@freddi: IIRC Cubo 18 Standard is tuned to roughly 50 Hz, Extended to 40 Hz according to that Z-plot.
My sim has S1 at roughly 555 cm2 and total axial length at 86 cm. If you add a 3rd segment with 25 cm length, between the driver and the horn mouth, you can adjust for mounting the driver with the magnet in the horn/ chamber. Also TH mode in HR can make things 1 - 2 dB smoother based on the T/S-parameters.
My sim has S1 at roughly 555 cm2 and total axial length at 86 cm. If you add a 3rd segment with 25 cm length, between the driver and the horn mouth, you can adjust for mounting the driver with the magnet in the horn/ chamber. Also TH mode in HR can make things 1 - 2 dB smoother based on the T/S-parameters.
+1 on the skrams. I've got two skhorns and they truly are pretty incredible.
And yeah, if you're paying the premium for euro drivers go the whole hog and get the best imo. The prices aren't competitive when compared to the local options.
And yeah, if you're paying the premium for euro drivers go the whole hog and get the best imo. The prices aren't competitive when compared to the local options.
I have had great results with the Keystones loaded with the B&C 18SW115 subwoofers, as well as a few other TH builds. A few benefits of tapped horns (and Paraflex) that I don't see mentioned here is excellent driver cooling compared to most BR designs. For long dance music events, this might be a huge advantage for you. We have run THs for 12+ hours and the SW115s always ran cool. I also like that we can get similar output with less amp power/amp channels over bass reflex. So +2 for TH & Paraflex designs.
However, Bass Reflex designs are simpler to build and perform well with less expensive drivers.... So +2 there as well.
If you are mixing and matching different subs/kicks/mains a lot, then I would say I prefer BR. TH's take a little extra time with the DSP to get time/phase alignments dialed in.
Overall, I prefer the sound of TH over BR. I have heard Paraflex a time or two, but I can't say I've had a TH/Paraflex side-by-side comparison or critical listening session.
A quick question for those who might have some knowledge here: I know that Tapped Horns don't "couple" the way a FLH does, is there any reason to think a Paraflex design would couple? My intuition says no, but I have never found an authoritative answer on this.
However, Bass Reflex designs are simpler to build and perform well with less expensive drivers.... So +2 there as well.
If you are mixing and matching different subs/kicks/mains a lot, then I would say I prefer BR. TH's take a little extra time with the DSP to get time/phase alignments dialed in.
Overall, I prefer the sound of TH over BR. I have heard Paraflex a time or two, but I can't say I've had a TH/Paraflex side-by-side comparison or critical listening session.
A quick question for those who might have some knowledge here: I know that Tapped Horns don't "couple" the way a FLH does, is there any reason to think a Paraflex design would couple? My intuition says no, but I have never found an authoritative answer on this.
All low frequency cabinet designs "couple" when multiple radiating surfaces are combined.
The directivity index (DI) varies with frequency and cabinet design.
The relation of upper frequency to low frequency increase in multiples are dependent on the array configuration, driver exit orientation relative to each other and the ground plane, and the resultant DI.
Since FLH used for portable use almost always have undersized mouths, the LF increase vs upper frequency increase may be greater than TH or Paraflex.
I don't have FB. When I searched "Scott Hinsons double 18," I see a FLH, not a BR enclosure. BP 4 life!
https://www.sbaudience.com/index.php/application/dual-18inch-horn-subwoofer/
Skram = BP6P.
Paraflex = BP6S that acts like a BP6P due to the 2 exits being right next to each other.
Cyclops = BP6S...too much wasted space. Reflectors remove volume and lower SPL. See jbell's SS15 (BP6S) thread.
Othorn = BP6S.
Devastator = BP6P.
Paraflex = BP6S that acts like a BP6P due to the 2 exits being right next to each other.
Cyclops = BP6S...too much wasted space. Reflectors remove volume and lower SPL. See jbell's SS15 (BP6S) thread.
Othorn = BP6S.
Devastator = BP6P.
Whatever you choose to call the SKRAM, shortening it's bass reflex port would raise its Fb by a few Hz, certainly measurable, and audible if listening to music with low notes with few overtones playing around Fb.
And the front "horn" would be shortened, affecting it's upper response.
Correct, eliminating that blue panel changes the enclosure from a BP6P to a BP6S Paraflex.
You'll have to go to the original Paraflex thread. I think 1 of the measurements lined up with a BP6P model instead of a BP6S model. After that, I want to say that's when DMB added the PH function(s) to HR.
I've never modeled a PH enclosure.
1. I'm rarely on my home laptop that has an updated version of HR.
2. TH's are so much easier to model and build. Remember, the simplest TH uses 7 pieces of wood just like a BR enclosure.
Let me retract that statement. You can do a 7 piece Paraflex too. The mouth switches to the opposite end of the enclosure.
Last edited:
I'm on my phone.
With the BP6 series function, can you change the position of the 2 mouths like the driver's position?
With the BP6 series function, can you change the position of the 2 mouths like the driver's position?
I'm thinking a straight flare PH might model the same as the CH or BP6 parallel functions in HR.
I just add wood as an L45 section to my existing folded boss wave cannon and create either type of an exit.
There’s nothing to see (hear) or really measure worth mentioning unless you drastically alter that area.
ill sim either in ch mode or PH mode and looksee
There’s nothing to see (hear) or really measure worth mentioning unless you drastically alter that area.
ill sim either in ch mode or PH mode and looksee
i should have redrawn that completely in a way that didn’t alter path length/tuning.
the little phase discontinuity in nontapped parallel qw pipes (seperated at the 3:1 odd harmonic interval) is unique? It doesn’t actually exist, but is just as tricky as offsetting a driver(1/3) in a standard qw pipe to encourage the same resonator lengths to overlapp without a hiccup ?
I really boogered this area up badly in some of my wooden(real) ‘paraflex’ designs with short wide high tuned resonators that didn’t compliment the low tuned section.
Last edited:
Yeah, path @ zero in ‘CH‘ and 0.1 cm (L45) in ‘PH’ are the same thing(as wood). The maths are slightly different so you get a little tiny skid mark at 3 x Fb of the low tuned section in ‘CH’ regardless I guess?
but it’s indicative of an issue that gets worse the further those resonators aren’t @ 3:1 . Mine would show up in the impedance measurent and phase was goobered in that area and everything sounded ‘weird’
Circlomenen used to talk about this but his descriptions didn’t make sense to me until I heard these things so I wasn’t so ignorant …
but it’s indicative of an issue that gets worse the further those resonators aren’t @ 3:1 . Mine would show up in the impedance measurent and phase was goobered in that area and everything sounded ‘weird’
Circlomenen used to talk about this but his descriptions didn’t make sense to me until I heard these things so I wasn’t so ignorant …
Last edited: