Void has become more popular in my country over the past 10 years, but the number of fixed installations is still limited. A local club is equipped with a combination of Air and Tri Motion tops and Nexus subs.
I've only heard the Stasys systems at festivals and I liked the lows better than the mids/highs.
Sure - I ment that a e.g. rod (going through walls) should tie both driver together canceling out a lot of vibration into the cabinet.
//
Barefoot connects 2 magnets of subwoofers and the low frequency decay is extremely quick (sonically), cabinet vibration is super low, but light weight sound overall. Could be a design choice?
Im thinking so...No pair there but you can find them...the 420 interest me because of its length, it should be the lowest loading horn in that series and in my collection...30inch axial lengths gotta count for something...the mouth size is about the size I'm wanting....beamwidth up top should be interesting since Ive been ok with smaller polars already
It is highly recommended to buy a sheet of 30 ppi foam and cut out a piece in the shape of the last 2 cm of the throat (using heated metal wire). The foam piece should be about 1 mm bigger than the slot area, just thick enough to stick inside the slot without being squeezed. Then measure and listen. Depending on the results you may reduce or increase the length.
I have found this works wonders with my diffraction horns. To say it makes a night and day difference would be an understatement. This trick, ironically popularized by Dr. Geddes, is imo more effective at taming diffraction horns than waveguides.
I have found this works wonders with my diffraction horns. To say it makes a night and day difference would be an understatement. This trick, ironically popularized by Dr. Geddes, is imo more effective at taming diffraction horns than waveguides.
In the polar plots that the vertical pattern starts out with roughly the same directivity in the midrange, before narrowing in the upper ranges more than the horizontal
That's not what pattern flip is about.
Pattern flip is illustrated in the attached image depicting the beamwidth of typical 90° x 45° horns.
Below 2 kHz the vertical beamwidth is actually greater than the horizontal beamwidth. The vertical coverage pattern of the horn, which is supposed to be narrower than the horizontal coverage pattern, is now the broader coverage angle. In other words, the horizontal and vertical beamwidth have flipped with respect to which is greater and which is lesser.
Pattern flip is illustrated in the attached image depicting the beamwidth of typical 90° x 45° horns.
Below 2 kHz the vertical beamwidth is actually greater than the horizontal beamwidth. The vertical coverage pattern of the horn, which is supposed to be narrower than the horizontal coverage pattern, is now the broader coverage angle. In other words, the horizontal and vertical beamwidth have flipped with respect to which is greater and which is lesser.
Attachments
so the same effect, just the extent? essentially the plots stop where they would completely flip. depends if you think power response matters I guess...
I've owned ev hp640 and hp940, then the hr940.
Hp640 has so many reflections, i wouldn't use it for reproduction.
Now for a band pa, absolutely !!!!!!!
Hp640 has so many reflections, i wouldn't use it for reproduction.
Now for a band pa, absolutely !!!!!!!
However, I was wrong about the type of horn. Camplo has bought HP420s instead of HP4020s.
Pattern flip of the HP420 is apparent at 1700 Hz. Below that, polars remain close to each other, so the flip isn't very disruptive.
Pattern flip of the HP420 is apparent at 1700 Hz. Below that, polars remain close to each other, so the flip isn't very disruptive.
Attachments
Last edited:
It's unlikely that the power response matters much below 500 Hz (see attachment).
True, I don't use oldskool diffraction horns anymore and would only consider modern "smooth diffraction horns", like the 18Sound XR horns for hi-fi.
Attachments
I was once interested in the XR1496. Have you been able to listen to one ? Does it have the same non-horn-like sound as a XT1464 for instance ?
Regards
Charles
Regards
Charles
Thanks !
I guess the one pictured is the 60x50 version because there is no diffraction slot visible. But there is someting strange with the sonograms: The LF range of the measurements look logical (vertical radiation narrower than horizontal). But I have the feeling that the waveguide was turned by 90 degrees on the 90x60 version. It looks as if its vertical radiation was broader than the horizontal radiation at HF. Doesn't it ?
Regards
Charles
I guess the one pictured is the 60x50 version because there is no diffraction slot visible. But there is someting strange with the sonograms: The LF range of the measurements look logical (vertical radiation narrower than horizontal). But I have the feeling that the waveguide was turned by 90 degrees on the 90x60 version. It looks as if its vertical radiation was broader than the horizontal radiation at HF. Doesn't it ?
Regards
Charles
I had a pair of JTR 3TX for while, which used either the XR1496 and XR1464.
I got both horns for interchangeable patterns, and found both to be nice without issues.
This was as the time i was doing more PA work, and was also using the PM90/60 boxes with the HF-950 horn and XT1464.
All 4 of those horns worked fine imo...if that helps you gauge the value of my opinion. Iow, maybe i'm not as choosy as most, i dunno....🙂 They just all sounded good to me.