Maybe true, whatever a "real horn" is, but for the record I don't care. Loading is irrelevant in a modern design.
Could you explain this further? As a side note, I think modern JBL horns actually narrow the throat near the compression driver to intentionally load it more. I am referring to the Everest versions(home use), but doing so only using here-say, as I do not own one.
Truly an intelligent and well thought out rebuttal.
Actually it was. I don't need to list the hundreds of modern designs that load drivers to make my point to you do I?
Buzzford,
Without looking at a technical explanation of the Everest horn lens here is what I think I am looking at. First of all this is similar to a classic radial horn design but the vertical flare and the side wall angle have been reversed in the that top and bottom are straight lines and the sides are now the curved surfaces. The area you are calling reduced in the throat is following very classic radial horn design and is use for both a transition from the round exit of the compression driver and as a diffraction slot to attempt to have the waveforms follow the discontinuity at the junction of the two sections. I wouldn't expect if you looked at a polar plot of this horn than that is would have similar polar response to a traditional radial horn with some of the polar plots inverted from horizontal to vertical. Remember this is just from a quick sighted look at a picture of the horn in the cabinet. but I think that it what is going on there. There is no secondary loading of the compression driver, that is just an illusion that it looks that way.
Without looking at a technical explanation of the Everest horn lens here is what I think I am looking at. First of all this is similar to a classic radial horn design but the vertical flare and the side wall angle have been reversed in the that top and bottom are straight lines and the sides are now the curved surfaces. The area you are calling reduced in the throat is following very classic radial horn design and is use for both a transition from the round exit of the compression driver and as a diffraction slot to attempt to have the waveforms follow the discontinuity at the junction of the two sections. I wouldn't expect if you looked at a polar plot of this horn than that is would have similar polar response to a traditional radial horn with some of the polar plots inverted from horizontal to vertical. Remember this is just from a quick sighted look at a picture of the horn in the cabinet. but I think that it what is going on there. There is no secondary loading of the compression driver, that is just an illusion that it looks that way.
Waveguides are for only one usage and that is controlling directivity. All devices, horns, waveguides etc. load exactly the same at HF (Rho * C / St) and differ (by only a small amount I should add) at the lower range of operation. The fact is that the loading differences are only even noticeable in a frequency range were no device is able to control the directivity anyways. This means that for all practical purposes any device used to control directivity is going to have the same loading. So what's the big deal?
The proponents of "loading" are virtually never interested in directivity because none of the devices that they like - "real horns" - do not have directivity control.
And then there is EQ! The only thing that loading affects is efficiency, i.e. SPL level. This can always be "corrected" with EQ.
And don't give me the BS about "lower distortion", because as numerous of my papers have shown nonlinear distortion in a horn/compression driver is not an audible parameter. It doesn't matter.
On the audio heritage site, a couple of the guys did a clone of the smaller Everest speakers, using an original as guide. From memory, I am pretty sure the throat gets smaller after initial coupling to the driver. I believe they even measured with and without it done this way. I'll see if I can track down the links.
Pooh,
If you want to use a 7 watt se amplifier as your driving force then go ahead and use an exponential or hyperbolic expansion rate to optimize your output. But with any modern amplifier and current compression driver you do not need to worry about efficiency gain anymore. That had its time and purpose when amplifier power was just not up to the task of driving the device to a usable spl level. I am with Earl on that one, it is not a necessity anymore. Proper waveguide shape is much more important than device loading.
If you want to use a 7 watt se amplifier as your driving force then go ahead and use an exponential or hyperbolic expansion rate to optimize your output. But with any modern amplifier and current compression driver you do not need to worry about efficiency gain anymore. That had its time and purpose when amplifier power was just not up to the task of driving the device to a usable spl level. I am with Earl on that one, it is not a necessity anymore. Proper waveguide shape is much more important than device loading.
Virtually all loudspeaker manufactures, including "famous" waveguide salesmen use smoothing to sell their wares. If it wasn't so cold outside I could measure a 2350 without out smoothing. The 2350 is actually quite a bit better sounding horn then the Dayton SEOS in my room. My opinion of course. Different drivers of course..
I penta amp with solid state because it sounds better and is less hassle. I do have some SET and PP amps but they don't do it for me. I like loading all the drivers, midrange, bass, deep bass ect.. except I do have some direct radiator 18's loaded in the back corners to smooth the front sub bass horn. With 107 db or higher sensitivity over the entire musical range I find the dynamics are more realistic then direct radiator type speaker that gedlee sells. Big and ugly and worth it
I don't - well 1/20th octave frequency smoothing (you have to do some FR smoothing) but NO angular smoothing at all. That is quite unique in the industry I agree, but don't make accusations that are not true.
Last edited:
well 107 dB is actually low for my room, which you have heard as a comparison when? It sounds like you are making up a whole lot of this argument as you go along.
How do you get 107 db sensitivy out of a direct radiator? Impossible onless it has very very limited bandwith. Who's making up what and why would a manufacture lie like that on a public forum? Listen to your system? I never mentioned I did or wanted to? Fantasy Island???
What? None at all? Or do mean below a certain point? That would be true of waveguides, too, wouldn't it?
Loading the compression driver makes no difference to distortion at the bottom of its range?