Those are just random input numbers that should allow you to use the "Tapped Horn Wizard" under tools.
Make sure you selected TH. Nd, Od, or TH by clicking that box.
Make sure Vrc - Atc are set to 0.
Make sure you selected TH. Nd, Od, or TH by clicking that box.
Make sure Vrc - Atc are set to 0.
Question from the dark recesses of my mind and my blistered full of splinters fingers...
How does the woofer structure hanging in the mouth (Magnet in mouth) versus set into the mouth (magnet inside horn) affect performance aside from articulation and the obvious physical obstacle?
With the magnet in the mouth, woofer hanging:
Is it that the back of the cone radiates horizontally changing the
point at which the phase cancellation occurs further up the horn?
Or maybe it just makes the sound bounce around the mouth with more vigor?
Despite the rather small effect xmax will have on the volume of the mouth does it act as some sort of automatic horn adjustment network?
With the cone facing into the mouth:
Am I destroying the functionality of the mouth horn section by creating a "hole" in one wall? Is the directivity causing the tap to not work correctly? Could that be fixed by changing the angle of the driver and extending the mouth? Perhaps a chamber or flare to match up the cone to the tap?
I ask to understand this because in the normal Tapped horn configuration there seems to be more percieved low end at the cost of mid bass. In the inverted configuration with the driver magnet inside the first stage of the horn the whole box sounds much clearer and finer but LF seems to suffer. I really like the sound and articulation of the box I'm working on.
Thanks.
How does the woofer structure hanging in the mouth (Magnet in mouth) versus set into the mouth (magnet inside horn) affect performance aside from articulation and the obvious physical obstacle?
With the magnet in the mouth, woofer hanging:
Is it that the back of the cone radiates horizontally changing the
point at which the phase cancellation occurs further up the horn?
Or maybe it just makes the sound bounce around the mouth with more vigor?
Despite the rather small effect xmax will have on the volume of the mouth does it act as some sort of automatic horn adjustment network?
With the cone facing into the mouth:
Am I destroying the functionality of the mouth horn section by creating a "hole" in one wall? Is the directivity causing the tap to not work correctly? Could that be fixed by changing the angle of the driver and extending the mouth? Perhaps a chamber or flare to match up the cone to the tap?
I ask to understand this because in the normal Tapped horn configuration there seems to be more percieved low end at the cost of mid bass. In the inverted configuration with the driver magnet inside the first stage of the horn the whole box sounds much clearer and finer but LF seems to suffer. I really like the sound and articulation of the box I'm working on.
Thanks.
JSS said:
Not sure if JSS is still watching this, but did you ever draw up plans for this? Or even better - actually build? I have a pair of the W6's (asuming I can find the other one) and this looks pretty interesting. Not all that much bigger than Volvotreters single W6 design, although harder to build.
Well, except that it's now more like a $50 driver, unfortunately.
LOL Patrick
OK Screamer I am going to try my best
at explaining what is happening (also why I thought your design was a HLS and not a TH)
So normally you are taking a 1/4
wave length in the design of the horn sub instead of 1/2 wave in order to get a usable size. Have the rear of the driver exposed close to the mouth along with the throat being almost 1/4 wave length away causes the complete path length for the rear of the driver to be 1/2 wave length. So at a certain freq the rear of the driver becomes coupled to the horn. Which is when the horn is in phase which effectively doubles your Sd.
Hope that helps
Oh yeah also on the "sound"
a TH gives off. My take is like comparing a reflex cab to a normal horn. A horn is a long throw and therefore usually sounds dull in a small area where as a reflex sounds alive. A TH its like the best of both since the driver (least a portion) is right there. Plus a TH normally has a braoder freq. range than a normal horn.
OK Screamer I am going to try my best
at explaining what is happening (also why I thought your design was a HLS and not a TH)
So normally you are taking a 1/4
wave length in the design of the horn sub instead of 1/2 wave in order to get a usable size. Have the rear of the driver exposed close to the mouth along with the throat being almost 1/4 wave length away causes the complete path length for the rear of the driver to be 1/2 wave length. So at a certain freq the rear of the driver becomes coupled to the horn. Which is when the horn is in phase which effectively doubles your Sd.
Hope that helps
Oh yeah also on the "sound"
a TH gives off. My take is like comparing a reflex cab to a normal horn. A horn is a long throw and therefore usually sounds dull in a small area where as a reflex sounds alive. A TH its like the best of both since the driver (least a portion) is right there. Plus a TH normally has a braoder freq. range than a normal horn.
Patrick Bateman said:
Ooooh Kay. We'll do it the hard way..... My eyes are going blind from all the reading anyway.
I tore into both boxes and retested them both with the woofer in both positions.
Using the normal th115 position (exposed) as a reference:
The woofer installed with the cone facing into the mouth and the magnet inside the horn throat yields the following result in both of my cabinets:
Above 55hz or so there is a dramatic increase of up to 4 db to 80hz or so, a 1-2 db increase from 80 and up with a steeper slope from 110-125. The phase issue at about 115 is gone, the dip at around 95 is also gone. On the bad side, below 55 there is a 1 db drop to 40 and a faster rolloff below that.
The woofer in this position has no problem going up to 120hz or so to meet up with stock equipped BFM OT12's and it fixes the mid bass issue with those boxes...VERY nicely.
It seems any midbass peak your box has will be higher and wider q with the woofer firing into the mouth vs the TH115 magnet out position. In short, slightly better bass at the expense of mid bass and usable upper range= woofer hanging in mouth, slightly less bass with better mid bass and usable upper end = woofer cone firing INTO mouth. I suspect that the mouth is more critical when the woofer fires into it like an offset horn.
At least on these DIY boxes.
Cheers
FlipC said:
What ?!!!!Two octaves are about all most TH (that I've seen on this forum) are capable of.
Hi,
FYI again. Another friend of mine told he had purchased 2 x 12” Tanlon drivers inspired of the SQ outcome he had experienced from listening to: See my postings at tread page # 99-100).
He now wants to replace a TL with less SPL capability I designed years ago.
In order to aid him again, I designed a newer BP-TQWT with a much wider BW than what is shown in thread page 99: See picture 1(1)-2(2).
b
1(2)
FYI again. Another friend of mine told he had purchased 2 x 12” Tanlon drivers inspired of the SQ outcome he had experienced from listening to: See my postings at tread page # 99-100).
He now wants to replace a TL with less SPL capability I designed years ago.
In order to aid him again, I designed a newer BP-TQWT with a much wider BW than what is shown in thread page 99: See picture 1(1)-2(2).
b
1(2)
Attachments
bjorno said:
I thought the mouth should be at s4 rather than s5,
... at least that's what GM said
please correct any wrong ideas I might be having
zobsky said:
Oh really?! I posted at least one sim of a three octave TH for educational purposes quite awhile back, though it was with a theoretical driver that could be made with existing parts technology. The trade-off is it has to be as large as an ideal BLH of the same BW, so would be best realized as a stack of several smaller horns.
GM
zobsky said:
No, I said that S4 or S5 (driver(s) at S3 or S4) is where the terminus is that Hornresp's calculations are based on, so bjorno's HR design doesn't match his drawing since it doesn't (can't) take the additional reflection into consideration, ergo the response sim in theory isn't accurate. Maybe he's measured his earlier designs and will show us how the additional offset compares to the sims.
GM
Hi,
Yes GM is spot on, If followed, my pictures offers slightly more sophisticated result if built, i.e. I always start with MJK: s programs in this case by using: Offset Drivers in an Open Ended TL.
This program offers very good estimation and control of probable performance if the BP-TQWT (reverse Tapped Horn) is stuffed and/or has offset mouth, especially where the un-stuffed HR shows excess peaking.
Of course in reality the lower BW response shown in HR is/ should always be inherited.
See the resulting MJK simulation of the Tanlon BP-TQWT in picture 1(1).
b
1(1)
Attachments
GM said:
Okay, I stand corrected on that. Thanks.
But I'm guessing my initial point still stands, . that TH can strive to achieve the BW of conventional horns, and not the other way around.
GM said:
And you're right once again regarding the matter of the S's.
My typo.
That's what happens when one browses and replies to forums from a mobile phone.
Bjorno,bjorno said:
can you tell us about your practical observations regarding stuffed / unstuffed reverse TH, with regards tosound , specifically:
1. depth of bass
2. SPL
3. and perhaps most importantly in my case, excursion.
I haven't yet had a chance to play with stuffing in my reverse TH after sealing it up. My 6x 9 reverse TH did manage to be subjectively more efficient than my shiva in a 1.2 cuft. aperiodic test box, before it hit the limits of excursion.
Thanks
zobsky said:
You're welcome!
Don't know that I agree with this since it takes a large FLH on a par with the TH to load a full 3 octaves, but most FLHs are truncated, so rarely exceed 1.5 - 2 octaves of actual horn loading, though with the right driver its rising on axis response can be up to 5 octaves, something of course the TH can't do.
Bottom line, the TH is best suited for reproducing the bottom octaves and FLHs for the rest and if your room, budget allows, building several smaller ones with a low corner frequency will in theory sum 'close enough' to the sim of a large 3 octave one.
GM
a normal horn can be expected to perform well over a full decade of frequency, ~3.5octaves.
1khz to 16kHz is common and that is 4 octaves.
Mids can work from 300Hz to 3000Hz.
Upper bass similarly can do a decade of 40Hz to 400Hz.
If one has the space I suspect a bass horn can be built that will perform from 15Hz to 150Hz.
In all of the above examples the driver is chosen to suit the duty.
TH seems able to get 2octaves if carefully designed/built and as GM has said can maybe extend to 3octaves if the idealised parameters are chosen. Most TH seem only able to achieve <2octaves if the model graphs shown are true predictors of performance. But, do we really know which drivers are best suited to TH?
1khz to 16kHz is common and that is 4 octaves.
Mids can work from 300Hz to 3000Hz.
Upper bass similarly can do a decade of 40Hz to 400Hz.
If one has the space I suspect a bass horn can be built that will perform from 15Hz to 150Hz.
In all of the above examples the driver is chosen to suit the duty.
TH seems able to get 2octaves if carefully designed/built and as GM has said can maybe extend to 3octaves if the idealised parameters are chosen. Most TH seem only able to achieve <2octaves if the model graphs shown are true predictors of performance. But, do we really know which drivers are best suited to TH?
The first one probably works for three oktaves. In my observations, the dips above the second resonance Pint (look at excursion) flatten out in Reality quite good and even if there are minor interferences, those are way more subtile than in the sim.
More issues are to concern, though: How many bends does your horn have, how is the driver really behaving (some drivers do have a lot of cone-vibration due to not so stable cone-material), etc... If the compression ratio is ok, the mechanical build, too.. I´d give it a shot and test if it behaves well over 3 oktaves. It can work.
More issues are to concern, though: How many bends does your horn have, how is the driver really behaving (some drivers do have a lot of cone-vibration due to not so stable cone-material), etc... If the compression ratio is ok, the mechanical build, too.. I´d give it a shot and test if it behaves well over 3 oktaves. It can work.