Many thanks! I'll redownload and try this new file. I'll start off by just printing two petals - just to see how well they come together.
So, now what about the original ATH460G2, which I have ready for some time but haven't released it yet? 🙂
But it's a bit different overall.
But it's a bit different overall.
I'll also try this out, as soon as the my new filament arrives. I would appreciate some advice on infill and wall thickness especially for the throat part.
@heijnsva - if it's of any value, I did 4 layers of wall and 25% infill on the throat and it came out very strong/stiff. Not sure why anyone would need it even more dense than that. On the petals, I did 3 layers for walls and 15% infill, and again, those came out really stiff. I can't remember, but I believe I used either Line or Rectilinear infill pattern.
Hmm, that would take forever to print on my printer. 2 walls no infill takes 3 hours for one petal. Maybe I'm impatient, or I need to tweak the printer setting a bit.
The g2 waveguide have exchangeable throats whereas the 460 non g2 is fixed and designed for the peerless DFM-2535R00-08 driver.
Yes, and it's in fact very very close to the A460G2 + STD-3 (A520G2 + STD-3 measured here, which is also virtually the same). It was reoptimized for that particular throat diameter and opening angle, releasing all other constraints, but it came out very similar (which only illustrates how good G2 already is 🙂). It's just a tiny bit smoother, perhaps, and a bit less narrowing towards HF. If someone already has the A460G2, there's very little to be gained, but it should be better (for that driver).
BTW, the DI of the A460 is basically at tilted line between 500 Hz and 15 kHz. Hardly this can be any better.
BTW, the DI of the A460 is basically at tilted line between 500 Hz and 15 kHz. Hardly this can be any better.
Last edited:
I tend to not comment on something I have no strong opinion about, and can imagine various settings leading to perfectly usable results, it can depend on the filament used, but typically one wants to minimize the printing time. So in the end I think it's all about what you find appropriate. Modern slicers allow to reinforce some chosen regions (around bolt holes, flanges, etc.) with parameter modifiers, etc. Do it how you feel it's right 🙂
I see it's not always a feasible option, but a lot can be gained using a bigger nozzle. I use 0.6mm and would not go back for the larger pieces. There's just no good reason, it's all better with the larger one (IMO) - you basically get stronger prints and faster.
But I still use an older printer (modified Ender 6), not the most recent hyper-fast ones. Maybe it's different with those, there can be different limits.
But I still use an older printer (modified Ender 6), not the most recent hyper-fast ones. Maybe it's different with those, there can be different limits.
Last edited:
Here's a comparison between A460G2/STD-3 and A460.
(It's including the conical exit section of a DFM-2535; still far from the whole reality but better than nothing.)
(It's including the conical exit section of a DFM-2535; still far from the whole reality but better than nothing.)
520g2 with 36EXT1 - LaVoce DF10.171K
normalized to 0db @ 1khz. 5ms gating, 1m mic distance. 0 to 60 degrees in increments of 2 to 3 degrees each. 1/24 smoothing
filter:
200hz LR4 (for protection)
eq:
q:2.6 g:-2.7 @542hz
q:3.1 g:3.2 @734hz
q:3.4 g:-1.5 @1065hz
q:1 g:-3 @3195hz
q:1 g:-2.2 @ 7716hz
I somehow misunderstood what you wanted and shared a different plot with you, I have just found out 🙂 I have the 30ppi reticulated foam now and I will be testing with it.
Meanwhile I have also created a file for making this out of wood via cnc. I put it alltogether as one and then cut it into two horizontal slices. The throat will be mjf printed (I want to be able to change the adapters) but the rest will be walnut wood. The cnc can dive 140mm so the wooden horn will be in just two parts. I am getting solid walnut in 50mm and I will laminate them first and then carve them via cnc.
Last edited:
It's still not what is typically meant by "normalized polars". 🙂
Here's an example provided by @Dkalsi:
These are the raw (actual) polars, as measured:
And this is the same data normalized, i.e. all the curves are shown relative to a chosen one (@10 deg here):
(Basically you subtract the reference curve from all the other.)
The normalized polars show what's -theoretically- possible if you EQed the reference curve perfectly flat.
The directivity and diffracions may be easier to see in the second graph sometimes.
Here's an example provided by @Dkalsi:
These are the raw (actual) polars, as measured:
And this is the same data normalized, i.e. all the curves are shown relative to a chosen one (@10 deg here):
(Basically you subtract the reference curve from all the other.)
The normalized polars show what's -theoretically- possible if you EQed the reference curve perfectly flat.
The directivity and diffracions may be easier to see in the second graph sometimes.
Last edited:
Well I don't think it's really necesary, it's obvious by now that there's absolutely no problem and it behaves as predicted.
- So, how does it sound? 🙂 It looks terrific.
You may want to check the distortion down low. It will be interesting to see how low you can really push that driver in such device.
- So, how does it sound? 🙂 It looks terrific.
You may want to check the distortion down low. It will be interesting to see how low you can really push that driver in such device.
Here's another idea. Let's make the waveguide itself as light as possible, here it's only 5 mm thin wall, possibly using something like PLA LW (foaming filament). The waveguide is then only pushed against the driver by the threaded rods, attached close to its center of mass. I actually find this pretty elegant.
Or like this -
Or like this -
Last edited:
