My blunt take-home message is the following:
IF you want a low crossover point of approx. 500-600Hz, then you should not expect to be able to skimp on either the driver or the horn. The horn will have to be large (physics!), and likely expensive, and only few "old school" (mostly 2"-exit) drivers will work well.
IF you are OK with a higher crossover point of approx. 800-900Hz, then there are more options that will get you there with good quality, including smaller (and less expensive) horns and a wider selection of drivers (including many 1.4/1.5" and some 1" variants)
IF you want a low crossover point of approx. 500-600Hz, then you should not expect to be able to skimp on either the driver or the horn. The horn will have to be large (physics!), and likely expensive, and only few "old school" (mostly 2"-exit) drivers will work well.
IF you are OK with a higher crossover point of approx. 800-900Hz, then there are more options that will get you there with good quality, including smaller (and less expensive) horns and a wider selection of drivers (including many 1.4/1.5" and some 1" variants)
It is quite hard to help you as you mix up a lot of things to many wrong conclusions.
If you intend a "beamy" horn then you should consider the Iwata:
http://www.alg-audiodesign.com/portfolio-items/iwata-2/
A Th4001 simply without fins and leave the profile as is? This does not work as intended. Also be aware that these fin horns have a very broad dispersion and this cause problems in a normal acoustically untreated listening environment.
Where did you get this from? Why ideal?
Weltersys shows you here there is not a problem with (high) directivity --it might even be too low, depending of the horn (which btw would make placing the 416 in a small horn a plus).
I have used them up to 900 Hz and if I had the horn and driver for it, I would use them only up to, say, 300 Hz. My opinion is that the horn/compression driver will be the limiting factor, not the 416, and that there is not something magical occurring when cutting them at 500 Hz.
Because you are the only one that can tell what you like in your particular environment, why don't you give it a go and try those 425s? They are great horns, and you might like them. If you don't you will have gained experience and this might give you a hint about what to look for the next time you try.
Pretty complete description of room here, post 219
https://www.diyaudio.com/community/...0-or-tad-th-4001-clones-makers.375215/page-11
Except that Pierre's screen is like ~ 95" compared to my 65" TV, I'd expect the triangle would be like his; see posts 15266 https://www.diyaudio.com/community/threads/beyond-the-ariel.100392/page-764
And i could be also be 11 ft from the speaker, or closer if better.
Last edited:
Yes, I've seen used JBL2450J drivers on ebay and affordably priced. But how likely would they need repair or would be very difficult to "realign"-especially when installing $$$ Be diaphragms?
This is troubling as it's the ES450 with this midrange driver https://bcspeakers.com/en/products/hf-driver/archive/2/8/DCM50 which Troy proposes to use with the Altec 416s. Question: A pair of ES290 would strain my budget bad enough for me to want to make the trip to Troy's to hear them, but which I cannot manage. https://josephcrowe.com/products/es-290-biradial-wood-horn One option might be to have Athos buy the plans to build it more affordably. https://josephcrowe.com/products/3d-cad-plans-for-es-290-biradial-horn-horn-no-1670
But I would have to check with Troy to ensure that the Altec cabinets are big enough to safely support the ES290. If not, how would the high crossover slope (?) impact sound quality if I went with the ES450?
Btw, speaking of the DCM50, what, if any, experience does anyone have with it? Both Bappe and Superlian https://www.diyaudio.com/community/threads/best-compression-drivers-today-2022.382609/
page-70#post-7365476 post 1381 said it can be a superb choice but not for 4KHz. However, is that range horn speciific? I think both of them were using the DCM50 in AH300 horns. But what about in the ES450, where I think Troy would be crossing it with the Fostex T90A tweeter at ~ 8kHz? What may not be right here?
Alternately, to opt for the JBL2450J Be drivers, I would then have to approach two forum members to do the build. But for those drivers would the ES290 be an even stronger candidate?
Last edited:
You need to have the diaphragms installed by someone with the tools and experience to align it properly in any case, regardless of whether the drivers are bought new or used.
Other than that, the Nd magnet of the 2450 does not suffer from demagnetization, and the driver is pretty robust all round.
The Altec 416-8B maintains ultra low intermodulation distortion within the 50Hz-400Hz region. We see a very linear frequency response up to the mechanical breakup of the diaphragm starting at 1.8kHz. In an ideal use case scenario, the woofer should be low pass filtered at 500Hz, however I could envision this driver doing well up to 1.8kHz if a steep filter is implemented, assuming that the driver was used at moderate listening levels.
https://josephcrowe.com/blogs/news/altec-416-8b-in-100l-sealed
Regarding 500Hz, am I confusing "ideal" crossover point with something else?
Sorry, my ignorance. I thought Fc was crossover frequency.
As I said in post 222, even I can see from what Weltersys explained that this is good news about the 416s. And presumably so even if I use them in those 3 cu ft sealed cabinets.
I'll next have to see if Troy or who else in North America would be up for doing that. But please reply to my other questions.
But if for any reason Troy says I'd have to go with the ES450, based on what tmuikku said on the last page, would the ES450 still produce a "You are There" event almost as robustly as the ES290?
Whoa! Even though tmuikku says that You are There is also generated by the right sized listening triangle and minimizing of first reflections, is not the horn's Directivity Index the primary factor?
Here's the ES290
https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0...BMS_4591-8_off-axis3_480x480.png?v=1649504045
And the ES450
https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0...ot_2023-10-14_170306_480x480.png?v=1697317415
Apparently, the ES290 will yield substantially more directivity than the ES450.
And due to the ES290 rolled back profile, would I not have to treat the room as much as I would have to with the TH4001?
I'm probably game for the ES290 if Troy approves it for the Altec 416s and if he or someone here would approve of the Athos block milled version.
The ES450 and ES290 are very similar horns in terms of their design (including roll-back), directivity control, and "you are there"-ness ;-)
The only significant difference is the cut-off frequency, which is indicated by the name itself.
So, my recommendation is
ES450 > cross at 800-900Hz
ES290 > cross at 500-600Hz
That's all there is to it, really.
The only significant difference is the cut-off frequency, which is indicated by the name itself.
So, my recommendation is
ES450 > cross at 800-900Hz
ES290 > cross at 500-600Hz
That's all there is to it, really.
This implies that you intend to take what you get in vertical directivity. Normally you'd know what you need and learn where each horn meets that, since there you might cross.
And probably a wider sound stage from the ES290, which Pierre says he frequently enjoys from the 4001.
Last edited:
Hi, I have not heard any of these devices, but can relate to description in post 15266. I'll speculate the sound he describes can happen with almost any speakers, you don't have to know or desire and obses any of these brands and makes and models, or copy exact crossover and box implementations, room dimensions and feets and milliseconds, these are details one can easily get lost in. I read that what he describes is fine speakers positioned suitably, and the brands and models are details he writes as they are important to hifi people conscious minds, hifi talk, but the auditory system that makes the perception doesn't care and it's irrelevant info, don't get fooled.
I speculate that any well implemented speaker in any reasonable room can make the perception happen, just make sure you have positioning right. And to get posituoning right it is not necessary to know any details of the system, just use perception, listening skill.
The effects he describes are in perception, so all you have to do is get your auditory system provide the perception to you. And this seems to happen when you get close enough to speakers (small enough listening triangle), so that early reflections attenuate and delay in relation to direct sound so that your brain locks in to the direct sound and turns the room sound into envelopment. It is quite easy to perceive, the distance where this happens, just move closer and further from your speakers staying equidistant to both to find it with any speakers in any room. Put mono noise playing and listen how big it sounds, eyes closed. When bamraib locks in it's quite smallnand focused, when brain doesn't its big hazy blob of sou d. If you don't find it, the distance where the sound gets into focus like this, move speakers closer together and farther from walls and try again. If you can't find it the speakers might ruin phase information bad enough the brain isn't fooled, even in very small listening triangle. The bigger the speakers, the nicer the room acoustics, the better the speaker directivity in relation to acoustics you might get bigger listening triangle, than with small speakers in worse room, and thats about it.
When you have this happening now the tuning actually starts, how to optimize envelopment, optimize for two listening spots and so on. What I'm saying that my system and room are very different than his and I get sound what he describes and beyond. While this could be my ignorance and not understanding his, and I'm not pushing anything to you, you can have any system you want, I just want to give perspective to things. Key to good sound is in listening skill, not in the equipment, although the equiment can make or break it.
The above describes my philosphy to the hobby, all I care is good sound and I want to understand what makes it, so brands and makes and models have become irrelevant to me, use what ever necessary but don't get stuck as it may prevent you having the goal (of ideal sound). Your goal migh be to get particular brands and makes and models instead of good sound, but thats fine as anyone are free to do as they wana. You could start with almost any devices that fit your budget,and play with them in your room, and if you fidn some issues that the system doesn't provide perception you want then upgrade something, aht you have identified as source for issue. I hope this post is not a downer but works as encouragement and helps you to get forward, as you seem bit of stuck currently.
Last edited:
I was only asking a comparative question about those two horns. I’m hardly opposed to acoustically treating the room, short of tearing out walls or floors. Thus, improved vertical directivity would ensure delivery of the horn’s maximal vertical off-axis response and/or what other performance parameters?
I wish there was some kind of handbook or online tutorial series for dummies describing the whys and hows of acoustical room treatment.
Last edited:
Except that earlier on Troy said that he aims to optimize his horns and crossovers for greater sound stage depth than width. So would not that mean delivery of a more They are Here sound?
And might not this horn deliver more of a You are There sound?
https://audiohorn.net/next-gen-bi-radial-horn/
I just asked Nicolas Badey for a waterfall plot.
The ceiling reflection point might often be the primary later source but you still generally have different room power. If you are going to use a radial profile based on loading, you should keep in mind that the sound can be affected by unrelated issues that should be measured and understood if you wish to draw conclusions.Your question suggests you haven't seen the measured beamwidths?
All of these horns are pretty directional (although they differ in terms of how controlled/constant the directivity is with frequency). So they all tend to give a "you are there" kind of effect.
Speakers for "they are here" use direct-radiatong dome mids and tweeters, typically, or even more so if they're omnidirectional (like, e.g., MBL)
Both types of speakers can have both sounds: too big listening trignle gives "they are here" and small enough gives "you are there". And if one puts listening position to suitable distance, where perception changes, leaning back gives one and leaning forward the other.
What is the distance of this transition depends on both room acoustics and system directivity, and is found just by listening where sound perceptually changes between the two. I speculate that the lower DI system and normal rooms have it closer, so smaller listening triangle, while highDI system and acoustically better situation can have it further. It's just matter of at which distance brain picks on to the direct sound.
What is the distance of this transition depends on both room acoustics and system directivity, and is found just by listening where sound perceptually changes between the two. I speculate that the lower DI system and normal rooms have it closer, so smaller listening triangle, while highDI system and acoustically better situation can have it further. It's just matter of at which distance brain picks on to the direct sound.
Last edited: