Mach5 said:
Im not sure what I was thinking really
Looking at it now, I may have thought about the problems with an array with just one tweeter
I thought maybe a waveguide array like this would present a unity wavefront, making the distance between drivers a no issue
I also thought, maybe the array mounting, with mid drivers right at the throat would be more ideal than having them on the sides, away from the throat
I believe Danley is doing something similar
The LeCleach back rounding of mouth should be significant too
About the throat
It could easily be even more ideal than any other horn, as you can shape it any way you like, maybe even use an apropriate adaptor
The transistion of the horn itself is on the other hand far from ideal, but that doesnt mean it wouldnt work well in other areas
Most horns/waveguides around arent ideal either
I would like to try it, but too many other projects at the moment
tinitus said:
A unity wavefront doesn't just happen because drivers are close
blending is a matter of wavelength size.
For instance:
IF you have a 25in wavelength(500hz) then in 1/4 wave mode your drivers must be within 6in of each other.
If you have a 7in wavelength(2khz) then your drivers must be within 2.75in
Even if you use 2in cone drivers you'd never be able to get a crossover that was high enough for all those drivers. You would have subwoofer coupling
You might make it work if you had a cascading crossover. Inner drivers coupled at higher frequencies. Outer drivers coupled at lower frequencies.
It seems to me that the horn would only be effective in one plane and not two
All of the danley speakers I've found have the drivers mounted at the sides, near the throat, within a 1/4 wave of the XO frequency. If you know something I don't I am more than interested to hear about as I have my own unity project I am developing right now
I'm not familiar with LeCleach, could you explain a little how this helps? My understanding is it is just a way to way to minimize horn reflections AKA honk.
Mach5 said:
Im really not very theoretical minded
But I have build many backloaded fore fullrange
Not as many available back then, like there is today
All I can say is that the ones I designed myself, just by using my guts judging by looks, they all sounded better than any of the so called proven design, which vere all pretty much awfull
Nothings perfect, not even when all the theoretical stuff is considered and in place
Many people have build arrays that shouldnt work properly, but people seem to like the sound of them, despite of not being perfect
I know its very different with horns/waveguides
All I want to say is that sometimes things work ok despite of not beeing theoretical perfect
And even the theoretical perfect doesnt always end up very good at all
About LeClech you better search around the forum
Theres plenty of good well documented stuff
Its stated that main differense is the use of very big roundings of mouth
And that it really works
All else is pretty much ordinary
Forgot about 2.5way, could be a good idea with 4 mid drivers
But, MTM might really be the best option
FaitalPro makes a nice 99db 5", and said to be very good, and affordable
Picture below is modified version, 2way or 2.5way
And with a small throat adaptor fore CD driver
Could be elliptical, but would result in mid drivers being slightly further apart
But might be better to favour better conditions fore CD driver
Maybe it could be even bigger, and use bigger midwoofers
And maybe with advantage mount bigger horn "adaptor" fore CD driver
I imagine that the needed woofer system fore this would be a 4 woofer array
Its by far not perfect, but maybe no less than the setup problems of a "standard" big multiway horn system
More critical comments, please
edit
Sorry, forgot you question about the Danley inspiration
Somewhere around here there is a picture of a " mysterious"
Danley array synergy/unity/tapped or whatever
I believe its proto show model, and you probably wont find any info on his site, yet
Attachments
Two problems are rendering this idea probably unusable:
First, distance between mid drivers is way to high for lossless addition. It has to be around 1/4WL of the crossover frq. This is a central point of the synergy horn. Yours is just a horn loaded line array with all the line array problems, which the synergy horn solves.
Second, the throat shape for the high freq. driver doesnt look good. No idea what the consequences will be.
Overall, you will get severe comb filtering in the midrange and a distorted high frequency soundfield. Only solution would be to make the xover from mid to high very (impractically?) low, to avoid the comb filters.
First, distance between mid drivers is way to high for lossless addition. It has to be around 1/4WL of the crossover frq. This is a central point of the synergy horn. Yours is just a horn loaded line array with all the line array problems, which the synergy horn solves.
Second, the throat shape for the high freq. driver doesnt look good. No idea what the consequences will be.
Overall, you will get severe comb filtering in the midrange and a distorted high frequency soundfield. Only solution would be to make the xover from mid to high very (impractically?) low, to avoid the comb filters.
Im not really sure about it either
But Danleys synergy dont look very ideal either, but it still works
But ok, lets try with 2 mid drivers on each side
And maybe also a midwoofer on top and bottom
A bit closer to Danley style
But I really dont see why this would be any better
To me the waveguide mid driver relation/loading looks far worse
Could be that I really dont understand the Danley principle, which to me looks like something that shouldnt work too good, but we know it does
But Danleys synergy dont look very ideal either, but it still works
But ok, lets try with 2 mid drivers on each side
And maybe also a midwoofer on top and bottom
A bit closer to Danley style
But I really dont see why this would be any better
To me the waveguide mid driver relation/loading looks far worse
Could be that I really dont understand the Danley principle, which to me looks like something that shouldnt work too good, but we know it does
Attachments
MaVo said:
Its not really possible at all to see the throat on these drawings
Drawings are not that detailed, nor accurate
What you see is either an adaptor or a complete waveguide, mounted on back of vertical waveguide, if we should call it that instead of synergy/unity
Attachments
Nah, I didnt really think it looked good at all
This one is a bit more develloped, and close to what I had in mind and would do, if I had the space
Not much LeCleach about it though, as it would make it even bigger
But I reckon the synergy looks ok now
But it sure is BIG
This one is a bit more develloped, and close to what I had in mind and would do, if I had the space
Not much LeCleach about it though, as it would make it even bigger
But I reckon the synergy looks ok now
But it sure is BIG
Attachments
You could try to lecleachify a synergy design and probably get close to what your looking for
You know, side mounted drivers are really what your looking for, you just don't know it yet You cannot resist, it is your destiny.....
-------------
Do you think lecleach is a suitable wideband horn? Most horns are not well suited to synergy AFAIK
------------
If you think synergies are big try a 100hz lecleach for comparison!
You know, side mounted drivers are really what your looking for, you just don't know it yet
You cannot resist, it is your destiny.....-------------
Do you think lecleach is a suitable wideband horn? Most horns are not well suited to synergy AFAIK
------------
If you think synergies are big try a 100hz lecleach for comparison!
There's some 'tricks' you can use to get the midranges further away, and the thing will still work.
For instance, in the old Lambda Unity horn, the diaphragm of the compression driver is something like 15cm away from the midrange drivers. At that distance, we'd expect things to fall apart around 567hz. (speed of sound/distance/4)
The reason that the midranges can play over an octave higher than that is that the apparent source of the sound is not the diaphragm. For instance, when the compression driver radiates a waveform that's 2khz, the apparent source of the sound is a point in the horn where the horn is about 4.25cm in diameter. (Same equation as above.)
What this means is that the apparent source of the loudspeaker is frequency dependent. At 10khz, it's way back at the compression driver diaphragm. At 2khz, it's just a bit past the throat. At 1khz, it's right on top of the array of midrange throats.
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
Little driver hands off to big driver, which hands off to bigger driver.
The concept can be stretched to infinity.
Anyways, YES, I think you could do a Synergy horn with a LeCleach profile. It would be a bit of work, and it wouldn't be 'arrayable'
The main hurdle would be juggling the diameter of the throat; it needs to be fairly large where the mids 'tap' in.
Note that you can also use DSP delay to line things up. VTC and Yorkville does this in their Paraline boxes, I think the Jericho and Genesis horns use DSP too.
DSP may be overkill for an SH-50, but who knows?
Also, DSP normally sucks because it only fixes problems at one spot in the room. But in this application, it's kinda wonderful. You're still fixing it at one spot in the room, but that spot happens to be the point of radiation, so that fixes it everywhere in the room.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.