Hello everyone,
I've got some questions regarding front-loaded horns and back-loaded horns.
Specifically, with regards to what the advantages are to each design - such as when and why to use either/or for a certain design.
Though perhaps my greatest question with regards to this topic is if using FLH and BLH in the same design for a full-ranger would be redundant - being that I don't think I've seen such a design ever being done...is it out of complexity? Redundancy? Opposing principles that would cancel the benefits of each other? And so on...
As such, feel free to add any other details you guys feel would be necessary on this matter (Or if I've missed any concepts and such)
But I'll digress, much love and many thanks for your guys' time and thoughts!
I've got some questions regarding front-loaded horns and back-loaded horns.
Specifically, with regards to what the advantages are to each design - such as when and why to use either/or for a certain design.
Though perhaps my greatest question with regards to this topic is if using FLH and BLH in the same design for a full-ranger would be redundant - being that I don't think I've seen such a design ever being done...is it out of complexity? Redundancy? Opposing principles that would cancel the benefits of each other? And so on...
As such, feel free to add any other details you guys feel would be necessary on this matter (Or if I've missed any concepts and such)
But I'll digress, much love and many thanks for your guys' time and thoughts!
While a compound horn load - i.e. both sides of the driver can be a much more complicated build than either just FL or BL, there are at least a couple of manufacturers who've done both. Beauhorn Virtuoso is one - and Tannoy Westminster is another . The latter I've heard, and they are quiet an impressive beast, although not for the faint of heart / back / or wallet, and neither would I describe them as without other flaws.
Great question and I was also thinking on this.
Based on may studies I would say that we have FLH or BLH because of compromise we always need to do in audio solutions.
As I’ve seen, BLH is used mostly for full range and high efficiency speakers and the role is to emphasize the low frequencies (up to 200Hz). High efficiency speakers usually need a support for low frequencies which is solved by BLH or sub-woofer (mostly active). Challenge for BLH is to be aligned with front of the speaker and we can read a lot about this (BLH, TL).
FLH in practical home projects is used for midrange and high frequencies (separated or together) and also needs some support for low frequencies. Bass-horn sound great, but size is a problem for practical solutions, then sub-woofer and mostly active is an alternative (active helps to adjust SPL and also phase).
Coming to your final question – I think it would make sense to try to put mid-bass speaker with FS around 50 Hz into FLH 200Hz (adding not more than 5dB) and BLH with max SPL for 100 Hz playing up to 200Hz (damping material) with length with ¼ wave for 50 Hz (TL impact). Crossover point should be around 1kHz to be able to modify SPL by filters and another horn from 1kHz up to 20kHz.
I think the challenge for such designed BLH+FLH would be resonances from BLH and still low SPL for low frequencies (below 50-70).
What do you think guys?
Based on may studies I would say that we have FLH or BLH because of compromise we always need to do in audio solutions.
As I’ve seen, BLH is used mostly for full range and high efficiency speakers and the role is to emphasize the low frequencies (up to 200Hz). High efficiency speakers usually need a support for low frequencies which is solved by BLH or sub-woofer (mostly active). Challenge for BLH is to be aligned with front of the speaker and we can read a lot about this (BLH, TL).
FLH in practical home projects is used for midrange and high frequencies (separated or together) and also needs some support for low frequencies. Bass-horn sound great, but size is a problem for practical solutions, then sub-woofer and mostly active is an alternative (active helps to adjust SPL and also phase).
Coming to your final question – I think it would make sense to try to put mid-bass speaker with FS around 50 Hz into FLH 200Hz (adding not more than 5dB) and BLH with max SPL for 100 Hz playing up to 200Hz (damping material) with length with ¼ wave for 50 Hz (TL impact). Crossover point should be around 1kHz to be able to modify SPL by filters and another horn from 1kHz up to 20kHz.
I think the challenge for such designed BLH+FLH would be resonances from BLH and still low SPL for low frequencies (below 50-70).
What do you think guys?
Assuming a single driver speaker, you're generally dealing with different functions. Back horns are typically bass horns, and are only usable up to the mass-corner of the driver (assuming this is < 300Hz to ensure reasonable GD). Front horns are usually operating over a wider BW (though this is not a given), and at slightly higher frequencies.
That's compound horn loading, and as noted, several companies e.g. Tannoy, Lowther etc. do just that in some models. Usually it's done when the driver's mass corner rolloff is higher than you can practically run a back horn to due to excessive GD and midrange colouration. So a short front horn is added to fill in the gap between these points. Overall they can be more efficient and work extremely well, but they're more complex, usually larger, and have their own issues with potential additional colouration from the front horn.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.