Hi All-
A while ago I heard a pair of B&G Neo8's in tratrix horns, and while there were some things I didn't like about the system (mainly the directionality he had going on; too wide horizontally, too narrow vertically) I was awestruck. Lisening to sweep tests had the lowest amount of distortion I've ever seen/heard. And the imaging and dynamics were fantastic. These completely distroyed my system with audax hm100z0's. And after I accidentally destroyed one of the ol HM's (in a puff of smoke), I went back to the drawing board.
So I searched on here a while ago and found a guy whe used 4 Neo8 drivers per side in a 70x30 conical horn. This appeals to me as I would rather have even HF response when standing and sitting (studio control room). He said with the loading he could get 200hz to 20k minimal EQ and make it fairly flat.
Well I tried it. I wanted a slightly narrower H so I threw together some MDF horns at 50x30 (12 inch depth) and let me tell you they play loud and clean down to 200 no problem. And more suprizingly they go all the way up to 20k no problem. Only a small amount of wide band LF cut/shelving is required to attain a very respectable response, and a small notch at 12k is good for that little spike as well.
So here is my issue, and the reason I would like some advice; I know very little about horns or line source behavior and I've been trying to research it more, but I'm getting stuck.
Mine are 2 neo 8's per side; and while I am very happy with the sound; I really need a little more vertical directionality (sitting, standing).
So If I go to 4 neo8's (about 31" of vertical radiating area) per side how far into the room will they have line source behavior and what are the ramifications of that? Or does the Horn loading nullify the line source behavior?
And also, has anyone tried horn loading the 40" or bigger B&G drivers?
I'll take some pics when I head over to the studio in a minute.
Thanks-
Ryan
A while ago I heard a pair of B&G Neo8's in tratrix horns, and while there were some things I didn't like about the system (mainly the directionality he had going on; too wide horizontally, too narrow vertically) I was awestruck. Lisening to sweep tests had the lowest amount of distortion I've ever seen/heard. And the imaging and dynamics were fantastic. These completely distroyed my system with audax hm100z0's. And after I accidentally destroyed one of the ol HM's (in a puff of smoke), I went back to the drawing board.
So I searched on here a while ago and found a guy whe used 4 Neo8 drivers per side in a 70x30 conical horn. This appeals to me as I would rather have even HF response when standing and sitting (studio control room). He said with the loading he could get 200hz to 20k minimal EQ and make it fairly flat.
Well I tried it. I wanted a slightly narrower H so I threw together some MDF horns at 50x30 (12 inch depth) and let me tell you they play loud and clean down to 200 no problem. And more suprizingly they go all the way up to 20k no problem. Only a small amount of wide band LF cut/shelving is required to attain a very respectable response, and a small notch at 12k is good for that little spike as well.
So here is my issue, and the reason I would like some advice; I know very little about horns or line source behavior and I've been trying to research it more, but I'm getting stuck.
Mine are 2 neo 8's per side; and while I am very happy with the sound; I really need a little more vertical directionality (sitting, standing).
So If I go to 4 neo8's (about 31" of vertical radiating area) per side how far into the room will they have line source behavior and what are the ramifications of that? Or does the Horn loading nullify the line source behavior?
And also, has anyone tried horn loading the 40" or bigger B&G drivers?
I'll take some pics when I head over to the studio in a minute.
Thanks-
Ryan
I've contemplated this for some time now.. in fact its the primary reason I purchased some, I just seem to be to lazy to get of my @ss and put in the work required to "get it right".
Beyond the stand-up sit down problem, what was wrong with the original set-up? IMO wide horizontally is a very good thing, what did you dislike about that? Also, was it a "compound horn".. i.e. was there a horn on both sides of the driver for a dipole horn?
(sorry about all the questions, but the only one I've seen to do something like this was Fcserei.)
Beyond the stand-up sit down problem, what was wrong with the original set-up? IMO wide horizontally is a very good thing, what did you dislike about that? Also, was it a "compound horn".. i.e. was there a horn on both sides of the driver for a dipole horn?
(sorry about all the questions, but the only one I've seen to do something like this was Fcserei.)
Oh yeah, your questions..
For line source vs. point source character look at page 8 of Dr. Griffin's Line Array Paper.
If the line is just under a meter in length then the line should behave as a line source to about 1.5 kHz within a two meter distance. Moreover as you get closer that freq. will decrease, and of course as you get further away that freq. will increase.
Practically speaking that means at increased distances you higher freq. response will be elevated in comparison to the average. (line sources decrease in output at about -3db a meter and point sources decrease in output at about -6db a meter - not factoring any additional gain.) A variable shelving filter would work well if you found it objectionable.
Your current version will likely be a bit elevated in freq. above 7 kHz at 2 meters, and about 10 kHz at 3 meters.
I believe the Carver Corporation used the longer lines in a semi-horn loaded line (may not have been the BG planars specifically though), it seemed to be more of a upper mid wave-guide though.
For line source vs. point source character look at page 8 of Dr. Griffin's Line Array Paper.
If the line is just under a meter in length then the line should behave as a line source to about 1.5 kHz within a two meter distance. Moreover as you get closer that freq. will decrease, and of course as you get further away that freq. will increase.
Practically speaking that means at increased distances you higher freq. response will be elevated in comparison to the average. (line sources decrease in output at about -3db a meter and point sources decrease in output at about -6db a meter - not factoring any additional gain.) A variable shelving filter would work well if you found it objectionable.
Your current version will likely be a bit elevated in freq. above 7 kHz at 2 meters, and about 10 kHz at 3 meters.
I believe the Carver Corporation used the longer lines in a semi-horn loaded line (may not have been the BG planars specifically though), it seemed to be more of a upper mid wave-guide though.
RyanC said:
Interesting. I tried this using some of the Monsoon planar drivers which are similar in principle to the BG Neo's. In my case, I used a flare that approximated the Oblate Spheroid profile. Results were great, although they rolled off severely well below 15k, which was just a bit lower than I was willing to live with.
I've thought about it, and if I had the room I would try it. If you are actually in Denver as your profile states, PM/email me. I have a set of the 60" Carver ribbons that would be suitable as a project/prototype that are taking up space in my garage. (I'm pretty sure they still work
Hey DWK-
I'm on 38th and federal, born and raised in the ol mile high city. . .
Scott thanks, I'll read that paper, but that makes sense with what I'm hearing in the room. . .
Also I know that traditional wisdom is that a wide spray is better, but to my ears it starts sounding like the polarity is reversed on something. . . especially in a narrower room, it just doesn't make that much sense to me to put 100 degree horns so that 30 percent of sound goes right into the wall. Also My Room isnt wide enough to have a two person wide sweet spot, so I'm tryinig to make the sweet spot long (eg one person in front of another) So far so good. . .
You are an recording engineer also right?
Here is a pic
I'm on 38th and federal, born and raised in the ol mile high city. . .
Scott thanks, I'll read that paper, but that makes sense with what I'm hearing in the room. . .
Also I know that traditional wisdom is that a wide spray is better, but to my ears it starts sounding like the polarity is reversed on something. . . especially in a narrower room, it just doesn't make that much sense to me to put 100 degree horns so that 30 percent of sound goes right into the wall. Also My Room isnt wide enough to have a two person wide sweet spot, so I'm tryinig to make the sweet spot long (eg one person in front of another) So far so good. . .
You are an recording engineer also right?
Here is a pic
Attachments
Just an "enthusiast".
It looks a lot like the CD that Fcserei described! Nice!
By "polarity reversed" do you mean that everything sounds "farther away" or "more recessed"? And/Or are you talking about imaging being less specific/apparent? (..or something else all together?)
With wide dispersion what I found is that in most instances the soundstage expands, and it is NOT due to side wall reflections. (..you can try it with and without panel absorbers on the side walls for the distinction.) IMO it has more to due with the direct radiation from the driver/horn.
Note though that while I do like wide dispersion designs I also prefer to be closer to the speaker than the speaker is to the side wall (intelligibility and tracking goes up). Basically 2 meters from the speaker and more than 2 meters from the loudspeaker to the nearest wall, seated pretty close to the rooms back wall (..speakers about 7 feet apart with no "toe-in"). If the room is still rectangular you can sometimes "flip" listening position to get more width, but less depth (..of course it also sounds like you have other limitations that would nix that).
Anyway, please keep us updated on your progress - it looks like you are at the start of something far better than the "same ol' same ol' ".
It looks a lot like the CD that Fcserei described! Nice!
By "polarity reversed" do you mean that everything sounds "farther away" or "more recessed"? And/Or are you talking about imaging being less specific/apparent? (..or something else all together?)
With wide dispersion what I found is that in most instances the soundstage expands, and it is NOT due to side wall reflections. (..you can try it with and without panel absorbers on the side walls for the distinction.) IMO it has more to due with the direct radiation from the driver/horn.
Note though that while I do like wide dispersion designs I also prefer to be closer to the speaker than the speaker is to the side wall (intelligibility and tracking goes up). Basically 2 meters from the speaker and more than 2 meters from the loudspeaker to the nearest wall, seated pretty close to the rooms back wall (..speakers about 7 feet apart with no "toe-in"). If the room is still rectangular you can sometimes "flip" listening position to get more width, but less depth (..of course it also sounds like you have other limitations that would nix that).
Anyway, please keep us updated on your progress - it looks like you are at the start of something far better than the "same ol' same ol' ".
Hey Scott-
Yeah exactly, neither the room I'm in or the one I heard the tractrix loaded BGs was more than 12ft wide. Even down the road I probably wont be in a position to have a control room bigger than around 3000 cu feet. I agree completely WRT to wide rooms, but I think this is a better listening situation and potentially worse for mixing (I've only ever worked in one big mixing room like that and I found it a little bit confusing).
The first ones I heard had some serious amps, SET with each discreet component placed into grooves of machined 1" plate aluminum. The 15" BR also had custom machined 6" Alu phase plugs (over the 4" VC) and doped cones to lower the Res Freq. Dont trip and fall on those!
I have em toed in, because they are only about 6 inches away from the walls now. So they are in to the point that the outside of the horn is parrallel with the walls.
By polarity reversed, I mean it sounds almost as if one of the horns was wired reverse polarity. Not that it actually is, but if I take a mix I did, and I know how much out of phase information is in the mix, it sounds as if there is WAY more. This can be euphonic (depending on the origional mix) but isn't really what I want for monitors. Plus the really big sound stage can make you want to slather a bit too much room mic/reverb for a mix that still needs to hold up over the radio.
I lowered my horns a bit and I had them high and angeld down. They are much more consistant sounding w/o the angle and lower so thats good. Also I think the drivers are breaking in a bit.
For the rest I'm thinking BR with a 2226h, tad 1603, or Beyma 15p1000
But I'm toying with the idea of an OB mid bass, and a true sub. Hiding in some dark corner of my soul I find myslef lusting after that 15" audiopulse woofer.
Two questions; I happen to have access to 1/2" plate aluminum for cheapish, would it be good to make the horn out of something harder than wood (alu)? Obviously they would need to be damped to minimize the ring (I'm thinking fill the backside with concrete and cellulose mixed in).
The other: There does not appear to be much vertical dispersion from the drivers themselves. I'm wondering if really only the side flare is necessary, or would this cause it not to function as a horn, say if it had a parrallel bottom and an open top? I'm guessing that this would defeat the purpose, but I'm trying to understand horns better.
Man these things sound good, right now I'm thinking about asking Dianna Krall if she wants to marry me, unfortunately when I open my eyes I see this-
Yeah exactly, neither the room I'm in or the one I heard the tractrix loaded BGs was more than 12ft wide. Even down the road I probably wont be in a position to have a control room bigger than around 3000 cu feet. I agree completely WRT to wide rooms, but I think this is a better listening situation and potentially worse for mixing (I've only ever worked in one big mixing room like that and I found it a little bit confusing).
The first ones I heard had some serious amps, SET with each discreet component placed into grooves of machined 1" plate aluminum. The 15" BR also had custom machined 6" Alu phase plugs (over the 4" VC) and doped cones to lower the Res Freq. Dont trip and fall on those!
I have em toed in, because they are only about 6 inches away from the walls now. So they are in to the point that the outside of the horn is parrallel with the walls.
By polarity reversed, I mean it sounds almost as if one of the horns was wired reverse polarity. Not that it actually is, but if I take a mix I did, and I know how much out of phase information is in the mix, it sounds as if there is WAY more. This can be euphonic (depending on the origional mix) but isn't really what I want for monitors. Plus the really big sound stage can make you want to slather a bit too much room mic/reverb for a mix that still needs to hold up over the radio.
I lowered my horns a bit and I had them high and angeld down. They are much more consistant sounding w/o the angle and lower so thats good. Also I think the drivers are breaking in a bit.
For the rest I'm thinking BR with a 2226h, tad 1603, or Beyma 15p1000
But I'm toying with the idea of an OB mid bass, and a true sub. Hiding in some dark corner of my soul I find myslef lusting after that 15" audiopulse woofer.
Two questions; I happen to have access to 1/2" plate aluminum for cheapish, would it be good to make the horn out of something harder than wood (alu)? Obviously they would need to be damped to minimize the ring (I'm thinking fill the backside with concrete and cellulose mixed in).
The other: There does not appear to be much vertical dispersion from the drivers themselves. I'm wondering if really only the side flare is necessary, or would this cause it not to function as a horn, say if it had a parrallel bottom and an open top? I'm guessing that this would defeat the purpose, but I'm trying to understand horns better.
Man these things sound good, right now I'm thinking about asking Dianna Krall if she wants to marry me, unfortunately when I open my eyes I see this-
Attachments
Oh and DWK-
Let me know if those are working. . . I dont think I'd really have space for 60 inchers, but I'm thinking about the 40s pretty hard right now. And it's pretty easy to slap these things together, mine are a little slopy, but I like to get the hang of it before. The carvers are a true ribbon right? Ive never heard those, always wanted to though. . .
Does anyone know are they essentially the same (the neos and the big ones)?
Thanks guys-
Let me know if those are working. . . I dont think I'd really have space for 60 inchers, but I'm thinking about the 40s pretty hard right now. And it's pretty easy to slap these things together, mine are a little slopy, but I like to get the hang of it before. The carvers are a true ribbon right? Ive never heard those, always wanted to though. . .
Does anyone know are they essentially the same (the neos and the big ones)?
Thanks guys-
RyanC said:
Its not that bad.. a little darth vader meets home depot'ish.
IMO horns are best made from cement - rigid and non resonant. Thats also the case for baffles, and it makes a BIG difference with baffles. The only real problem is cracking and weight.. and some polymer additive can pretty much negate the first problem.
I would not suggest aluminum, but end-cut and blocked hardwood (like cutting boards) can be excellent. Aluminum might be excellent though for the connection to the horn and the initial bit of flair in that with some decent machining you can get much more precise with it.
For your current setup I don't think you can go "open baffle" - too close to the corner/walls.
For your midbass - well thats largely depends on how it integrates with the room, it would be a really tough call to say one thing would be better than another ..BUT a wave guide for the midbass driver might help considerably (..and match better with your Neo 8 dispersion). Supravox 215 GMF.. low mass, good force, high eff. and a fairly low sd for keeping the waveguide size down.
There are plenty examples of limited to no-vertical flair horns, try it and see if you like it. To me it seems as if there is some vertical dispersion from the drivers (not a lot, but some). In a two driver config. like you have you may well be encountering some higher freq. "combing" between the two drivers that would likely lessen the perception of clarity. You *could* try a tapering waveguide (wedge) between the two drivers and see if that does anything (though it may introduce more problems than it might fix).
You know, Horn response *may* have calculations for a non-standard driver like the Neo 8.. you could always give that a look-see to get a better handle on what works and what doesn't before prototyping.
In any event - good luck, its always nice to hear someone taking a trip down an alternative path.
Yep constrained layer/concrete would be the idea if I go that route, green glue between each layer, I would build a box around them with one side of the horn parralel to the outside of the box, and then pour some concrete in the last gap. In these situations sheet rock and concrete board are also great. The aluminum would look great also. . . hmmm so would stained crete tho.
First thing to figure out is all the optimal anlges, and how to combat the combing in the top octive.
I think I know why it's happening; looking at the drivers there is a 2 inch space between the radiation holes of one driver and the holse of the next one down.
I have two thoughts-
A)- wedge foam (really this is your idea Scott), used as a seperator between the drivers, this should provide enough STC to minimize issues with the top octave, While still allowing the entire piece to still function as a horn at lower frequencies (5" deep cut down to 2" wide might work well).
B)- The good ol' hacksaw. . . it should be possible to remove most of the flange on the side that does not have the terminals. The only downside to this is I am thinking that it would be best to go to a 3 drivers per side. One flange must stay due to the terminals on back (why could they have not put them on the side?)
Scott- concrete, supravox!?!?!? I knew you were going to say something like that. . . I'm not in the market for 5k worth of woofers, I wish I was, but bottom line is that any speaker in a studio needs to be relatively replaceable. I'm not about to plug a bass player into 5k worth of drivers and hope he doesn't unplug his cable to run to the bathroom. . .
Now as for the concrete. . . hmmm, that may be do-able. I could pour two side slabs 3" thick and then build a 15 degree jig to pour the top and bottom (tilting the whole thing). Rebar and mesh do a pretty good job of holding crete together as well.
I should report that they do continue to imporve. I wouldn't have expected the burn in to be this long, but I left on pink noise at 100dB last night and when I came in this morning the pink noise sounded much more like it should. Didn't have time to retune/measure. . . .;
Thanks again guys-
I'm thinking for now I want to get the best working wood ones, then get the bass together, and then mess with exotic horn materials.
First thing to figure out is all the optimal anlges, and how to combat the combing in the top octive.
I think I know why it's happening; looking at the drivers there is a 2 inch space between the radiation holes of one driver and the holse of the next one down.
I have two thoughts-
A)- wedge foam (really this is your idea Scott), used as a seperator between the drivers, this should provide enough STC to minimize issues with the top octave, While still allowing the entire piece to still function as a horn at lower frequencies (5" deep cut down to 2" wide might work well).
B)- The good ol' hacksaw. . . it should be possible to remove most of the flange on the side that does not have the terminals. The only downside to this is I am thinking that it would be best to go to a 3 drivers per side. One flange must stay due to the terminals on back (why could they have not put them on the side?)
Scott- concrete, supravox!?!?!? I knew you were going to say something like that. . . I'm not in the market for 5k worth of woofers, I wish I was, but bottom line is that any speaker in a studio needs to be relatively replaceable. I'm not about to plug a bass player into 5k worth of drivers and hope he doesn't unplug his cable to run to the bathroom. . .
Now as for the concrete. . . hmmm, that may be do-able. I could pour two side slabs 3" thick and then build a 15 degree jig to pour the top and bottom (tilting the whole thing). Rebar and mesh do a pretty good job of holding crete together as well.
I should report that they do continue to imporve. I wouldn't have expected the burn in to be this long, but I left on pink noise at 100dB last night and when I came in this morning the pink noise sounded much more like it should. Didn't have time to retune/measure. . . .;
Thanks again guys-
I'm thinking for now I want to get the best working wood ones, then get the bass together, and then mess with exotic horn materials.
Great timing for this thread. I was looking at the Fountek Neopro 5i's last night and wondering how they would perform in an OS type waveguide. Seems that I could get my desired 1k2 xover (digitally > LR24), keep the horizontal pattern to 80* or so to match the 10's I'd be using below it, and maybe even a bit more sensitivity. Vertical dispersion is limited anyway so I thought about a simple say 20* conical for the vertical.dwk123 said:
RyanC said:
No, No..
-the 215 GMF, not terribly spendy!
Just 1 per side with a frontal waveguide to maintain pattern control down to about 125 Hz (if possible).
http://www.supravox.fr/anglais/haut_parleurs/215_GMF.htm
..and here is an upper freq. modification of one:
http://www.troelsgravesen.dk/Supravox215GMF.htm
In particular note the subjective impression:
"It can play enormously loud - and it hard not to do so. Acoustic Live from Nils Lofgren was on the CD-player many times and impressed quite a few visitors. The speed, the transient attack is phenomenal."
About 268 euros each. Not cheap, but not super expensive.
Oh ok-
I was looking at the field coil models. . .
I woke up in the middle of the night with nightmares/daydreams of making a horn loadd, fieldcoil powerd ribbon using one of the larger BG diaphrams. . . ok back to reality.
I'll look into those. That certainly sounds like what I'm after.
GM-
I don't know about a focused array, Priority numero uno is that the sound is relatively consistant from sitting to standing. . .I'm thinking not only would a focused array horn be difficult to build, but impossible to aim the array at a seated ear hight as well as standing.
Also with the Neo8's I'm getting solid response down to 200hz. . . wouldn't want to loose that.
I do happen to have 8 TB w6's (a really good driver for the price) lying around. . . .
Thanks again guys-
Ryan
I was looking at the field coil models. . .
I woke up in the middle of the night with nightmares/daydreams of making a horn loadd, fieldcoil powerd ribbon using one of the larger BG diaphrams. . . ok back to reality.
I'll look into those. That certainly sounds like what I'm after.
GM-
I don't know about a focused array, Priority numero uno is that the sound is relatively consistant from sitting to standing. . .I'm thinking not only would a focused array horn be difficult to build, but impossible to aim the array at a seated ear hight as well as standing.
Also with the Neo8's I'm getting solid response down to 200hz. . . wouldn't want to loose that.
I do happen to have 8 TB w6's (a really good driver for the price) lying around. . . .
Thanks again guys-
Ryan
Something like that could probably be quite an incredible speaker,
any experience with TAD TL-1101H's?
My feeling is that if I go to a three way system here, I would prefer to have a quasi IB for 70-200. . .I did some tests a while back, and I feel that this range sounds much better without any sort of box and that was one with a 2206 and one with the little tang band drivers. I don't have any empirical data other than it just sounded more natural. . .
I was using wedge foam/703/hi densety memory foam to muffle the back wave, thus it's not open baffle in the sense of minimizing excitation of room modes via bipolar radiation, presumable just letting the motor work on the diaphragm without box related air pressure issues?
Messin with sketchup I was playing with the scale fucntion and came up with this. . .
I wouldn't have room for it, but it's 50x30 4feet deep.
any experience with TAD TL-1101H's?
My feeling is that if I go to a three way system here, I would prefer to have a quasi IB for 70-200. . .I did some tests a while back, and I feel that this range sounds much better without any sort of box and that was one with a 2206 and one with the little tang band drivers. I don't have any empirical data other than it just sounded more natural. . .
I was using wedge foam/703/hi densety memory foam to muffle the back wave, thus it's not open baffle in the sense of minimizing excitation of room modes via bipolar radiation, presumable just letting the motor work on the diaphragm without box related air pressure issues?
Messin with sketchup I was playing with the scale fucntion and came up with this. . .
I wouldn't have room for it, but it's 50x30 4feet deep.
Attachments
But something like this could be a possibility. . . kind of an off center waveguide/horn?. . .
The two would actually just about meet in the middle. . . not sure if that's good or bad.
This isn't based on any sort of scientific/mathmatical proposition,
The drivers in the back are 12"s by the way.
The two would actually just about meet in the middle. . . not sure if that's good or bad.
This isn't based on any sort of scientific/mathmatical proposition,
The drivers in the back are 12"s by the way.
Attachments
Hi guys-
Not sure if anyone is still reading this, but I have a couple thoughts I'm curious if you all would have any opinions.
One question I have is compared to a typical conical horn, does stretching it out vertically lower the effective frequency of the horn?
It would seem that it would as the volume of the horn is larger and the distance from mouth to outer edge is longer from the top of the array to the bottom of the edge of the horn or vise versa. But I can see where if the depth is only 1/4 wavelength of 250hz it would still be a 250hz horn?
For my space I cant really see a good conceivable way of having two seperate horns in order to produce the same directionality down to 100hz or so. . . (that was kinda the point of the sketchup models. just to see how big it would be even if those would not be effective)
so I'm wondering about a larger line array put into the same horn, but also made larger. Say a horn with 3ft depth and 4ft height?
One thought that crosses my mind is the tymphany lat drivers. They don't get great reviews as a sub, but It would seem that they might work well in a large line source type horn as a low mid/upper bass driver. And they share a very similair form factor to the neo 8's.
I'm thinking of an MTTM sort of setup with a LAT 250 on bottom and top and the two neo8s in the middle. Or possibly using 8 4" drivers on the top and bottom such as the dayton ref 4".
Just as a progress report I did actually build 2 3' deep X 4 ft high horn sides for the purpose of experimenting with the horizontal dispersion angle. I'm measuring a rather large dip in the freq response at centered at 5k. . . As soon as I have time I'm going to A) cut the flanges off of the neo8's so they can be placed closer together, and B)mount em and try to figure out what the best angle will be for the flattest freq response.
I'm thinking the lat drivers are fairly inexpensive so I'll probably pick up a pair to try. My gut feeling is that they have a low mechanical vibration, and low MMS vs SD, which means they should mate well with the neo8s and possibly work well when horn loaded. . . for about a hundred bucks it's worth a shot.
Thanks again
Not sure if anyone is still reading this, but I have a couple thoughts I'm curious if you all would have any opinions.
One question I have is compared to a typical conical horn, does stretching it out vertically lower the effective frequency of the horn?
It would seem that it would as the volume of the horn is larger and the distance from mouth to outer edge is longer from the top of the array to the bottom of the edge of the horn or vise versa. But I can see where if the depth is only 1/4 wavelength of 250hz it would still be a 250hz horn?
For my space I cant really see a good conceivable way of having two seperate horns in order to produce the same directionality down to 100hz or so. . . (that was kinda the point of the sketchup models. just to see how big it would be even if those would not be effective)
so I'm wondering about a larger line array put into the same horn, but also made larger. Say a horn with 3ft depth and 4ft height?
One thought that crosses my mind is the tymphany lat drivers. They don't get great reviews as a sub, but It would seem that they might work well in a large line source type horn as a low mid/upper bass driver. And they share a very similair form factor to the neo 8's.
I'm thinking of an MTTM sort of setup with a LAT 250 on bottom and top and the two neo8s in the middle. Or possibly using 8 4" drivers on the top and bottom such as the dayton ref 4".
Just as a progress report I did actually build 2 3' deep X 4 ft high horn sides for the purpose of experimenting with the horizontal dispersion angle. I'm measuring a rather large dip in the freq response at centered at 5k. . . As soon as I have time I'm going to A) cut the flanges off of the neo8's so they can be placed closer together, and B)mount em and try to figure out what the best angle will be for the flattest freq response.
I'm thinking the lat drivers are fairly inexpensive so I'll probably pick up a pair to try. My gut feeling is that they have a low mechanical vibration, and low MMS vs SD, which means they should mate well with the neo8s and possibly work well when horn loaded. . . for about a hundred bucks it's worth a shot.
Thanks again
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.