish. At work all i do is design, other much more talented ppl actually do the work of building. I know my limitations.
Then do it. It will be an easier build, however without summing the two mouths there are response problems. I originally designed the A166 for corner loading and the deflector was originally a "box", but you lose around 5 Hz between corner vrs. wall/floor loading.
To truly design, and i have never made the effort, a double horn based on the Austin principal would take a great deal of effort and the gains would be very small as the pressures involved would still be the same, but distributed over two horn paths.
Still the Curvy Chang ,with a 207, IMO would be hard to beat. Its two different operating principals involved. The A166 being a more realistic LF response with a greater build difficulty and the Curvy Chang being slightly less response, realistic sense, but a much more simple build.
All depends on what your goals are.
ron
is that Terry was more a designer than an engineer.
I could never approach TC in his fit,form or finish. At work all i do is design, other much more talented ppl actually do the work of building. I know my limitations.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.