Hi all,
these double horn cabs... spawn family.... would it be completely wrong to close the horn openings with speaker cloth? Like does that stop the air flow and the whole point of horns? Or is it just like speaker cloth in front of a driver... i.e. some loss but still acceptable?
Just trying to see if the WAF could be improved that's all.
thanks
paba
these double horn cabs... spawn family.... would it be completely wrong to close the horn openings with speaker cloth? Like does that stop the air flow and the whole point of horns? Or is it just like speaker cloth in front of a driver... i.e. some loss but still acceptable?
Just trying to see if the WAF could be improved that's all.
thanks
paba
paba said:
Another possibility that has been mentioned, but no-one that i know have has tried, is to mount the drivers on the back and make that the front. Then the ports are rear-firing. Many of the spawn are deep enuff that this will affect the way they play in a room, and any midrange leakage thru the port will be obscured (just saw that mentioned wrt a Jaguar build). You will also need to use 2 triangular port "anti-interference" blocks, 1 above & 1 below the driver.
dave
Re: Re: "anti-interferaence" blocks?
Would it be OK if we spelled it "anti-interference"? I hate those squiggly red lines under my words.
Related to this topic, I was wondering what are the critical aspects of the Spawn BVR enclosures? I look at them and see these huge empty triangles at either end. What if the woofer volume shape incorporated the angles (see profile ASCII art below)? Or would this result something bad? The advantage would be a smaller overall size.
- John
planet10 said:
Would it be OK if we spelled it "anti-interference"? I hate those squiggly red lines under my words.
Related to this topic, I was wondering what are the critical aspects of the Spawn BVR enclosures? I look at them and see these huge empty triangles at either end. What if the woofer volume shape incorporated the angles (see profile ASCII art below)? Or would this result something bad? The advantage would be a smaller overall size.
Code:
----------
| \
| \
| \
| |
| <
| |
| /
| /
| /
----------- John
My horrid typing skills strike again
The voids at top and bottom are artifacts of a predominantely rectangular box world we live in.
They can be left out or can be used as part of a woofer enclosure, filled, or whatever creative uses you want to put to them.
Here is a variation on the theme...
dave
The voids at top and bottom are artifacts of a predominantely rectangular box world we live in.
They can be left out or can be used as part of a woofer enclosure, filled, or whatever creative uses you want to put to them.
Here is a variation on the theme...
dave
Cool Sketch-Up diagrams. Wish I had half those skills.
But I don't think you understand what I'm asking. Instead of a rectangular woofer volume, it's trapezoidal and the ends are horizontal. What concerns me is that the port throat is at the points of the trapezoid. The effect on the Lotus BVR would be to decrease the overall height by ~9" (~height of one port mouth).
But I don't think you understand what I'm asking. Instead of a rectangular woofer volume, it's trapezoidal and the ends are horizontal. What concerns me is that the port throat is at the points of the trapezoid. The effect on the Lotus BVR would be to decrease the overall height by ~9" (~height of one port mouth).
Code:
---------- }-- Port edge & enclosure end
| \
| \ }-- Port Mouth
| \
| |
| |
| |
| |
| <( }--- Driver
| |
| |
| |
| |
| /
| / }-- Port Mouth
| /
----------
planet10 said:
Yes, exactly. For me, the math is simple. It's not rocket science but fortunately I am a rocket scientist.
Having the option of going smaller would allow the really big ones to be more manageable, and for smaller ones (like the Lotus), it offers use of nominal stands, or even wall mounting. Actually, I can envision several other possible orientations but I got my question answered (and a cool drawing to boot.) Thanks.
HareBrained said:Yes, exactly. For me, the math is simple. It's not rocket science but fortunately I am a rocket scientist.
I chatted with Scott about this, and some of these will not perform quite the same in this configuration.
Scott has had this idea before, but bypassed it for a number of reasons.
1/ loss of mass loading
2/ lower driver position
3/ vacates an original goal of being able to build with no angled cuts
But try it, you might like it.
dave
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.