Dual drivers in 1 horn.

Status
This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.
The short answer: It is generally not a good idea to run two fullrange speakers in parallel. It crates uneven frequency responses.

The model you propose is probably not the best choice among the Monacor drivers, unless you already have them.
The reasons are lack of published T/S parameters (such as Vas and Qts), and a little troublesome frequency response.

SveinB.
 
Peter M. said:

It does not help even if the guy who made them is called Ed, and has a collection of firearms :D
It is still not a very good idea.

See attached graph. As you move off-axis you loose parts of the frequency range due to comb-filter effects.

SveinB
 

Attachments

  • double.gif
    double.gif
    45.1 KB · Views: 410
Right. Ed's a bright bloke, and I enjoy our occasional (lively) debates, but you can't beat the laws of physics. Lobing is going to occur. On occasion, you might get away with it. But I prefer not to risk it in the first place.

As noted, sadly, the data sheet for those Monacors is valueless, because it basically doesn't give any.
 
Svein / Scott - you should know better than to invoke "inviolate laws of nature", and mathematical modeling programs of any flavor in the same post as E'd name :hot:

BTW - ask him if he has a playlist of favorite demo tracks he'd be willing to share with you. :devilr:



Now, if one was to bipole load a single BLH with small FR driver, how would that model ? If so, then I've got CAD sketches for such a design concept that are carbon dated at least 5yr ago. :D
 
That was a nice touch, you've got to give him that. :)

But I'm still not convinced about the twin drivers on the front panel, run full range. Ted Jordan claims his units work like that, so YMMV I suppose. Personally, I'm leaving well alone until I see & hear concrete evidence that my understanding of physics is incorrect.

Excuse me. Bottle & a half of cabernet down, several waiting for me downstairs. HAPPY NEW YEAR TO ALL OF YOU GUYS! :cheers: :drink: :drunk:
 
Svein_B said:


It does not help even if the guy who made them is called Ed, and has a collection of firearms :D
It is still not a very good idea.

See attached graph. As you move off-axis you loose parts of the frequency range due to comb-filter effects.

SveinB


And I thought firearms was enough to convince the laws of physics ;)

Lowpass one driver, and you`ve got instant baffle step correction, and gets rid of the comb filtering problems(most of it).
 
I want to get into this thread because I have a similar question and am completely new to DIY at home. What is the consensus on letting one speaker run full range while having a woofer to augment the bass on the same baffle or cabinet? Would there be problems where the speakers are operating in the same range and would it be a better idea to use a two-way crossover instead of a low pass only on the woofer?

I ask because I read conflicting ideas, where people say not to run speakers in the same range, but then say that a lot of full range speakers need bass augmentation (maybe meaning an outboard sub instead of built-in).

Thanks for any help.

Tony
 
ronc said:
you can't beat the laws of physics\

Unless you change the laws.

ron

Are humans not fooling themselves in thinking an absolute and final understanding of "physics" / "nature" / "the universe" (whatever term you select), has already or will ever be achieved?

Only then will "the laws" not be subject to revision, minor or complete.


As to the double (fiber filled C-cup, would you say?) horn, it's my understanding that the enclosure is 2 separate cabinets sharing a single center dividing panel, and that both drivers are operating full range.

http://www.thehornshoppe.com/model2.html

I don't want to edit or misconstrue Ed's website or any forum post, but I believe he states the Model 2 sounds exactly like The Horns, just 3dB louder. Who volunteers to attend the next Hornfest with the test equipment to prove him wrong? Don't worry - by all accounts he hasn't shot anyone, on site, yet - but they do raise some pretty talented tracking dogs thereabouts.....

Ed, that's a joke, buddy.
 
We haven't heard about any shootings because there isn't any evidence left:

An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.


I haven't heard the model 2s, but in relation to physics, I will take Ed's word that these are 3db more sensitive and don't have a lot of comb filter problems. I think it is possible that this is a measurement that might be easy to make and prove, but difficult if even possible to hear. Of course, it could be that there is a somewhat "different" sound that many would like. I know of lots of speakers that "shouldn't" have sounded good that did something (albeit maybe not everything) very well.

For the record, it isn't something I would've done as an experiment unless I had a lot of materials, money and time on my hands and didn't care about the outcome except to test it. Too many variables that are "known" to try it for me. Much easier to build a different cabinet that has a better chance of not having problems for me.

Of course, YMMV. There is certainly an example with the Imperial speakers I have seen that appear to me to be similar to the BVRs. They are huge though.

Take care,
Robert
 
and don't have a lot of comb filter problems.

Thats subjective.
To me , if two different transducers are putting out the same higher frequency and are not focused, then comb fliter effect will occur. How much can be calculated or measured.
On a recent designed ganged ultrasonic scanning system (3.5 Mhz) the recieving transducers (4) showed the recieving signals on a single scope screen. There was noise galore, i adapted a phase alteration circuit to each transducer,tuned each to a same phase point (altered to the recieving transducers) and the noise was gone.

The unit can now scan a 4" path using 4-1" transducers using a single pulser/reciever/screen instead of a single 1" path. Scanning is now 4x faster.

I was told by one Hindu engineer that this could not work, but there you are.

Never believe everything you read in a text book.

ron
 
That's interesting Ron

I might not be understanding that correctly, but in terms of audio, could that be as simple a fix as adjusting the listening position and the "noise" created by lobing and filtering could simply not be audible? Or noticeable? Of course it is still there, but could it be that easy?

Take care,
Robert

*Note: My wife asked where I was when this picture was taken. I told her I was beside Ed when he lit the thing and I figured the safest spot was close to him. Therefore, I was somewhere way behind the camera when this shot was taken lol*
 
I might not be understanding that correctly, but in terms of audio, could that be as simple a fix as adjusting the listening position and the "noise" created by lobing and filtering could simply not be audible? Or noticeable? Of course it is still there, but could it be that easy?

as simple a fix as adjusting the listening position

As you move away from the transducers the comb filter effect becomes less and appears to come from more of a point. The flip side is if you are in the near (fresnel) zone and treat the two transducers as a single then it is less also. This is the base action of very tall line arrays in the near field. However you still cant beat the physics.

All i did was to adjust(ganged) the phase instead of the distance, however this only works at a specific frequency/distance. As the gage of the material changes the phase points have to be re-adjusted.

ron
 
Status
This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.