I am planning to build the Decca Corner horn. Really a Voigt pipe not a horn
My main problem is that the expansion is all over the place especially the constriction around the driver with a negative taper.
My second one is that the closed end of the pipe is 150% of the cone area. The other ones I have seen have all been in the 0-75% range.
By filling out the first section I could reduce the current
297-428-336 to something like 150-250-336. But then the first part is also the chamber for the driver so reducing the volume will increase the frequency and Q of the driver/box resonance.
Finaly that slot in carpet loading has to go, it will use a proper vent on the backside.
I am planning to either use the Philips 9710M or a Philips 10" full range driver.
The original design use 9mm plywood ( 3/8") and no damping what so ever...
My main problem is that the expansion is all over the place especially the constriction around the driver with a negative taper.
My second one is that the closed end of the pipe is 150% of the cone area. The other ones I have seen have all been in the 0-75% range.
By filling out the first section I could reduce the current
297-428-336 to something like 150-250-336. But then the first part is also the chamber for the driver so reducing the volume will increase the frequency and Q of the driver/box resonance.
Finaly that slot in carpet loading has to go, it will use a proper vent on the backside.
I am planning to either use the Philips 9710M or a Philips 10" full range driver.
The original design use 9mm plywood ( 3/8") and no damping what so ever...
The Decca horn was probably designed long before there were simulation tools. I would expect that it is probably far from ideal if one were to compare it to a modern design that aided by simulations like HR or MJK. One thing that comes to mind in looking at it is to add angled surfaces internally to avoid any flat-flat surfaces that can act as resonators that may amplify undesirable modes. I see the top lid, the bottom panel (957) and the panel forming the closed end (297/0) as being potential flat-flats that should be angled. Certainly, thick damping could be applied but easier to angle first. With proper additional bracing internally, there is no reason why 3/8 in plywood can't work. I think 3/4 in thick plywood and MDF are often over-used and many times, not necessary when bracing can work fine and reduce weight of the cabinet. There is a semicircular cutout in the internal divider - perhaps that was to reduce the effect of the constriction due to the driver motor assembly?
The Decca Corner Horns is 70-60 years old, a time when the number of computers on this planet was in the single digit. The idea was that the flexing in the cabinet would absorb resonances, there is a separate DCH thread.
Spendor BC1 used 10 and 12mm plywood with 12mm bitumen loaded light fiber board lamination. The idea is to damp resonances and pull them down from the critical midrange. Harbeths current models is built along similar lines.
The cutout is due to the fact that the alnico magnets of the day sticks out more than current flat ceramic magnets. I would also add corner reflectors at both ends of the front, that is the pipe oposite of the driver.
Spendor BC1 used 10 and 12mm plywood with 12mm bitumen loaded light fiber board lamination. The idea is to damp resonances and pull them down from the critical midrange. Harbeths current models is built along similar lines.
The cutout is due to the fact that the alnico magnets of the day sticks out more than current flat ceramic magnets. I would also add corner reflectors at both ends of the front, that is the pipe oposite of the driver.
BB
If I am lucky it reduces standning waves between parallell surfaces, otherwise it is just a corner brace or do you envision a scenario where it will do harm?
The front section is sloping gently with a 50% increase in area over 0.6m length then it flares 50% in way less than that perhaps 0.3 or less meters. I might try to increase the angle of the divider and have it going into the narrowing section of the box, but then there are some compund angles to tangle with.
If I am lucky it reduces standning waves between parallell surfaces, otherwise it is just a corner brace or do you envision a scenario where it will do harm?
The front section is sloping gently with a 50% increase in area over 0.6m length then it flares 50% in way less than that perhaps 0.3 or less meters. I might try to increase the angle of the divider and have it going into the narrowing section of the box, but then there are some compund angles to tangle with.
Square corners tend to act as low-pass filters. Rounded corners can pass higher frequency sound to pass to the port. Since you will most likely have to stuff that particular area rather heavily, standing waves should be a non-issue.
Bob
Hi.
I had a single example of the decca speaker in my youth.
The details are somewhat different to the DIY version.
(More complicated, but a more consistent taper.)
Very driver specific. Nothing worked remotely as well
as the original 8" which I managed to fry with a tiny
Tripletone mono valve amplifier.
I really wouldn't build it on a wing and prayer hoping
it will suit your chosen driver, it very likely will not.
IMO there are much better and simpler build
BLH designs available for use in a corner, and
the basic driver matching can be simulated.
rgds, sreten.
I had a single example of the decca speaker in my youth.
The details are somewhat different to the DIY version.
(More complicated, but a more consistent taper.)
Very driver specific. Nothing worked remotely as well
as the original 8" which I managed to fry with a tiny
Tripletone mono valve amplifier.
I really wouldn't build it on a wing and prayer hoping
it will suit your chosen driver, it very likely will not.
IMO there are much better and simpler build
BLH designs available for use in a corner, and
the basic driver matching can be simulated.
rgds, sreten.
OK, I skip the corner reflectors, low pass is good.
I do not have a rational reason to build the Decca but good irrational one: it is a hobby!
Philips 9710 have been used a lot for omnidirectional speakers, and I want to use this vintage classic driver for an other vintage design, the decca. The 9710 has a huge lift above 2 kHz so having it facing forward is not an option up or backwards is.
The only images of a comercial Deccas I have seen is Decca Corner Horn and they look similar to the kit.
I intend to build them along the findings in dämmung-und-versteifen and those BBC studies that was the foundation for the Spendor BC1. So the case will be lined with bitumen loaded softboard and then 10mm felt on top of that on the first half of the pipe
BB
Any hints on how to massload that Decca contraption?
I do not have a rational reason to build the Decca but good irrational one: it is a hobby!
Philips 9710 have been used a lot for omnidirectional speakers, and I want to use this vintage classic driver for an other vintage design, the decca. The 9710 has a huge lift above 2 kHz so having it facing forward is not an option up or backwards is.
The only images of a comercial Deccas I have seen is Decca Corner Horn and they look similar to the kit.
I intend to build them along the findings in dämmung-und-versteifen and those BBC studies that was the foundation for the Spendor BC1. So the case will be lined with bitumen loaded softboard and then 10mm felt on top of that on the first half of the pipe
BB
Any hints on how to massload that Decca contraption?
Hi,
They may look similar but there were differences, the rear section
was far more complicatedly tapered into the rear angled section,
(consequently affecting both the initial and final flares of the line),
and different plywood thicknesses were used for different parts,
they used 3/16", 1/4" and 3/8", loads of battens, as I dimly recall.
Building such cabinets along BBC lines is an utter travesty,
your going to end up with a very poor speaker IMO.
(FWIW the Decca, Tripletone amp and a BSR with a ceramic
cartridge (9THAC) belted out all the mid 70's stuff with some
serious aplomb in the sixth form common room of my school.)
rgds, sreten.
see : Greencones
Last edited:
Sreten,
Thanks for the information regarding the commercial Decca vs the DIY build, it appear that the latter has several simplifications to make it feasable to build.
One way would be to go a la Greencones and use a green cone or something along those lines perhaps Goodman Axiette and build that resonant DIY cabinet.
If I go for a more conventional cabinet, stiff and braced 19mm MDF and then have internal damping material, felt, fiber glass or BAF is that a better option for a more conventional fullrange driver?
Thanks for the information regarding the commercial Decca vs the DIY build, it appear that the latter has several simplifications to make it feasable to build.
One way would be to go a la Greencones and use a green cone or something along those lines perhaps Goodman Axiette and build that resonant DIY cabinet.
If I go for a more conventional cabinet, stiff and braced 19mm MDF and then have internal damping material, felt, fiber glass or BAF is that a better option for a more conventional fullrange driver?
Sreten
If I am dead dead set on using my Philips 9710 off axis and I think something "inspired" by the Decca, there are 3 options.
1. Try to replicate the commersial Decca, without axcess to a cabinet nor drawings.
2. Build the simplifed Decca as is.
The build with softwood parts and the driver on a separate baffle screwed to the cabinet and care taken not to stress or bend any panels maximize the "floppyness" and minimize coupling between differrent parts of the cabinet. The kind of plywood to use is not specifed apart from thickness and that it can be veneered or not.
3. Make a more modern interpretation of the Decca. The recoding technologies and media has changed since 1949. There are even new kinds of music since 1949!
A. By having the driver front mounted the speaker panel can be glued in instead of screwed into the cabinet, simplification
B. The oddly shaped exit slot could be replaced by something where the floor is not part of the vent.
C. I can not imagine that adding some BAF wool behind the driver will make the sound worse.
The Green cones have Q above 1 and a Fr in box above 100 Hz. So in a dead cabinet there is nothing below 90-100 Hz. The Decca has a pipe resonance at about 50 Hz so it is in less dire need of bass droning walls.
If I am dead dead set on using my Philips 9710 off axis and I think something "inspired" by the Decca, there are 3 options.
1. Try to replicate the commersial Decca, without axcess to a cabinet nor drawings.
2. Build the simplifed Decca as is.
The build with softwood parts and the driver on a separate baffle screwed to the cabinet and care taken not to stress or bend any panels maximize the "floppyness" and minimize coupling between differrent parts of the cabinet. The kind of plywood to use is not specifed apart from thickness and that it can be veneered or not.
3. Make a more modern interpretation of the Decca. The recoding technologies and media has changed since 1949. There are even new kinds of music since 1949!
A. By having the driver front mounted the speaker panel can be glued in instead of screwed into the cabinet, simplification
B. The oddly shaped exit slot could be replaced by something where the floor is not part of the vent.
C. I can not imagine that adding some BAF wool behind the driver will make the sound worse.
The Green cones have Q above 1 and a Fr in box above 100 Hz. So in a dead cabinet there is nothing below 90-100 Hz. The Decca has a pipe resonance at about 50 Hz so it is in less dire need of bass droning walls.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.