I played around with it with pink noise and a mic. Enough to see that the off-axis consistency at the low end was improved, it was readily apparent- lots of variance at the edge of the pattern at and below horn cutoff without, much less, with. If you'd like to give me odds, I'm good with that- how about a quad of the PiSpeakers waveguide against a pair of them (or something equally valuable, around $90)? My testing methods are rough but sufficient to do all but the most refined tweaking. They're combined with modeling and the end result is that I can validate when something's acting (largely) as I want. If I weren't such a slacker I'd get serious and do a "real" measurement rig....
Of course, we might be better served to let a third party examine the effect. It's similar to a big mouth roundover, but without the support/reinforcement below cutoff. Remember that the "low end" is around and above 1khz with this device. The absorbtion coefficients of open cell foam are quite high in this range, and really crush the interference pattern from the edge.
No, I think that you have it right. I was thinking more along the lines of the smaller "coaxial" (10") driver that I have played with. The horns are very small and the directivity of a 10" is pretty wide at 1-2 kHz. But in your examples its obvious that this can be made to work. Thanks for showing those.
Its good to see someone show polar maps that look like what I get. All I see around here are the heavily smoothed ones that obscure everything that you are trying to look at. Polar maps are the very best source of data that I know of, but only if they are not heavily smoothed (and axial normalized.)
Tom,
Actually Dave Gunness' update on the "Y throat" used in the MT4 system was not too bad for upper interference, but suffered from throat (air non-linearity) distortion, too much SPL from the multiple drivers combined in too small a throat made for hashy sound when driven much over the level a single driver could put out.
Your Acoustic Levitator looks a bit more exponential than conical in the patent, and the conical horn in the 7/4/89 does not exhibit the "Keele Break" (secondary angle) that the Maltese HF horn I showed you in '93 and your later SH horns have.
Of course, you had already read Keele's AES paper, but I like to think the Maltese Horn had at least a subliminal effect in your development of the Unity/Synergy:^).
Your Unity/Synergy development used scientific rigor, while the Maltese project was mostly manic "cowboy engineering".
It is interesting that Christian Heil's 11/10/92 much referenced patent does not show the cone drivers on the side of the HF horn, though the Vdosc cabinets had that feature.
Had you experimented with multiple drivers covering different frequency ranges on a single horn before 11/10/92 ?
Art
Attachments
***
But here's another case of a concentric driver with FR and polar data, smoothed at (I believe) 1/24 octave:
Since I can't edit my original post, I'd like to correct my error above here. The smoothing in that graph is (as it says on the picture) 1/48 octave.
That's exactly right and quite obvious. I see a debullcrap thread in my future and man is is gonna be good.
Why don't wee see more horn loaded ribbons in use? Are there no ribbons (in horn loaded configuration) that can work well down to about 1000 Hz?
Hi-Vi had some pro boxes with horn loaded ribbons, IIRC. Don't think they sold in the West.
Would like to hear them.
Would like to hear them.
i personally thought horn loading my RAAL ribbons sounded better then leaving them stock.
gave them a bit more punch and tactility when crossed at 2500hz.
they didnt measure as flat on-axis though, so maybe thats why people don't do it more often 😕
gave them a bit more punch and tactility when crossed at 2500hz.
they didnt measure as flat on-axis though, so maybe thats why people don't do it more often 😕
I know horn loading was done quite a bit with the old SA 8535 ribbon. I think Pevey speakers did this and maybe still does.
Stage Accompany
Couldn't be crossed particurlary low though.
The ribbons below should work lower in frequency, but I assume there are reasons why horn loading isn't much done with these kinds of drivers.
PAP-108
Transmission Audio Inc.
Stage Accompany
Couldn't be crossed particurlary low though.
The ribbons below should work lower in frequency, but I assume there are reasons why horn loading isn't much done with these kinds of drivers.
PAP-108
Transmission Audio Inc.
There are horn loaded ribbons that can work well from a sound quality standpoint down to about 1000 Hz, but the lesser displacement of a ribbon limits the output potential compared to compression drivers of a similar diaphragm area.
The lower they go to more expensive they are.
There are several Ribbon Drivers that may be operated below 1,000 Hz.
Here is one of the better ones.
Regards,
WHG
There are several Ribbon Drivers that may be operated below 1,000 Hz.
Here is one of the better ones.
Regards,
WHG
I noticed some time ago that we have a tendency to allow "buzzherrings" get thrown in when we discuss the pros/cons/beauty/types of "distortion" of horn speakers. The overwhelming clarity of very high efficiency speakers like Klipsch Heritage etc, damn near trumps their lack of being buzzherring compliant and we also tend to throw the word "non linear" in here when it has little bearing. I find it very interesting that we tend to gag at diffraction gnats while possibly swallowing distortion locusts. I see one thing in print but what I hear in my mind is "studies show we can't hear audible distortion" (-: And yet those Khorns sound so clean compared with all of these great shallow horn directivity matched speakers. Must be my imagination. I can however hear a degradation when I pull the foam off of the Peavey horns.
Yes, great shallow horns = less driver loading at low frequency = greater diaphragm motion = more intermodulation. Hold that thought in your mind, because you can't hear distortion after you have swallowed it.
After eating enough locusts, it just seems like something is missing without them.
Do diffraction gnats with round wings sound different from diffraction gnats with rectangular wings?
After eating enough locusts, it just seems like something is missing without them.
Do diffraction gnats with round wings sound different from diffraction gnats with rectangular wings?
🙂
The diffraction occurring around the head & ears is probably greater than that found in most good acoustic horns, particularly while the observer is dinning on crunchy insects and other flying critters. WHG
The diffraction occurring around the head & ears is probably greater than that found in most good acoustic horns, particularly while the observer is dinning on crunchy insects and other flying critters. WHG
Above two posts ^ Exactly. People are eating locusts everywhere these days, and getting used to it. Less bitter diaphragm movement in the next bottle steward l think I can tolerate a the slight woody notes of diffraction. Of course neither is also possible now.
Is that the same Mr. Iwata that makes the air brushes and paint spray guns? Because I used a borrowed Iwata basecoat gun to spray the metallic basecoat on the Hot Rod Lincoln (after screwing it up with my DeVilbiss gun that was really designed to shoot clear), and it made it pretty easy to shoot the metallic base coat. It was a $600 spray gun and I loved using it.
You do realize that to many people, unbearably harsh and ragged HF is what they sound like, right? "Clean" and "overwhelming clarity" are not a consensus perception of old Klipsch designs.
Good question. I really don't know, but suspect that Iwata is a fairly common name in Japan. Would be very interesting of it is the same man or family.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.