I looked at using B&C 15NW100 x 4 for my build. BUT that is four per horn. Not sure how available it is to everyone as opposed to budget. They are only the best option for myself.
The horns I simulated at 45hz was about as low as I would go with the horn. I like full range speakers and 30hz would be great but not really needed for me. PLUS indoors they can play flat to about 30hz when ported at 45hz anyways. BUT size was the hurdle for me.
I cant fit a 50" wide horn in my living room.40" wide is maximum I can go and I would also have a phantom center.
The horns I simulated at 45hz was about as low as I would go with the horn. I like full range speakers and 30hz would be great but not really needed for me. PLUS indoors they can play flat to about 30hz when ported at 45hz anyways. BUT size was the hurdle for me.
I cant fit a 50" wide horn in my living room.40" wide is maximum I can go and I would also have a phantom center.
Shipments larger than the limits listed below will require the use of our UPS Freight services. Packages can be up to 150 lbs (70 kg). Packages can be up to 165 inches (419 cm) in length and girth combined. Packages can be up to 108 inches (270 cm) in length
I looked at a horn that was 52" wide by 33" tall by 20" deep or so. It looks like that would just fit inside that maximum box size.
Let's say 56" long + (33+20)x2 = 162"
I looked at a horn that was 52" wide by 33" tall by 20" deep or so. It looks like that would just fit inside that maximum box size.
Let's say 56" long + (33+20)x2 = 162"
What profile(s) are we considering? Chris has talked about a straight sided horn and 90x60 but not a conventional 2 segment conical. K-402 is straight sided becoming tractrix towards the mouth and terminating in a baffle. I would be tempted to start with an EOS or SEOS throat, straight sides then some kind of mouth termination, perhaps rounding over the horizontal flares and blending the vertical flares smoothly into corner walls.
A 90H straight sided horn nestled in a corner provides at most grazing incidence with the side walls such that reflections from them aren't a problem. The real question as you allude is how to avoid/minimize reflections due to impedance mismatch at the mouth. LeCleach does an excellent job of that within its passband but doesn't exactly nestle into a corner. Furthermore, we plan to use this horn below its passband.
Those that hand off to the room walls cleanly, regarding their wavefront. You can consider how and when this is important, and alternately you can terminate away from the walls.
Could achieve this. What, by the way is it doing in three dimensions? Will it fit (acoustically) into the corner without using a saw?
There can be more to a horn than what it appears to be doing at some zoom level.
Tractrix can sound constricted when baffled. Its mouth and throat can feel each other to a degree. Some parts of some horns are designed to release this dependence..
Interesting, why?
Recalling that when you blend with the room walls there is no termination until you reach the other side of the room, if you hand off correctly? It is also more involved than that.
What would you like to see the 'some kind' do for you?
Yes. it will throw you a lot of group delay because its loading peaks at its low end..
Why EOS or SEOS? Because the best polars I've ever seen have been on SEOS family members. They do have straight sides before rounding over towards the mouth so drivers can be attached to the sides.
Blending with walls vs mouth termination? That is an interesting question. If it is indeed true that if the horn blends into the wall, there is no reflection to worry about until the wave front reaches the end of the room, then blending is the right choice. But that only covers two sides of the rectangular mouth.
I don't pretend to have the answers. I was hoping that somebody that did would speak up
Blending with walls vs mouth termination? That is an interesting question. If it is indeed true that if the horn blends into the wall, there is no reflection to worry about until the wave front reaches the end of the room, then blending is the right choice. But that only covers two sides of the rectangular mouth.
I don't pretend to have the answers. I was hoping that somebody that did would speak up
I think you're on the right track, the questions you ask help to show where..
No. An OS profile does not end in a mouth roundover. It continues until conical. The correct termination for OS is no termination, ie it stays conical. The roundover is a compromise/deliberate action. There are conditions on when/where and how this becomes a 'good' compromise.
OS has good polars helped by the horn and wavefronts agreeing.
No. An OS profile does not end in a mouth roundover. It continues until conical. The correct termination for OS is no termination, ie it stays conical. The roundover is a compromise/deliberate action. There are conditions on when/where and how this becomes a 'good' compromise.
OS has good polars helped by the horn and wavefronts agreeing.
Have you ever studied a radial horn - that's a single radial horn.. two dinner plates bottom to bottom aligned horizontally.. and what happens when you quarter space them?
..
A radial horn fits well at the mouth end but creates challenges at the throat. You'll find that it is rooms that are odd shaped, according to sound (and speaker cones) being round. Learn the elements and you can understand the compromises.
Last edited:
Well, I'm still gathering information. Some of the discussions here are useful to the stated purpose of the thread.
One of the approaches might be to conceptually draw out the various designs mentioned, only in terms of their two or three most defining variables, then draw circles (2-variable space) or bubbles (3-variable space) around certain design areas. This is an easy thing to do and to visualize. More complex approaches can increase the number of design variable dimensions past three.
So for instance the horn coverage angle, mouth size, and low frequency "cutoff" could be one three-variable plot that pretty much covers the design space. While I haven't done this yet, it is clear that there are going to be affinity areas on the design space plot that will point to separate solutions.
The K-402-MEH is a starting point for my efforts, due to the path that I've followed: currently 2-way Jubilees (K-402/TAD TD-4002 high frequency, KPT-KHJ-LF low frequency "W" section bins). A center channel Jubilee was too big to integrate, so I designed the K-402-MEH to be 1/3 the size of a Jub and have better coverage plots, and still retain the same timbre as the Jubs.
The next step is the one that I believe that you're asking about. The more information shared here by this thread's contributors, the better that second or third design would appear to the various "customer groups" here. As a strawman for illustrative purposes only--i.e., without first doing a design space plot, and this is just to illustrate the method, but not to indicate a finished design trade study:
There might be a "small listening room full-range MEH" that would have smaller coverage angles than the K-402-MEH, a smaller mouth size, and a low frequency cutoff that's a bit higher than a K-402-MEH (or perhaps not).
Another design might be a larger listening room MEH with full corner coverage angles, a larger mouth size, and a low frequency cutoff that's low.
There are other combinations that could also be drawn from the information above (and yet to come), and I'm candidly waiting until some of that information appears in this thread.
For instance, I haven't seen anyone talking about really wide coverage angles, like those required for multi-seat, multi-row home theater surrounds. These horns would need a really wide horizontal coverage angles.
Elevation loudspeakers may or may not be in demand. The only thing that I know is that the current practice of placing elevation loudspeakers of very narrow coverage (beaming type) with the front loudspeakers at floor level and bouncing their output upward off the ceiling: these are for convenience, but not performance. An MEH to handle elevation duties might have very special design properties. Etc., etc.
I see a progression of MEH types vs. time meeting the needs of the DIYer and the HT owner.
Remember that full-range MEHs are not your typical "small syn" MEH on top of a bass reflex box or on an integrated flat baffle with woofer that's not loaded inside the horn mouth. That actually sets minimum size mouth/depth that's larger than your typical "small syn", but that can be integrated into a loudspeaker the overall size of a "small syn"+bass reflex woofer box.
Chris
One of the approaches might be to conceptually draw out the various designs mentioned, only in terms of their two or three most defining variables, then draw circles (2-variable space) or bubbles (3-variable space) around certain design areas. This is an easy thing to do and to visualize. More complex approaches can increase the number of design variable dimensions past three.
So for instance the horn coverage angle, mouth size, and low frequency "cutoff" could be one three-variable plot that pretty much covers the design space. While I haven't done this yet, it is clear that there are going to be affinity areas on the design space plot that will point to separate solutions.
The K-402-MEH is a starting point for my efforts, due to the path that I've followed: currently 2-way Jubilees (K-402/TAD TD-4002 high frequency, KPT-KHJ-LF low frequency "W" section bins). A center channel Jubilee was too big to integrate, so I designed the K-402-MEH to be 1/3 the size of a Jub and have better coverage plots, and still retain the same timbre as the Jubs.
The next step is the one that I believe that you're asking about. The more information shared here by this thread's contributors, the better that second or third design would appear to the various "customer groups" here. As a strawman for illustrative purposes only--i.e., without first doing a design space plot, and this is just to illustrate the method, but not to indicate a finished design trade study:
There might be a "small listening room full-range MEH" that would have smaller coverage angles than the K-402-MEH, a smaller mouth size, and a low frequency cutoff that's a bit higher than a K-402-MEH (or perhaps not).
Another design might be a larger listening room MEH with full corner coverage angles, a larger mouth size, and a low frequency cutoff that's low.
There are other combinations that could also be drawn from the information above (and yet to come), and I'm candidly waiting until some of that information appears in this thread.
For instance, I haven't seen anyone talking about really wide coverage angles, like those required for multi-seat, multi-row home theater surrounds. These horns would need a really wide horizontal coverage angles.
Elevation loudspeakers may or may not be in demand. The only thing that I know is that the current practice of placing elevation loudspeakers of very narrow coverage (beaming type) with the front loudspeakers at floor level and bouncing their output upward off the ceiling: these are for convenience, but not performance. An MEH to handle elevation duties might have very special design properties. Etc., etc.
I see a progression of MEH types vs. time meeting the needs of the DIYer and the HT owner.
Remember that full-range MEHs are not your typical "small syn" MEH on top of a bass reflex box or on an integrated flat baffle with woofer that's not loaded inside the horn mouth. That actually sets minimum size mouth/depth that's larger than your typical "small syn", but that can be integrated into a loudspeaker the overall size of a "small syn"+bass reflex woofer box.
Chris
Thanks Chris.
For my own wants I will be building something that most likely can be as big as a SH96. I dont need bigger than 90 degrees horizontal and can easily get away with 60 degrees if need be. Hence the SH64. BUT I can see how someone might want a 120 degree horn for a center channel in a shallow depth room for sure.
My big horns would be used outside or in my media room/garage. The sitting there is about 16ft away from the speaker and as I said I can get away with narrowere angles. Eventually the speakers will be placed on top of subs so full-range-ish would be nice in 2pi.
BUT there are a lot of people on AVS who have large HT rooms so maybe they will want wide angle full range corner horns.
Only horns I ever wanted to build wanted to build were the J2 96, J3 64 the SH64. Only reason I looked at the J96 was because they used 1" CD's. They extended higher and for me are much cheaper. So are the mids and 18's are about the same price as the 15's. J3 64 was SH64 on steroids. So I dont mind large myself.
BUT for a kit thats the hard one. Domestic only I think the 402 size might me a very small market. SO your suggestion of smaller and not quite as low cutoff would be my guess for a winner.
For me I dont think I could afford the shipping if its big. I looked at just buying a Klipsch pro cinema setup with the 402 a while back because it was much cheaper for me to buy it then make it myself. BUT the shipping ended up being MORE that the price for the pair of speakers all together. CRAZY. Danley was much cheaper on shipping but more expensive on the speaker itself.
SO I am all for MEH with everything in the horn like the models I have mentioned but a better horn design. Just a matter of seeing if I can take part in even buying such a kit when the time comes.
Either way in a few months I should have finally started my prototype MEH 2way horns. They are only going down to maybe 300hz. This wont be a finished product. I am merely trying to see how things are playing with the 2way part of the future 3way. PLUS I cant afford to buy 1400 dollars in 15's for a single speaker right now. The tweeter and mids are much cheaper. SO I will start there.
Also if your using a TAD CD is that the desired option or just a CD that plays down to a certain frequency?
Sorry for the babble on just thinking out loud.
For my own wants I will be building something that most likely can be as big as a SH96. I dont need bigger than 90 degrees horizontal and can easily get away with 60 degrees if need be. Hence the SH64. BUT I can see how someone might want a 120 degree horn for a center channel in a shallow depth room for sure.
My big horns would be used outside or in my media room/garage. The sitting there is about 16ft away from the speaker and as I said I can get away with narrowere angles. Eventually the speakers will be placed on top of subs so full-range-ish would be nice in 2pi.
BUT there are a lot of people on AVS who have large HT rooms so maybe they will want wide angle full range corner horns.
Only horns I ever wanted to build wanted to build were the J2 96, J3 64 the SH64. Only reason I looked at the J96 was because they used 1" CD's. They extended higher and for me are much cheaper. So are the mids and 18's are about the same price as the 15's. J3 64 was SH64 on steroids. So I dont mind large myself.
BUT for a kit thats the hard one. Domestic only I think the 402 size might me a very small market. SO your suggestion of smaller and not quite as low cutoff would be my guess for a winner.
For me I dont think I could afford the shipping if its big. I looked at just buying a Klipsch pro cinema setup with the 402 a while back because it was much cheaper for me to buy it then make it myself. BUT the shipping ended up being MORE that the price for the pair of speakers all together. CRAZY. Danley was much cheaper on shipping but more expensive on the speaker itself.
SO I am all for MEH with everything in the horn like the models I have mentioned but a better horn design. Just a matter of seeing if I can take part in even buying such a kit when the time comes.
Either way in a few months I should have finally started my prototype MEH 2way horns. They are only going down to maybe 300hz. This wont be a finished product. I am merely trying to see how things are playing with the 2way part of the future 3way. PLUS I cant afford to buy 1400 dollars in 15's for a single speaker right now. The tweeter and mids are much cheaper. SO I will start there.
Also if your using a TAD CD is that the desired option or just a CD that plays down to a certain frequency?
Sorry for the babble on just thinking out loud.
I mentioned the TAD because it is my current compression driver for the Jubs--not as a viable candidate for a DIY kit. I'd consider it a full-scale upgrade for highest fidelity only.
The titanium diaphragm 2" drivers have the same effective bandwidth as the TADs, but not as clean high end and more phase growth/non-flat response due to the much heavier and much lower strength titanium material. I assume that if someone were to use 2" compression drivers, that they would be using titanium or perhaps something with polymer suspensions like the Faital Pro, or even perhaps a dual-diaphragm driver like a BMS 4592-ND. Right now, the B&C DE75 or 750 driver seems to be a very good economic compromise at ~1/10th the cost of a new TAD TD-4001. The personal choice of 2" driver is basically immaterial for a full-range MEH if DSP crossovers are used. (Choice of larger diameter woofers and even the box size also become much less of an issue too with a larger full-range MEH as it turns out. It basically boils down to horn design.)
A lower coverage angle horn with smaller mouth seems to have higher interest here at present. I don't know if that condition would hold, however, if the in-room performance of a K-402 class MEH were more widely known. Most people here have never heard a pair of loudspeakers that make the entire room a good listening position (i.e., excellent 90 x 60 coverage), and that has controlled coverage down to its sub-100 Hz handover point to boundary loading effect. I think that may change some opinions of what is an acceptable size in-room--and what isn't. To hear them is to believe.
However, the fact remains that there is a large fraction of small listening rooms (less than 12'-14'/3.6-4.3m in length and/or width) represented by contributors here worldwide. That in itself is a clear and distinct market segment. I don't doubt this at all.
Chris
The titanium diaphragm 2" drivers have the same effective bandwidth as the TADs, but not as clean high end and more phase growth/non-flat response due to the much heavier and much lower strength titanium material. I assume that if someone were to use 2" compression drivers, that they would be using titanium or perhaps something with polymer suspensions like the Faital Pro, or even perhaps a dual-diaphragm driver like a BMS 4592-ND. Right now, the B&C DE75 or 750 driver seems to be a very good economic compromise at ~1/10th the cost of a new TAD TD-4001. The personal choice of 2" driver is basically immaterial for a full-range MEH if DSP crossovers are used. (Choice of larger diameter woofers and even the box size also become much less of an issue too with a larger full-range MEH as it turns out. It basically boils down to horn design.)
A lower coverage angle horn with smaller mouth seems to have higher interest here at present. I don't know if that condition would hold, however, if the in-room performance of a K-402 class MEH were more widely known. Most people here have never heard a pair of loudspeakers that make the entire room a good listening position (i.e., excellent 90 x 60 coverage), and that has controlled coverage down to its sub-100 Hz handover point to boundary loading effect. I think that may change some opinions of what is an acceptable size in-room--and what isn't. To hear them is to believe.
However, the fact remains that there is a large fraction of small listening rooms (less than 12'-14'/3.6-4.3m in length and/or width) represented by contributors here worldwide. That in itself is a clear and distinct market segment. I don't doubt this at all.
Chris
So, why would a K-402-MEH which reaches "fc" at 170 Hz (i.e., 1/4 wavelength) cleanly extend its performance down to 31 Hz in a corner or 40 Hz along a wall, and its directional gain down to below 100 Hz (measurements taken outside quasi-anechoically? I'm referring to measured results. I see no mouth impedance bounce in boundary gain--other than the 1/4 wavelength microphone spacing wall nulls behind the loudspeaker cabinet.
The key to the full-range MEHs to date is that they outperform conventional "common knowledge". I find much bad information on horn behavior in boundary loading, horn loading behavior significantly below fc vs. profile type, interesting horn folding geometries that work effectively, impedance bounces vs. mouth profile type, and limitations of horn length and directionality vs. horn gain that have upset common knowledge by measurement--something that I believe that Danley has stated is the "proof in the pudding" and the reason why he has accomplished what he has thus far.
Chris
Is this the horn?
The quality of a termination can be determined from a wavefront analysis, as well as axial resonance.
The above horn doesn't appear to have tractrix tendencies where it would conflict with walls. The Jubilee mid horn doesn't appear tractrix either, albeit having taken insipration from tractrix. Correct me if I'm wrong, but these horns look more like a conventional waveguide, probably set up for partial freestanding operation, not entirely dissimilar to something I'd choose nor unsuitable for corner use.
The wall spacing is a complex problem, sure but if you can get a lower frequency to make the jump with minimal disturbance then you are working with a positive.
Are you talking about the above horn or about multiple entry in general. If one can get a single driver to do down to 700Hz, even 500Hz then are we on the same page?
Loading, axial reflection, and diffraction and directivity wrt later reflection are three potentially conflicting conditions. They have interrelated subsets, beneficial relationships, and conflicts. These can be analysed to see which can go together, and prioritised according to their potential benefits. All you are left with is a list of things that can cause bad sound for each drawing board example, and there are studies from listener tests on these kinds of distortions. There should be no need to guess because with the proper analysis the results will be workable.
Yes, things that look like they won't work are an easy target and might be criticised without first doing the analysis, or the measurement or both.. but I'm not sure what your point is here..
The horn that you refer to in your link is not the K-402-MEH--it's a temporary horn that Ellis63 put together. I believe that he is waiting for a horn that would come out of the efforts of this thread. Part of the motivation of this thread is to generalize the needs of others like Ron to maximize usefulness of the resulting horn(s) and associated kit items.
The K-402 is a modified tractrix horn--it's all tractrix except where modified with straight sides toward the throat. You might be surprised by how it's constructed--and how much of it is truly a tractrix profile.
Allen, I don't use the term "waveguide" since that's a marketing term that Earl Geddes has coined for his creations, and I don't use any of his creations, unfortunately. I deal with horns only.
I suppose that the best way to answer the balance of the questions you pose is like this:
I find a lot of belief in models and theory that are used to simulate horns. I find that those simulations often simplify the real world physics too much, exactly when and where you want them to be accurate, but they turn out to be inaccurate nevertheless. They also have a tendency to tell you things that aren't true, and that's what my comment on "a lot of bad information" partially applies to (the other parts apply to non-model "common knowledge" that isn't true about low frequency horns).
To make sweeping pronouncements on what horn types and boundary conditions will and won't work is, I believe, imprudent based on the above. I make my comments only to point this out so that others may do like Danley has: try it and measure it. You're likely going to be surprised. I would personally prefer to not have hard-and-fast statements on "common knowledge" so that the spirit of actually finding out will prevail.
One general exception to the above statement on models and modeling: use of BEM, FEA, and finite difference modeling I've found to be capable of producing fairly accurate analysis (if done right), however the amount of work required generally goes up by a factor of 10-100 over lumped methods to get good answers. Those finer grain simulations are better because they show us why even more than building a test piece and measuring it. We can see the reasons why our lumped models don't work very well.
Chris
Waveguides are horns. I require a term that indicates that I have focussed on the wavefront shaping to avoid later reflections, have considered the amount of release diffraction, and taken care of earlier higher order modes. Sometimes loading is a bonus as sometimes getting it conflicts with the above.
Sometimes I choose specifically to avoid loading where this can reduce axial reflection (etc) where the built horn finishes and releases over some range. This has benefits in corner positioning as I understand it. This can be achieved by early opening, ie a wider, or more shallow horn style. Further, group delay at the low end can be reduced this way. This makes it suitable for running below the expected bottom end. Shallow horns don't so much have a cut-off quite as expos do.
LeCleach can also be run below Fc where it is made small (but full roundover), with good results but the main conflict is the ever widening directivity. This can conflict with quarter space boundaries both as reflection targets, and axial constrictions. I have used LeCleach with success as a widening transition horn. They do sound good, but the choice is between loading and widening directivity.. If the K-402 is closer to conical (before tending tractrix) at the throat then its wavefront will tend that way over some range, making it appear to me to be a waveguide with a good conventional termination.
Sometimes I choose specifically to avoid loading where this can reduce axial reflection (etc) where the built horn finishes and releases over some range. This has benefits in corner positioning as I understand it. This can be achieved by early opening, ie a wider, or more shallow horn style. Further, group delay at the low end can be reduced this way. This makes it suitable for running below the expected bottom end. Shallow horns don't so much have a cut-off quite as expos do.
LeCleach can also be run below Fc where it is made small (but full roundover), with good results but the main conflict is the ever widening directivity. This can conflict with quarter space boundaries both as reflection targets, and axial constrictions. I have used LeCleach with success as a widening transition horn. They do sound good, but the choice is between loading and widening directivity.. If the K-402 is closer to conical (before tending tractrix) at the throat then its wavefront will tend that way over some range, making it appear to me to be a waveguide with a good conventional termination.
Last edited: