Simple answer, yes. It is not so much about the classical phase plug function as it its the way the compression is achieved. It will exhibit more authority on the low end as well as on the high end. IMO the compression needs to take place as close to the source as possible and as smooth as possible. Sudden changes of direction, Edges, and flat surfaces that the air is pressed against are all sources of phase and amplitude discontinuities. Throw a stone into water and you will see how compression needs to take place.
Klaus
Last edited:
And you have tested this with the Fane driver or is this a theory so far? I bet it would require many horn and phase plug versions before one would
get it right. Quite an undertaking. At the same time I wonder which driver I should horn load. A 12 inch JBL 2204H or the Fane Studio 8M? The JBL would reach lower but the Fane would achieve very clear midrange. Yet the JA 6681B will take over at 350hz so what is the use of the Fanes excellent midrange? It depends a lot I think on the subwoofer. Angelo tried all this before and he came to the conclusion that the fact that his 12" Beyma 12P80ND could reach lower frequencies was better because he did not want to split the midbass. The Fane seem to start at about 150hz. Too high probably, for a subwoofer. It is a matter of taste I guess. The Fane is so detailed for cone driver!
get it right. Quite an undertaking. At the same time I wonder which driver I should horn load. A 12 inch JBL 2204H or the Fane Studio 8M? The JBL would reach lower but the Fane would achieve very clear midrange. Yet the JA 6681B will take over at 350hz so what is the use of the Fanes excellent midrange? It depends a lot I think on the subwoofer. Angelo tried all this before and he came to the conclusion that the fact that his 12" Beyma 12P80ND could reach lower frequencies was better because he did not want to split the midbass. The Fane seem to start at about 150hz. Too high probably, for a subwoofer. It is a matter of taste I guess. The Fane is so detailed for cone driver!
Last edited:
I am sorry what you saying might be accurate from general stand point but it does not back you your allegation that Romy upperbass channel with Fane is not done properly, First of all how do you know what horn Romy uses? Then, how do you know what Romy’s objectives were and what result he has. Why do you feel that Fane even need a phase plug? The Fane in this horn has extension all over 5K and phase plug just will push it to 8K. It is very difficult passive low-pass filter this driver as it has a lot of inductance, if so why would anybody ever want to extend the HF of this driver. Romy uses his upper bass horn up to 600Hz, why do you feel he would need to have more HF extension and phase plug? Did you use the Fane driver yourself? I wonder what rational you have to advocate that Romy horn was not done properly if you do not understand what the channel does.
Sorry, Klaus, it does not back up with my experiments. I did use the Romy- like horn with Fane and did experiment with phase plug and I observed no influence to the lower knew of the horn. Even more, the use of phase plug leads to higher compression and higher HF extension. Both are not advisable for Fane. The higher HF extension will lead to sharper low pass filter with all consequential phase anomalies. I truly do not know why you advocate what you are advocating.
Seem like the consensus is pointing against a phase plug for hornloaded midbass cone drivers below 500Hz.
Could anyone share some light in the choice between a 8, 10 or 12" cone driver for hornloading below the JA6681B?
The Fane Studio 8M may start playing too high for good integration with a subwoofer. With a compression driver like the JA6681B, that reaches 300Hz, the Fane drivers good midrange tone may be superfluous. I have read that a good 12-21" subwoofer is lowpassed at 80Hz. Then the range between 80Hz and 150Hz is neglected when using Fane Studio 8M. A 12" midbass driver, like JBL 2204H, JBL E-120 or Beyma 12P80ND would cover this range better. But would they sound good in a horn? Are there better alternatives for hornloading 80Hz-300Hz? How would the size of the horn change from Romys/Trio's midbass horn?
I would appreciate your thoughts on this also.
Could anyone share some light in the choice between a 8, 10 or 12" cone driver for hornloading below the JA6681B?
The Fane Studio 8M may start playing too high for good integration with a subwoofer. With a compression driver like the JA6681B, that reaches 300Hz, the Fane drivers good midrange tone may be superfluous. I have read that a good 12-21" subwoofer is lowpassed at 80Hz. Then the range between 80Hz and 150Hz is neglected when using Fane Studio 8M. A 12" midbass driver, like JBL 2204H, JBL E-120 or Beyma 12P80ND would cover this range better. But would they sound good in a horn? Are there better alternatives for hornloading 80Hz-300Hz? How would the size of the horn change from Romys/Trio's midbass horn?
I would appreciate your thoughts on this also.
Last edited:
I have the Fane 8m below the JA6681, it operates from 120Hz up to 350 Hz and rolls off at 6db. If you can find a 12" which goes down to 80Hz the mid bass horn is getting large, but it would enable a sub to be used , Maybe T-TQWT from 20 to 80HZ. I am building a 15Hz horn below the Fane to run form 20 Hz to 120Hz, then cross to the Fane and then the JA 6681.
There are two commercially avaliable speakers, La Grande Castine and the Cessaro Gamma, that use a 15" driver or a 11" driver, instead of the 8" Fane as a hornloaded midbass speaker. Here is Romy's thoughts about these.
GoodSoundClub - Romy the Cat's Site - The second "best" commercial horn speaker?>
"The upperbass is very narrow banded with 80-300Hz. That is a good range foe this topology of horn. I presume it it has a resonance somewhere around 80Hz and with a proper selection of driver it might work very well. The presence of the separate sub 80Hz section imidetaly brings this system from the state of stupid wishful thinking into a realm of very lucid design, my congratulations.
Looking at what you have done I think that the only “slippery” moment in this speaker is the high knee of the upperbass and lover knee of MF. If your MF driver goes down to 300Hz then it is very “pushy” I would say. That would require a good 120Hz -140Hz horn but your MF horn strike me as 170Hz-200Hz horn. I do not know you but let presume that since you did not make other mistakes then you know what you do and what you hear. Then you would not load into a 200Hz Le Cléac’h horn 300Hz compression driver with first order. Well, you might go for it if you need it and it you upperbass cannot go up enough but in your case, having the shallow upperbass horn and a phase plug in the upperbass, you have no necessity to kill the upperbass at 300Hz. So, if to presuming that you know what you hear and that your speaker sounds good then most likely here is what happen in them. You most likely do not let the MF god all the way down to 300Hz. You might highpass the upperbass at 300Hz electrically with your “crossover is full passive, first order” but in reality a single coil would not stop those drivers. At 300Hz the inductance of those midbass woofers become co-measurable with the inductance of the filter coil, so you crossover point slips all the way up. I might presume that the actual -3dB from upperbass you have at 700-1000Hz that would mask out your lower knee of your MF channel. So, the octave where your MF and upperbass work together you use as a virtual Macondo’s “Fundamental Channel”. This is might take how your speaker work if it sounds balanced.
Ok, to conclude the things. It looks like from what it presented now the speaker is done with no mistakes and even I can’t find a rational to bitch about them. I nominate this “La Grande Castine” as the second “The most promising ‘best’ commercial horn speaker” right after the Cessaro Gamma."
GoodSoundClub - Romy the Cat's Audio Site - The Cessaro Gamma tweeter criticism + some solutions.
"...The Gamma’s upperbass horn is too short. I make a conclusion is that the upperbass use too large throat perhaps 7”-8”/ This loading would be great for $15K acoustic system but not for $230K. The 100Hz might be loaded lower; I feel 3” is a critical throat diameter for 100Hz Tractrix and 4” for exponential. Then the use of TAD driver throughout… I have to admit that I am not a huge fun of TAD drivers. They have a good bacterially clean sound but truly nothing really special. Do you see yourself shopping for more interesting vintage driver for your loudspeakers AFTER your spend million dollars for your acoustic system? Then, the amplification…. At the level of $230K any acoustic system should come with own amplification, add price if you wish but the thinking about acoustic system at this level of seriousness must include the amp-driver interface. In the end - the bass. The Gamma’s bass solution is great for $50K but not for $230K. The objectionable bass must include open bottom bass solution. For ¼ million dollars you need to have separated lower and mid bass. The Gamma’s midbass might be OK (I do not know how good they made their W-bins) but as soon the array of those W-bins will be asked to push octaves lover then the moth rate then sound will turn to ****. It is not the Cessaro’s bad implementation – it is the topology’s limitation. It might be a solution for Cessaro to divide 2 of this 4 LF section for horn load midbass and 2 for sealed lower bass but it looks like they all horn loaded. If so, then it is not the $230K-worth solution but a comprise that might be used in the acoustic systems of $10K-$50K level…Macondo has the similar comprise letting the lover bass section to care the midbass. However, Macondo is a loudspeaker of $25K, thought Macondo does honest $25K. If Macondo were ¼ million dollars acoustic system then it would be very different set of solutions. Cessaro Gamma does cost Gamma ¼ million but does not offers for this money any design substance.
Rgs, Romy the Cat"
GoodSoundClub - Romy the Cat's Site - The second "best" commercial horn speaker?>
"The upperbass is very narrow banded with 80-300Hz. That is a good range foe this topology of horn. I presume it it has a resonance somewhere around 80Hz and with a proper selection of driver it might work very well. The presence of the separate sub 80Hz section imidetaly brings this system from the state of stupid wishful thinking into a realm of very lucid design, my congratulations.
Looking at what you have done I think that the only “slippery” moment in this speaker is the high knee of the upperbass and lover knee of MF. If your MF driver goes down to 300Hz then it is very “pushy” I would say. That would require a good 120Hz -140Hz horn but your MF horn strike me as 170Hz-200Hz horn. I do not know you but let presume that since you did not make other mistakes then you know what you do and what you hear. Then you would not load into a 200Hz Le Cléac’h horn 300Hz compression driver with first order. Well, you might go for it if you need it and it you upperbass cannot go up enough but in your case, having the shallow upperbass horn and a phase plug in the upperbass, you have no necessity to kill the upperbass at 300Hz. So, if to presuming that you know what you hear and that your speaker sounds good then most likely here is what happen in them. You most likely do not let the MF god all the way down to 300Hz. You might highpass the upperbass at 300Hz electrically with your “crossover is full passive, first order” but in reality a single coil would not stop those drivers. At 300Hz the inductance of those midbass woofers become co-measurable with the inductance of the filter coil, so you crossover point slips all the way up. I might presume that the actual -3dB from upperbass you have at 700-1000Hz that would mask out your lower knee of your MF channel. So, the octave where your MF and upperbass work together you use as a virtual Macondo’s “Fundamental Channel”. This is might take how your speaker work if it sounds balanced.
Ok, to conclude the things. It looks like from what it presented now the speaker is done with no mistakes and even I can’t find a rational to bitch about them. I nominate this “La Grande Castine” as the second “The most promising ‘best’ commercial horn speaker” right after the Cessaro Gamma."
GoodSoundClub - Romy the Cat's Audio Site - The Cessaro Gamma tweeter criticism + some solutions.
"...The Gamma’s upperbass horn is too short. I make a conclusion is that the upperbass use too large throat perhaps 7”-8”/ This loading would be great for $15K acoustic system but not for $230K. The 100Hz might be loaded lower; I feel 3” is a critical throat diameter for 100Hz Tractrix and 4” for exponential. Then the use of TAD driver throughout… I have to admit that I am not a huge fun of TAD drivers. They have a good bacterially clean sound but truly nothing really special. Do you see yourself shopping for more interesting vintage driver for your loudspeakers AFTER your spend million dollars for your acoustic system? Then, the amplification…. At the level of $230K any acoustic system should come with own amplification, add price if you wish but the thinking about acoustic system at this level of seriousness must include the amp-driver interface. In the end - the bass. The Gamma’s bass solution is great for $50K but not for $230K. The objectionable bass must include open bottom bass solution. For ¼ million dollars you need to have separated lower and mid bass. The Gamma’s midbass might be OK (I do not know how good they made their W-bins) but as soon the array of those W-bins will be asked to push octaves lover then the moth rate then sound will turn to ****. It is not the Cessaro’s bad implementation – it is the topology’s limitation. It might be a solution for Cessaro to divide 2 of this 4 LF section for horn load midbass and 2 for sealed lower bass but it looks like they all horn loaded. If so, then it is not the $230K-worth solution but a comprise that might be used in the acoustic systems of $10K-$50K level…Macondo has the similar comprise letting the lover bass section to care the midbass. However, Macondo is a loudspeaker of $25K, thought Macondo does honest $25K. If Macondo were ¼ million dollars acoustic system then it would be very different set of solutions. Cessaro Gamma does cost Gamma ¼ million but does not offers for this money any design substance.
Rgs, Romy the Cat"
Attachments
Last edited:
Back to the phase plugs again. Not sure of how his horn look like but AllenB seem to like his cone driver with a phase plug: http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/mult...river-130hz-tractrix-horn-28.html#post3460302
3GGG, I would like to recommend you to think again about building a 15Hz horn as it is a bit contra-productive thing to do regardless of the horn design. For sure you can do whatever you want but I have a lot of experience of the subject. If you want your midbass horn for go down very low then do not target 15Hz but rather 35-45Hz. You will need to use close -bottom ULF section at the bottom regardless. If you do have midbass 3 octaves horn you will not be able to “stop” it properly.
Good luck. You have to let us know how the 15Hz horn sound crossed so high.
Will be interesting to see the output, but Jean Michel claims output to 350Hz without active correction, so 120Hz should be fine.
Thanks, to clarify the Fane will stay in the MIdbass 160Hz horn and the Bass horn will be another separate ULF channel with an 18" driver.
Woha, Cool down please,
1. This is only my opinion and not to be taken as gospel.
2., Romy has posted pictures and drawings of his horn and there is nothing
we don't know about it.
3. He has been using it, at least for a wile, all the way up to about 1,2 khz
as far as I know.
4. John Hasqin has build Romy's horn. It's a simple tractrix contour. Nothing
special. John is one of the most respected people when it comes to horn
speakers especially tractrix and it's iterations. He himself has stated several
times that the Fane would benefit from a phase plug .
4: There are plenty white papers on the net that show how important it is to
get the compression ratio and throat design right for ultimate performance.
5. Common sense and a the study of nature is all it needs to understand that
letting a cone even if only partially push against a flat piece of board is not
very wise and will cause a number of unwanted effects even in the lower
mid region.
A teacher in the field of hydraulics or aerodynamics would shake his head
upon the way this design tries to achieve the compression.
The throat is a high pressure/low velocity region that needs a passage as
smooth as possible to prevent unwanted turbulences which are in regard to
sound waves just phase and amplitude irregularities that our ears are
sensitive to.
Anyone who believes that these are not audible in the range this horn works
in is in my opinion naive.
It's easy to see that my proposal is not about a simple phase plug that
achieves a better hf behavior.
Klaus
I have thought about it, how this straight wall between the Fane and the horn may not be the best thing, but I was clueless how to solve it. It should not be so difficult to manufacture a longer compression chamber before the horn. I do however wonder about the necessity of the actual plug.
Then I also wonder about the necessity of the Fane driver at all, used together with the JA6681b. The Fane driver could cover for example 120-280Hz, then taken over by the JA6681b 280-12kHz. I admit the JA-6681B does sound a little strained here, but inctedibly detailed. I can always cross the cone driver a little higher if it ever becomes too strained. My point is that the Fane is good if your CD only goes down to 500Hz. But if the CD handles low frequencies good then why use a cone driver there.
Would not a 10 or 12 inch be better?
Then I also wonder about the necessity of the Fane driver at all, used together with the JA6681b. The Fane driver could cover for example 120-280Hz, then taken over by the JA6681b 280-12kHz. I admit the JA-6681B does sound a little strained here, but inctedibly detailed. I can always cross the cone driver a little higher if it ever becomes too strained. My point is that the Fane is good if your CD only goes down to 500Hz. But if the CD handles low frequencies good then why use a cone driver there.
Would not a 10 or 12 inch be better?
Last edited:
The JA6681b will always be a compromise on a horn monster like the Azura.
Just a little to thin on the bottom and a lousy pattern control from about 2500hz on up.
My 400hz tractrix horn does not come close to a good constant directivity horn
like the cheap $35 SEOS in regards to naturalness and hf sweetness.
I was so exited to have a tractrix horn after the rave
reports and the work of people like Bruce Edgar who reignited the fire for the almost forgotten
horn contour. A few years ago Zilch tried to tell us horn lovers that there is even a
better way to use a compression driver, but who wants to listen if he thinks he already
has the state of the art mid horn. When I finally heard a Radian 1 inch driver on a good
CD horn I was no longer thinking I had reached the pinnacle of mid frequency reproduction
with the tractrix contour. It's not only about beaming that is disadvantageous in a
big tractrix horn. It's something that makes it less natural sounding compared to a
good CD horn. The lowest frequency for a good CD horn is about 1000hz according to
the late Zilch and some others. For frequencies from let's say 200hz on up to this 1khz
there is a way cheaper compression driver and one that is stronger in this range.
It is the Klipsch K55/Atlas PD5V. The diaphragm can make 1mm excursion. The WE555
is in actually the same driver with a field coil and an aluminum diaphragm and it was used
on the A16 below 100hz!!!
If one likes to use a compression driver for duty below 500hz that would be the current
best choice except for the boutique drivers like Goto, Ale or YL which are out of most peoples
budget. I really aprechiate the works of people like Bruce Edgar and JMLC but time goes on
and better horn contours are being discovered. That's life.
Klaus
Just a little to thin on the bottom and a lousy pattern control from about 2500hz on up.
My 400hz tractrix horn does not come close to a good constant directivity horn
like the cheap $35 SEOS in regards to naturalness and hf sweetness.
I was so exited to have a tractrix horn after the rave
reports and the work of people like Bruce Edgar who reignited the fire for the almost forgotten
horn contour. A few years ago Zilch tried to tell us horn lovers that there is even a
better way to use a compression driver, but who wants to listen if he thinks he already
has the state of the art mid horn. When I finally heard a Radian 1 inch driver on a good
CD horn I was no longer thinking I had reached the pinnacle of mid frequency reproduction
with the tractrix contour. It's not only about beaming that is disadvantageous in a
big tractrix horn. It's something that makes it less natural sounding compared to a
good CD horn. The lowest frequency for a good CD horn is about 1000hz according to
the late Zilch and some others. For frequencies from let's say 200hz on up to this 1khz
there is a way cheaper compression driver and one that is stronger in this range.
It is the Klipsch K55/Atlas PD5V. The diaphragm can make 1mm excursion. The WE555
is in actually the same driver with a field coil and an aluminum diaphragm and it was used
on the A16 below 100hz!!!
If one likes to use a compression driver for duty below 500hz that would be the current
best choice except for the boutique drivers like Goto, Ale or YL which are out of most peoples
budget. I really aprechiate the works of people like Bruce Edgar and JMLC but time goes on
and better horn contours are being discovered. That's life.
Klaus
The PD5V and the WE555 do not seem identical to me.
I think the only thing that is truly identical is the diameter of the VC!
Beyond that, I think the similarities diverge significantly. Otoh, I have heard the PD5V sound very nice in the midrange, but it won't cover the range that the 555 will, afaik.
_-_-
I think the only thing that is truly identical is the diameter of the VC!
Beyond that, I think the similarities diverge significantly. Otoh, I have heard the PD5V sound very nice in the midrange, but it won't cover the range that the 555 will, afaik.
_-_-
Actually they are identical. You can swap the diaphragm from one driver to
the other. As I said before, I suggested in the German analog forum to play
with that driver till it does what a W555 can do and Dietmar an experienced
horn fellow who is retired had done exactly that. A bigger back chamber and
a litte change of the compression ratio got him this output on his Sato horn:
Distortion D2 0,4%, D3 0,04% !!!
Attachments
Last edited:
Now that's a driver who is really fit to cover the lower region. Much
more so than the JA6681b.
A system with JA6681b on an Azura can not achieve the performance
of a Sato with K55 and a decent 1" driver like Emilar, Radian or TAD on a CD horn.
Non critical crossover points and a pretty uniform radiation pattern all the way up,
can not be beat sonically by any big tractrix horn no matter how hard anyone tries.
Klaus
more so than the JA6681b.
A system with JA6681b on an Azura can not achieve the performance
of a Sato with K55 and a decent 1" driver like Emilar, Radian or TAD on a CD horn.
Non critical crossover points and a pretty uniform radiation pattern all the way up,
can not be beat sonically by any big tractrix horn no matter how hard anyone tries.
Klaus
Last edited:
Radian: Here is a guy talking about the Klipsch K55, and possible replacements. Seem like he thinks the K55 is not good enough below 500Hz, and that a 2" replacement CD is needed.
Klipsch loudspeaker corner
"1 Inch or 2 Inch drivers ?
Should I spend the extra money for a 2 Inch throat driver and horn? They say that a 2 inch horn is supposed to be better. The truth is that this is quite true, but the difference is hard to measure at normal listening levels. Look at the intermodulation distortion plots of a 1 inch driver on a 1-inch horn versus a 2 inch driver on the 2 inch horn. The small "spikes" on the bottom line are the distortion products. This illustrates how even a high quality 1-inch driver will overload when used on a Klipschorn at moderately high levels. There is no quality 1-inch driver that will handle 400 Hz without distorting the sound. These drivers all have light metal diaphragms designed to go up high in frequency. They won't go down like the phenolic diaphragm in the stock K55 will. The only drivers that will are 2 Inch drivers! The Klipschorn squawker driver needs to handle the 450 Hz tone because the woofer won't go up that high. The Belle Klipsch and LaScala can be crossed over at 500 Hz. The 450 Hz tone would go to the woofer, so the Belle and LaScala don't have this problem to such a degree.
The real reason to move to a 2-inch horn is to allow a better driver than the stock K55 to be used. This is why a 2-inch horn is being suggested, not to extend the lower limit of the midrange! There is simply no 1-inch driver that will do! The B&C DCM50 driver is being offered for 2-inch horns. It was designed for the 400 Hz crossover required by the Khorn."
Klipsch loudspeaker corner
"1 Inch or 2 Inch drivers ?
Should I spend the extra money for a 2 Inch throat driver and horn? They say that a 2 inch horn is supposed to be better. The truth is that this is quite true, but the difference is hard to measure at normal listening levels. Look at the intermodulation distortion plots of a 1 inch driver on a 1-inch horn versus a 2 inch driver on the 2 inch horn. The small "spikes" on the bottom line are the distortion products. This illustrates how even a high quality 1-inch driver will overload when used on a Klipschorn at moderately high levels. There is no quality 1-inch driver that will handle 400 Hz without distorting the sound. These drivers all have light metal diaphragms designed to go up high in frequency. They won't go down like the phenolic diaphragm in the stock K55 will. The only drivers that will are 2 Inch drivers! The Klipschorn squawker driver needs to handle the 450 Hz tone because the woofer won't go up that high. The Belle Klipsch and LaScala can be crossed over at 500 Hz. The 450 Hz tone would go to the woofer, so the Belle and LaScala don't have this problem to such a degree.
The real reason to move to a 2-inch horn is to allow a better driver than the stock K55 to be used. This is why a 2-inch horn is being suggested, not to extend the lower limit of the midrange! There is simply no 1-inch driver that will do! The B&C DCM50 driver is being offered for 2-inch horns. It was designed for the 400 Hz crossover required by the Khorn."
Last edited: