thanks fluid. Purely theorical choice here for me as I do not know if a 12 db slope filter at 1300 hz with the ST260 would sound better ! I just can surmise or believe you guys that are experienced with such loudspeakers ! 🙂
...but I stay on what you said to me : because the 12" I have and the size of the ST260 (I assume the 280 is close enough) , around 800 hz will give the better crossover overlapp patern with this combo ! 🙂 . Hopping too 900 hz is close enough to 800 hz for good enough result (in mind less disto for the BMS4550 with 900 hz cut off over 800 hz...again purlly theorical thougth).
As the POC seems ok for you guys, next step is to print the horn, purchase the bms4550, and measure with the time gate my room is able to without close difraction with objects: 1.4 meter is the distance free of reflexion I have , i.e. mid distance between floor and ceilling.
As the POC seems ok for you guys, next step is to print the horn, purchase the bms4550, and measure with the time gate my room is able to without close difraction with objects: 1.4 meter is the distance free of reflexion I have , i.e. mid distance between floor and ceilling.
Last edited:
The more I look at the DI of the two horns off axis, the more I am lost. At 20° both look close from 900 hz to 17K hz. The bigger 280 horn is loosing more spl off axis (the beaming behavior) than the 260.
But I am not sure which will image best in a living-room for a classic hifi context..2.5m to 3 meters sweetspot, lef to rigth horns 2 meters appart. I assume the listening angle is something between 20 to 40°.
My basic understanding is the bigger horn loosing more spl off axis will exit less the cube surfaces of the room, so more spl direct sound equal to better clarity and soundstage as the room gives lower delayed sound in time and spl.
But the littlier 260 horn has a smmothest more'progressive control directivity behavior (it loose spl off axis less fastly, more progressivly).
Which one, please, exhibits the more desirable behavior for hifi when a horn is wanted for that looked for controlled directivity ? Is the little will have more lively top like a classic tweeter and the bigger a more mat dark sound because a beamier high end ? Is one exhibit a better soundstaging ?
Sorry to ask the basics, the members of the ath4 horns thread read perfectly the datasheet iterations, but I can not. I can not try both horns.
But I am not sure which will image best in a living-room for a classic hifi context..2.5m to 3 meters sweetspot, lef to rigth horns 2 meters appart. I assume the listening angle is something between 20 to 40°.
My basic understanding is the bigger horn loosing more spl off axis will exit less the cube surfaces of the room, so more spl direct sound equal to better clarity and soundstage as the room gives lower delayed sound in time and spl.
But the littlier 260 horn has a smmothest more'progressive control directivity behavior (it loose spl off axis less fastly, more progressivly).
Which one, please, exhibits the more desirable behavior for hifi when a horn is wanted for that looked for controlled directivity ? Is the little will have more lively top like a classic tweeter and the bigger a more mat dark sound because a beamier high end ? Is one exhibit a better soundstaging ?
Sorry to ask the basics, the members of the ath4 horns thread read perfectly the datasheet iterations, but I can not. I can not try both horns.
Reducing early reflections through directivity does certainly have an effect and for many people increases clarity and imaging precision. Not everyone likes that, some prefer the more diffuse and wider spread image. So to say what is better is also personal preference. Both of the options are more similar than different so will still exhibit the trait.
Both control the directivity but the ST260 is more consistent across all angles. Those questions are really hard to answer, the simple one is do you want the waveguide to load the driver to a lower frequency to make the driver have an easier time with a low crossover? Do you intend to listen in only one position or do you want the sound to be similar over a wider area? In this case one is a trade off for the other but either way I'm sure you will be happy that you have a good sounding waveguide.
Yup I know I split the hair in 4 ! manys thanks again for your patience and valuable answers 🙂.
what I am looking for is not hearing a difference if I move a little the head from rigth to left... But I know it mostly about the diffractions due to the furnitures too (living room).
what I am looking for is not hearing a difference if I move a little the head from rigth to left... But I know it mostly about the diffractions due to the furnitures too (living room).
Both should be fine in that respect as it is only with the much further off axis responses that they differ.
Why not use the FaitalPro HF108 (the non-R version)?
It's one of the best 1" drivers and better suited for low crossover points than the BMS.
Some have used it from 600 Hz without any problems, albeit with a bigger horn.
In addition, the ketone polymer diaphragm of the HF108 sounds more natural/easier on the ear compared to the polyester of the BMS.
On a personal note: I prefer to combine drivers of the same brand.
Last edited:
Hello Ro808,
thanks to chimming in and for your advice.
You mean you listened both ?
I gave up the idea of the HF108 for the BMS450 because I was thinking the former was not strong enough in the low end with the ST260 horn around 800/900 hz. In the mean time, I am more on the ST280E which has a better load for that lowish 900 hz planned.
I never understood the difference between the HF108 and HF108R but the lower Fs of the 108. Faital seems to say when they are asked the R version was intended for Studio/Hifi close listening i.e. not PA sonorisation. But like you I find the lower resonance more logical for that project. Tony Gee from Humblehomemadehifi chose the R version with a classic little 90°x90° horn but classic cut off around 1400 hz ! Ans as I said above, I am not confident from a theorical point of view for that high crossover cut-off in a home hifi target.
You say the Faital is sounding more natural than the BMS. Is it due only to the diag material or also lower THD ?
whatever the choice between the BMS4550 or the Faital HF108, I have to choose the one that allows the simplier filter work as it will be a passive filter design. But both seems very smooth on the datasheet. https://audioxpress.com/article/Tes...ession-drivers-coupled-with-LTH102-60-50-horn
Btw I was chatting with a friend and he has the idea of an open baffle or baffle less a la Aino Gradient bellow the horn. I assume it is a bad choice cause the radiation patern must be odd and an open mid is working better when it is biradial up to the trebles, so I gave up the idea (and the biquad needed reduce a lot the spl dynamic capabilities, the 12PR320 ir more 5 mm Xmax in real life ; also it will need below a third driver like a 18" !).
So are members of this thread agree for the Faital HF108 over the BMS4550 as a better sounding choice for a 900 hz cut-off with the ST280E horn ? Both are easily sourcable in Europe. I have though not found european printer that are in the price ball park of JLPPCB !
thanks to chimming in and for your advice.
You mean you listened both ?
I gave up the idea of the HF108 for the BMS450 because I was thinking the former was not strong enough in the low end with the ST260 horn around 800/900 hz. In the mean time, I am more on the ST280E which has a better load for that lowish 900 hz planned.
I never understood the difference between the HF108 and HF108R but the lower Fs of the 108. Faital seems to say when they are asked the R version was intended for Studio/Hifi close listening i.e. not PA sonorisation. But like you I find the lower resonance more logical for that project. Tony Gee from Humblehomemadehifi chose the R version with a classic little 90°x90° horn but classic cut off around 1400 hz ! Ans as I said above, I am not confident from a theorical point of view for that high crossover cut-off in a home hifi target.
You say the Faital is sounding more natural than the BMS. Is it due only to the diag material or also lower THD ?
whatever the choice between the BMS4550 or the Faital HF108, I have to choose the one that allows the simplier filter work as it will be a passive filter design. But both seems very smooth on the datasheet. https://audioxpress.com/article/Tes...ession-drivers-coupled-with-LTH102-60-50-horn
Btw I was chatting with a friend and he has the idea of an open baffle or baffle less a la Aino Gradient bellow the horn. I assume it is a bad choice cause the radiation patern must be odd and an open mid is working better when it is biradial up to the trebles, so I gave up the idea (and the biquad needed reduce a lot the spl dynamic capabilities, the 12PR320 ir more 5 mm Xmax in real life ; also it will need below a third driver like a 18" !).
So are members of this thread agree for the Faital HF108 over the BMS4550 as a better sounding choice for a 900 hz cut-off with the ST280E horn ? Both are easily sourcable in Europe. I have though not found european printer that are in the price ball park of JLPPCB !
The bigger horn is a significant factor, 600Hz for the Faital is no problem in a horn with an exponential throat like a Yuichi or similar. I have seen measurement's from docali of that driver in one of his prototype horns and it works great. But that is not the same as diyiggy is suggesting and in those waveguides the driver will struggle as it does not have enough x-max to get there on it's own, hence the suggestion of the BMS 4550 which can.
Just to muddy the water even further kimmo makes some interesting comments at the bottom of this post
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/neumann-kh150.33454/post-1364894
Readed the Kimmo's post. Seems he doesn't like those early reflexions that horns are inducing...
Out of topic: in home, people often empiracally prefer wide horn, 100 to 110 °. Knowing than a bafle is a plane horn of 180°. . I prefer the word of emissive surface though because if words has a sense: a plan is not an horn but if you are adept of wokism.the idea I surmise is the more it is wide open the less those early delayed reflexions occur.
If I follow that idea people also like very little width bafle for better imaging. But also very large bafle work too for good imaging.
Not an easy decision between the early reflexion of the horn walls and the next ones due to the large spread and the early reflexions of the room and furnitures. I surmise the size of the room should be a more ruled decision factor to choose the design. We understand more easily bass room modes than the highs.
I do not see as a hazard than we like sligthy climbing directivity index in our hifis at sweet spot for a good sound.
Question is: what sounds best between a good controllled directivity horn with the same DI than a classic design ? Also, how to make a climbing smooth DI above the shroeder frequency where the enthusiast diyer has a little more room to design cause below it is hard too measure ?
Sounds off topic but after all the thread began with what to choose betwen a 2 ways horned and a classic 3 ways (see Humblehomemadehifi andromeda nova and mezzo calapamos in above links)
Cheers
PS, I notice Genelec that has very open wave guide and not too deep are well rated in the studios world. And some seems too like the dynamic of compression drivers.
Out of topic: in home, people often empiracally prefer wide horn, 100 to 110 °. Knowing than a bafle is a plane horn of 180°. . I prefer the word of emissive surface though because if words has a sense: a plan is not an horn but if you are adept of wokism.the idea I surmise is the more it is wide open the less those early delayed reflexions occur.
If I follow that idea people also like very little width bafle for better imaging. But also very large bafle work too for good imaging.
Not an easy decision between the early reflexion of the horn walls and the next ones due to the large spread and the early reflexions of the room and furnitures. I surmise the size of the room should be a more ruled decision factor to choose the design. We understand more easily bass room modes than the highs.
I do not see as a hazard than we like sligthy climbing directivity index in our hifis at sweet spot for a good sound.
Question is: what sounds best between a good controllled directivity horn with the same DI than a classic design ? Also, how to make a climbing smooth DI above the shroeder frequency where the enthusiast diyer has a little more room to design cause below it is hard too measure ?
Sounds off topic but after all the thread began with what to choose betwen a 2 ways horned and a classic 3 ways (see Humblehomemadehifi andromeda nova and mezzo calapamos in above links)
Cheers
PS, I notice Genelec that has very open wave guide and not too deep are well rated in the studios world. And some seems too like the dynamic of compression drivers.
I think Kimmo was more concerned about the differences in radiation pattern between waveguide/horn and the woofer. Concerned it would have a difference in perception between High Frequencies and Low Frequencies. The high frequencies being overly dry and the low frequencies having a larger level of (early) reflections in comparison.
If you use a fitting crossover point between the horn and 12" driver to get a smooth DI, you largely avoid the trouble he talks about. No step in power response and the DI being more favorable.
What the specific DI curve should look like is personal though. But if it is smooth, the chances are that the speaker will sound more balanced.
If you use a fitting crossover point between the horn and 12" driver to get a smooth DI, you largely avoid the trouble he talks about. No step in power response and the DI being more favorable.
What the specific DI curve should look like is personal though. But if it is smooth, the chances are that the speaker will sound more balanced.
I agree but he says horn is the cause because the difference, the contrast between too much details and clarity introduced by the horn vis a vis of the direct woofer, i.e, indeed diferent beaming spread and not talking of the natural beaming of the climbing frequencies and that evil bafle step behavior yet....
What the best chance then, steep filter or more smooth 12 db slope ?
What the best chance then, steep filter or more smooth 12 db slope ?
The right horn/waveguide profile used in combination with the woofer beneath should be able to cure that problem.
Kimmo's nifty program Vituixcad should be able to predict the results you're after. Including what crossover works best. Though the horn will dictate some of it no doubt.
Kimmo's nifty program Vituixcad should be able to predict the results you're after. Including what crossover works best. Though the horn will dictate some of it no doubt.
Sure... For now I work with the frd and zma than @mbrennwa shared in his OSMC thread for the 12pr320 in 77 liters. I will show a filter I simulated for 900 hz. Because the break ups in the impedance it is easy to make a forgiven cut off till 600 hz and of course below. It is harder to make a 900 hz near cut off, and easier to cut off then after 1300/1500 hz because a climbing break up. The graphs I post later today will be more explicite.
Btw, having the two 12pr320, I should measure mines...but I have to seriously burning them in as they are new from the box. Not easy in a flat because the spl needed for that despite in can put them front to front to cancel the spl for a part.
Btw, having the two 12pr320, I should measure mines...but I have to seriously burning them in as they are new from the box. Not easy in a flat because the spl needed for that despite in can put them front to front to cancel the spl for a part.
here a filter sim, ignore the low end that was measured in box with the non final port size int the frd I get from the OSMC thread.
Sooner in the thread I posted a simple filter for illustration of low pass with a conventional mid driver. Here I try to do a 900 hz cut off. there is 12 dB roll off at 900 hz, -6 dB at 500 hz, and because the break up after 900 hz it migth perhaps work better at circa 1340 hz where it finally drops to hell !
I think it is over complicated, but I am a noob with filter -while electrical phase are not too bad in the low end till the Fs- and inspiration came from reading a proposal from @LineSource in this post for the start.
https://www.diyaudio.com/community/...its-reasonable-parameters.377014/post-6787858
Any thougths please ?
I know also @Zvu measured the 12PR320 in a gymnasium at 2 m heigth and worked with the ST260 with a higher 1200 hz circa cut-off ... if chimming in Zvu, any advices are welcome too 🙂 about what you find, liked or not. Did you like the blend with the ST260 & The 12" from Faital ?
Sooner in the thread I posted a simple filter for illustration of low pass with a conventional mid driver. Here I try to do a 900 hz cut off. there is 12 dB roll off at 900 hz, -6 dB at 500 hz, and because the break up after 900 hz it migth perhaps work better at circa 1340 hz where it finally drops to hell !
I think it is over complicated, but I am a noob with filter -while electrical phase are not too bad in the low end till the Fs- and inspiration came from reading a proposal from @LineSource in this post for the start.
https://www.diyaudio.com/community/...its-reasonable-parameters.377014/post-6787858
Any thougths please ?
I know also @Zvu measured the 12PR320 in a gymnasium at 2 m heigth and worked with the ST260 with a higher 1200 hz circa cut-off ... if chimming in Zvu, any advices are welcome too 🙂 about what you find, liked or not. Did you like the blend with the ST260 & The 12" from Faital ?
Attachments
Last edited:
Hello All.
I have been scratching my butt over the crossover frequency to a horn tweeter for years.
My first thought is to get horn sound distortions as far away from the mid frequencies as possible.
My second thought is to get the mid frequencies out of the bass driver. The relative long piston stroke of the woofer plays havoc with IMD in the midrange frequencies.
My ears are no more golden than the next person’s, turn up the amplitude more than just a little and speaker caused distortion is far worse than 90% of the amplifiers out there.
You can reduce speaker caused distortion by an order of magnitude by using a mid-range driver or keeping the amplitude below 80dB’s
Back to the crossover frequency and horn coverage angle
The crossover should be below the woofers’ cone break-up frequency and or piston beaming. Many people think of beaming as a coverage angle with +- 6dB of 45 degrees. That pretty much sets the crossover frequency at the onset of beaming, or 90 degrees. An issue that is often left out of this discussion is it is not just beaming that creeps in with higher crossover frequencies is beaming + lobing
Other people want to define beaming as a coverage angle of 100 or even 120 degrees. That means selecting a horn tweeter with a wider coverage angle and a lower crossover frequency.
Often left out is the actual diameter of the speaker piston. For example a 12 inch speaker actually has a piston or cone size closer to 10 inches. The calculations for angle of coverage should include the actual size of the piston, not the nominal 12 inch driver size. The actual beaming frequency is somewhat higher than you would think of for a 12 inch outside diameter driver.
A question for the readers here is:
What angle of coverage would you choose for your listening pleasure in your home listening room?
Thanks DT
I have been scratching my butt over the crossover frequency to a horn tweeter for years.
My first thought is to get horn sound distortions as far away from the mid frequencies as possible.
My second thought is to get the mid frequencies out of the bass driver. The relative long piston stroke of the woofer plays havoc with IMD in the midrange frequencies.
My ears are no more golden than the next person’s, turn up the amplitude more than just a little and speaker caused distortion is far worse than 90% of the amplifiers out there.
You can reduce speaker caused distortion by an order of magnitude by using a mid-range driver or keeping the amplitude below 80dB’s
Back to the crossover frequency and horn coverage angle
The crossover should be below the woofers’ cone break-up frequency and or piston beaming. Many people think of beaming as a coverage angle with +- 6dB of 45 degrees. That pretty much sets the crossover frequency at the onset of beaming, or 90 degrees. An issue that is often left out of this discussion is it is not just beaming that creeps in with higher crossover frequencies is beaming + lobing
Other people want to define beaming as a coverage angle of 100 or even 120 degrees. That means selecting a horn tweeter with a wider coverage angle and a lower crossover frequency.
Often left out is the actual diameter of the speaker piston. For example a 12 inch speaker actually has a piston or cone size closer to 10 inches. The calculations for angle of coverage should include the actual size of the piston, not the nominal 12 inch driver size. The actual beaming frequency is somewhat higher than you would think of for a 12 inch outside diameter driver.
A question for the readers here is:
What angle of coverage would you choose for your listening pleasure in your home listening room?
Thanks DT
Like wesayso said that isn't what he was referring to and mabat's waveguide's are pretty exemplary in that regard anyway.
I have highlighted it here in the graph of the KH150, it can be more pronounced than this if the directivity of the waveguide is held high and constant for as long as possible, at some point it has to drop, so there is a directivity drop which can go from high to low in a fairy small frequency band. If the DI was like the yellow line it would smooth out the step.
Do you like apples or oranges or both?
To create a smoothly climbing directivity either the size of the drivers need to increase or decrease smoothly or the waveguide needs to have a directivity that matches the woofers natural climb in directivity at the crossover frequency. This is not very easy to do with a big waveguide. You can smooth out the transition.
https://www.diyaudio.com/community/threads/vituixcad.307910/post-6513513
Diaphragm loading comes primarily from the driver itself rather than the horn. It is connected with it's compression ratio. The Yuichi is not necessrily in its element at 600Hz.
Except it actually makes a huge difference, neither are my own measurements but they illustrate the point, a few dB difference between 4K and 500Hz vs nearer 20dB.
HF108 ST260
HF108 on something that has a much higher radiation impedance to a lower frequency
I did not say it was, but it is about an octave above it's cutoff