Why do you want wider dispersion (fair question).
The thing is that a good waveguide doesn't have a sound of it's own, so it isn't a goal unto itself. It comes down to such things as dispersion. Narrow dispersion when done well tends to clean things up due to reduced reflections.
The thing is that a good waveguide doesn't have a sound of it's own, so it isn't a goal unto itself. It comes down to such things as dispersion. Narrow dispersion when done well tends to clean things up due to reduced reflections.
Member
Joined 2009
Paid Member
Bigun, you were talking about 'loading' the bigger cone. Which is what a horn might do. But IMO you don't need (or necessarily want) significant loading. A shorter waveguide that simply guides or contains the big cone's radiation into a smaller angle will, as a result, concentrate that radiation - i.e. giving a higher SPL.
Provided the waveguide's angle is wider than the wizzer cone's beaming, the latter shouldn't be massively affected. Though wizzer cones tend to be a compromise, with significant diffraction, and so their unwanted diffraction will likely be affected by the waveguide. Potentially for the worse if directed forward or causing HOMs.
Provided the waveguide's angle is wider than the wizzer cone's beaming, the latter shouldn't be massively affected. Though wizzer cones tend to be a compromise, with significant diffraction, and so their unwanted diffraction will likely be affected by the waveguide. Potentially for the worse if directed forward or causing HOMs.
Last edited by a moderator:
Just adding another subjective comment, but related to the topic. It is regarding Troy Crowe’s horn no. 1548. In his YouTube clip of the horn paired with the AER BD3 driver that has a whizzer cone, he mentions “it projected quite a wide coverage and wasn’t beamy at all..”
Link to YouTube below. Scroll to 2:48.
Link to YouTube below. Scroll to 2:48.
Member
Joined 2009
Paid Member