Not the best in terms of directivity - if you like the upper mids/highs spraying the walls, but close to my personal ideal.
Throat impedance looks particularly good.
Throat impedance looks particularly good.
Last edited:
I think most people do, as it gives the most neutral, natural and non-fatiguing rendering of the reproduced sound.
Depending on the room, listening distance etc. this horn should sound pretty good.
There is a gradual increase in directivity, but it doesn't turn into a laser beam.
There is a gradual increase in directivity, but it doesn't turn into a laser beam.
Last edited:
One interesting thing to be noted is that both the 2" and 1" have actually very similar power response slopes ("SP" curve in the graphs), the whole difference being "only" the absolute overall value of DI, the 2" being narrower, and also because it's bigger, better controlled across a wider frequency range. If I was to choose, I would opt for a 1.4" or even the 2" in this case, easily usable down to ~500 Hz.
don‘t know but i also didn‘t like the Fostex H400, the altec 811 and 511
the Altec H808 and the Altec 32B was good
and the best Horn \ driver combo i had at home was the Onken M500 driver and 500 wood Horn but also needs a tweeter …
I'm interested in the H808.
Measurements of the individual cells of a slightly modified remake (red=the mic dead-on center, driver used: Altec 806-G):
Last edited:
Last year I considered buying a pair of exactly this cnc-ed A480 for just a few €100, but I decided against it and I don't regret it.
On axis it measures quite good (with HF108):
Last edited:
That's certainly not representative of any single response, it must be heavily averaged. Not to mention there's even not a scale. It's hard to comprehend how can people still "rely" on such data when assessing performance.
Obviously, it's not about 'relying on a single plot'.
It's well known that Arai-like radial horns show flat on-axis response with decent drivers.
It's well known that Arai-like radial horns show flat on-axis response with decent drivers.
You're calling an "on axis" response something that is simply not, that was all my rebuke. Too technical and fascist, I guess.
But I will refrain further, I promise.
But I will refrain further, I promise.
-actually it might be. The averaging is likely the combined drivers result rather than an averaging of various axis’s of just the horn/compression driver. ..to be yet more “*technical“. 😉 Look to REW’s manual on “averaging”.
It’s also smoothed (which is yet another type of “averaging”), but it’s 1/24th.
*pedantic 😛 - that’s me on occasion.
It’s also smoothed (which is yet another type of “averaging”), but it’s 1/24th.
*pedantic 😛 - that’s me on occasion.
Last edited:
That's certainly not a raw on-axis response, not at 1/24th resolution. It actually looks like in-room data to me, averaged/smoothed (somehow) to get rid of all the peaks and dips.
I don't think I said anything about the specifics of that plot, other than referring to the relatively flat on-axis response (typical of Arai horns).
You did but that's beside the point anyway. Any system that is not a total junk can be EQed to produce a curve like this, when measured the "right" way. And because what you show is obviously a whole system, not only a horn, presumably there's also some EQ applied within the filters. Simply, such curve tells almost nothing about the qualities of the device, nor it is sensible to comment it with "On axis it measures quite good", because it is even not an on-axis response of the device within any reasonable resolution.
Anyone experienced with an own honest measurements immediately sees this, I believe.
- And I'm not saying anything against the horn - I haven't seen any decent data, so I just can't comment (way too common with these vintage devices, don't know why). I like the looks though.
Anyone experienced with an own honest measurements immediately sees this, I believe.
- And I'm not saying anything against the horn - I haven't seen any decent data, so I just can't comment (way too common with these vintage devices, don't know why). I like the looks though.
Last edited:
There is a wide range of possibility, but as someone that used to do measurements - it is more probable than not IMO that it is an on-axis (or nearly so ) response that’s been smoothed and has resolution/sample-loss on the low-end of the horn generating an additional smoothed effect that substantively extends up to perhaps 1.5-2khz.
Sure it might have some eq. but it doesn’t appear that way to me - really: it’s not that flat. Yes it looks smoothed, and yes you can’t see the scale. Still the basic response looks OK and doesn’t look “doctored”. It looks like it was just a quick phone snap-shot of an overall system response that presumably includes the horn in question. (I mean really, if we want to start questioning the result that’s the place to start: is it actually a system response from the horn in the preceding picture?)
BTW, in the context presented (and the yes the numerous questions that the pic. poses) the picture is not being offered as something to actually rely upon. Rather: yes it seems to be decent (perhaps even good) in that particular system (..investigate further if you are interested).
Sure it might have some eq. but it doesn’t appear that way to me - really: it’s not that flat. Yes it looks smoothed, and yes you can’t see the scale. Still the basic response looks OK and doesn’t look “doctored”. It looks like it was just a quick phone snap-shot of an overall system response that presumably includes the horn in question. (I mean really, if we want to start questioning the result that’s the place to start: is it actually a system response from the horn in the preceding picture?)
BTW, in the context presented (and the yes the numerous questions that the pic. poses) the picture is not being offered as something to actually rely upon. Rather: yes it seems to be decent (perhaps even good) in that particular system (..investigate further if you are interested).
Last edited:
