|
|||||||
| Home | Forums | Rules | Articles | Store | Gallery | Blogs | Register | Donations | FAQ | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read | Search |
|
Please consider donating to help us continue to serve you.
Ads on/off / Custom Title / More PMs / More album space / Advanced printing & mass image saving |
|
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#1 |
|
diyAudio Member
Join Date: May 2009
|
In comparing a design like the Mikasa Horn with a cabinet depth of 15 inches and the single driver Coniston BVR with a cabinet depth under 10 inches, what is gained and lost assuming drivers of similar efficiency?
The value of parsimony aside, I have a table saw and not Occam's Razor, and without regard to bang for buck, time=money, etc. What are the performance differences? On what rational basis would one choose etiher cabinet over the other sonically? Also, would it be possible to share the specific formulas employed to design the Mikasa using the T/S values of the FE126? And the specific formulas used to design the Coniston using the T/S values of the CSS EL70? Just like 9th grade Algebra, it really helps to show the work in addition to the answer for those who want to learn how this works. This may pass into the range of paid consultation and I would respect that and hoped to be contacted back channel. I get paid for my time and expertise, I would understand if others felt the same. Thanking all in advance. |
|
|
|
#2 |
|
diyAudio Member
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: UK
|
I'd be wary comparing them for the simple reason that you are not comparing like with like; they were designed for different drivers, with different goals. About the only thing they have in common is the fact that they have a terminus above and below the driver.
Leaving the terminus configuration aside, long-path & BVR (well, they're almost all BVR in a sense, but you know what I mean) both have their positive & negative aspects; you use what best suits your requirements. Generalising like mad, your small-chamber, long-path horn typically works & is employed over a wider BW, offers more gain and assistance in correcting for step-loss etc., and provides tighter control over driver displacement, i.e. it'll go louder cleaner. A BVR is easier to build, operates over a narrower BW, a typically smoother basic FR (unless you're using full-sized 'optimal' BLHs, in which case you'd a/ better have a ballroom to put them in, and b/ some form of digital delay) and less delay-time, which can be a factor in longer horns. For the rest, it's pretty much a case of reading up on horn design theory. There are a few threads here that list the papers & sources of information. The major ones are listed here: Physical explanation of how horn speakers work Last edited by Scottmoose; 3rd September 2009 at 03:12 PM. |
|
![]() |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| Image Dynamics idMax 12 D2 V.3 | aemixes | Swap Meet | 1 | 27th April 2009 10:05 PM |
| Dynamics in Loudspeakers | gedlee | Multi-Way | 181 | 8th October 2007 08:31 AM |
| My Audio Dynamics/ADC amp needs help! | saabracer23 | Solid State | 5 | 7th March 2007 05:24 AM |
| Hammer Dynamics | gchrist | Multi-Way | 7 | 6th March 2006 03:48 PM |
| breuer dynamics | pamaz | Analogue Source | 17 | 7th April 2004 07:22 PM |
| New To Site? | Need Help? |