I built a pair of the Scanspeak Reference Monitors many years ago
using the 9900 Revalator tweeters.
The best multdriver speaker I have ever heard and no I have not heard them all. Clear as a bell and the music is all there but something is missing.
I tried single driver horns and prefer them, there just seems to be more emotion and dynamics with the horns.
I still have them and rarely play them but they are VERY good never the less.
Andrew
using the 9900 Revalator tweeters.
The best multdriver speaker I have ever heard and no I have not heard them all. Clear as a bell and the music is all there but something is missing.
I tried single driver horns and prefer them, there just seems to be more emotion and dynamics with the horns.
I still have them and rarely play them but they are VERY good never the less.
Andrew
Dave,
Those are nice homemade horns you made. What kind of tweets do you have mounted on top? Are they the Electrovoice tweeters? or JBLs?
I have a pair of Electrovoice tweets that have the same front bilateral horns as the ones you have, but I think the magnets are square. I haven't been able to find much information on these, so I was wondering if you could tell me something about them.
Thanks,
KT
Those are nice homemade horns you made. What kind of tweets do you have mounted on top? Are they the Electrovoice tweeters? or JBLs?
I have a pair of Electrovoice tweets that have the same front bilateral horns as the ones you have, but I think the magnets are square. I haven't been able to find much information on these, so I was wondering if you could tell me something about them.
Thanks,
KT
MJK said:
Thanks Martin!
That's what I was afraid of.
What I liked about the double horns was that the driver remains closer to ear level (verticaly), for an overall mouth size.
I was guessing that the acoustic impedance would be similar (top and bottom) if the mouths were the same distance from the floor and ceiling?
What problems/advantages does making a BLH rear firing create? (besides the obvious additional time delay and back wall interaction?
thanx!
robert
double driver in one horn
Hi!
Serenechaos: yes, this is what I am saying.
And yes again: I’m also still trying to decide what cabinets to try these drivers in first, and unfortunately the list of things I want to try keeps getting longer....
1. The factory design,
2. Isophon horn -modifyded
3. Replikon horn: the design methode not solved yet :-(
4. Using Martin King’s MathCad model to design something in Carfrae Little Big horn style
, but what is the most interested to me to using two drivers per cabinet to increase efficiency!?!
Would it be possible to use 2 driver in the factory recommended enclosure?
What is anyway the Fc of this horn: 50Hz???
Tyimo
Hi!
Serenechaos: yes, this is what I am saying.
And yes again: I’m also still trying to decide what cabinets to try these drivers in first, and unfortunately the list of things I want to try keeps getting longer....
1. The factory design,
2. Isophon horn -modifyded
3. Replikon horn: the design methode not solved yet :-(
4. Using Martin King’s MathCad model to design something in Carfrae Little Big horn style
, but what is the most interested to me to using two drivers per cabinet to increase efficiency!?!
Would it be possible to use 2 driver in the factory recommended enclosure?
What is anyway the Fc of this horn: 50Hz???
Tyimo
Dave,
We think alike, hopefully that means we are both on the right path. I also have a BLH design on paper for my Lowther DX series that I think will eventually be rear firing. I have one more bit of programming to do that will include the rear wall in the advanced MathCad worksheet. Front firing I am getting a calculated frequency response of 98 dB from 40 Hz up without too many ugly peaks and nulls. I think rear firing will allow me to go even lower and maintain that efficiency. No correction circuit of any kind requred.
uhh, yes, using the back wall as another multiplier on horn size is reason I was interested in doing it.
x-over what?
from the front wave to the back wave?
or using a woofer or tweeter instead of full range?
In this thread I was referring to using a FE166 ES-R full range.
I have built Nagaoka swans, (rear firing BLH w/ FE1108ES-IIs), which work great.
And I'm working on a front horn sub tuned to 15Hz, to x-over around 40-60 Hz.
x-over what?
from the front wave to the back wave?
or using a woofer or tweeter instead of full range?
In this thread I was referring to using a FE166 ES-R full range.
I have built Nagaoka swans, (rear firing BLH w/ FE1108ES-IIs), which work great.
And I'm working on a front horn sub tuned to 15Hz, to x-over around 40-60 Hz.
Re: double driver in one horn
I've keep having that same thought.
I just worry about comb filtering from two sources.
Maybe if they are angled together?
Or in a front AND back loaded design (as in the Lowther ISIS TP-1)
I run anything through Martin King’s MathCad model and adjust before building now.
I built a 8" driver ML TL, simple as dirt, with an F3 @ 27 Hz and ±1.5 dB from 30 Hz – 20 kHz.
Had to play around with parameters for a while, but it got to the point where even very small changes made noticable differences.
Made a believer out of me.
Thanx again Martin!!!
Tyimo said:
I've keep having that same thought.
I just worry about comb filtering from two sources.
Maybe if they are angled together?
Or in a front AND back loaded design (as in the Lowther ISIS TP-1)
I run anything through Martin King’s MathCad model and adjust before building now.
I built a 8" driver ML TL, simple as dirt, with an F3 @ 27 Hz and ±1.5 dB from 30 Hz – 20 kHz.
Had to play around with parameters for a while, but it got to the point where even very small changes made noticable differences.
Made a believer out of me.
Thanx again Martin!!!
.
You have to consider the benefits to alleviate the bothering. Mouth siize vs footprint come to mind. Also the fact that the best sonic "imaging" seems intolerant of speakers near walls.
The concept -is- quite simple, however quite complex to fabricate as well as er grasp. But the symmetric radiation does have benefits that are clearly audible. That's why you see it in theaters and large PA, W-bins, Klipsch Hartsfeild etc..
Concentric radiation is well establiched as a way to create believable depth of soundstage, better driver to horn integration and possibly minimizing room effect problems.. Offset, over under radiation will yeild a primary hornmouth with somewhat lower distortion (by the #'s). You have to consider what is being traded and for what.
A split hornmouth has increased distortion due to frictional losses and increased turbulence standing waves etc.. all audible. The split path can surmount these problems and increase radiation area for a given footprint. But the biggest benefit is the midbass punch and holographic imagery only true point source (across a wider bandwidth) can provide. The "point source effect" of a split horn simply adheres to the symmetric and logical wavefront propogation that things such as -line source-, planars, MTM and a vast array of other concepts have established.
I like the fact that the mouths "feel" each other. I like "feely", generally.
The effects of midrange and HF beaming that single drivers are prone to, become far more tolerable and in effect eliminated by concentric radiation, again across a wider bandwidth.
Where is it written that they have to? And why would that be an advantage? One could easily design a split horn up on a stand to vent between the floor and ceiling. But horns are usually heavy and intolerably large to facilitate this.
I heard the Kleinhhorns again and have to say that concentric radiation around the driver, forward is amazingly good. Depth of soundstage has to be heard....
TC
You have to consider the benefits to alleviate the bothering. Mouth siize vs footprint come to mind. Also the fact that the best sonic "imaging" seems intolerant of speakers near walls.
The concept -is- quite simple, however quite complex to fabricate as well as er grasp. But the symmetric radiation does have benefits that are clearly audible. That's why you see it in theaters and large PA, W-bins, Klipsch Hartsfeild etc..
Concentric radiation is well establiched as a way to create believable depth of soundstage, better driver to horn integration and possibly minimizing room effect problems.. Offset, over under radiation will yeild a primary hornmouth with somewhat lower distortion (by the #'s). You have to consider what is being traded and for what.
A split hornmouth has increased distortion due to frictional losses and increased turbulence standing waves etc.. all audible. The split path can surmount these problems and increase radiation area for a given footprint. But the biggest benefit is the midbass punch and holographic imagery only true point source (across a wider bandwidth) can provide. The "point source effect" of a split horn simply adheres to the symmetric and logical wavefront propogation that things such as -line source-, planars, MTM and a vast array of other concepts have established.
I like the fact that the mouths "feel" each other. I like "feely", generally.
The effects of midrange and HF beaming that single drivers are prone to, become far more tolerable and in effect eliminated by concentric radiation, again across a wider bandwidth.
Where is it written that they have to? And why would that be an advantage? One could easily design a split horn up on a stand to vent between the floor and ceiling. But horns are usually heavy and intolerably large to facilitate this.
I heard the Kleinhhorns again and have to say that concentric radiation around the driver, forward is amazingly good. Depth of soundstage has to be heard....
TC
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.