Klipsch K402 like
Not quite, the K402's horizontal coverage angle is probably a little too wide to meet Camplo's requirements.
As an example, Peavey's QT horn is a simple compound conical horn that has two parts, the throat and the mouth.
The bell-shaped conical horn (QT) differs from a normal conical horn in that the extension lines on both walls intersect at the center of the throat mouth.
The throat area becomes smaller as the coverage angle increases.
A 60° horn of appropriate dimensions (horn throat included angle ±50°) based on this principle, with an advanced mouth section like mabat's ATH4, seems a better solution.
Attachments
Last edited:
Maybe the horizontal coverage is too wide, maybe not, it depens on the room.
From my experience I'm sure that a modified Klipsch K402 would be perfect for the Axi.
The transition between the driver and the beginning of the throat has to be smoothed a lot to avoid diffraction (like an oswg). It should be an hybrid beetween an OS waveguide and a tactrix, usuable from 300hz. Isn't it the goal?
From my experience I'm sure that a modified Klipsch K402 would be perfect for the Axi.
The transition between the driver and the beginning of the throat has to be smoothed a lot to avoid diffraction (like an oswg). It should be an hybrid beetween an OS waveguide and a tactrix, usuable from 300hz. Isn't it the goal?
The QT waveguide is simply a cone with a constant radius from the throat aperture to the cone. It was done this way because in days past drawing packages could not do complex curves. So the designer just used a simple radius to blend to the throat. On inspection this is actually quit close to an OS, but not quite. Hence it works almost as well as an OS, but not quite.
Thus the throat area does not change with coverage angle. It can be any angle and any throat size. Honestly, it is a trivially easy solution that works pretty well - better than any device that uses diffraction. Not as good as an OS or any of Mabat's designs. They appear to be ideal IMO.
Once again this is just one ideal aspect.....there are other desired traits of a loud speaker, like horn loading....
]
Unfortunately a horn that actually loads the driver driver to 200hz, and is constant directivity, DOESN'T EXIT lol!
Compromises compromises.
There is always going to be a lot of pushback on your plan camplo because there is a great deal of blind listening tests that have been done that demonstrate that smooth off axis response and that response being closer to constant makes a speaker more preferred.
There is no similar test that shows that a speaker being loaded to 200Hz on a single driver makes a speaker more preferred.
So choosing a solution that values that compromise over the one that has been shown to be beneficial may well not sit that well with everyone.
None of that means that it is not the right choice for you and you have been clear that this is the way you are going so I think it is now best to just let you get on with it and see if you actually like the result
There is no similar test that shows that a speaker being loaded to 200Hz on a single driver makes a speaker more preferred.
So choosing a solution that values that compromise over the one that has been shown to be beneficial may well not sit that well with everyone.
None of that means that it is not the right choice for you and you have been clear that this is the way you are going so I think it is now best to just let you get on with it and see if you actually like the result
There is always going to be a lot of pushback on your plan camplo because there is a great deal of blind listening tests that have been done that demonstrate that smooth off axis response and that response being closer to constant makes a speaker more preferred.
There is no similar test that shows that a speaker being loaded to 200Hz on a single driver makes a speaker more preferred.
So choosing a solution that values that compromise over the one that has been shown to be beneficial may well not sit that well with everyone.
None of that means that it is not the right choice for you and you have been clear that this is the way you are going so I think it is now best to just let you get on with it and see if you actually like the result
The blind test thread of recent says otherwise, all drivers were equalized to the same curve and listeners were forced to be on axis...
BLINDTEST: Midrange 360-7200hz, NO audible difference whatsover.
Multiple speakers, with various polars.
The condition of having to be dead on-axis....is this true for the Harmon blind test that you speak of???
Also I wish we could be a little less vague, With any horn that we speculate, it is possible to calculate the size of the listener window at 1m....it would be nice to keep the details out in the open since "beaming" is relative.
And to be fair, I am likely the biggest speculator, since my horn experience is not vast at all, but I am no fool, which is why I have a jbl2380a and a jbl2386. I think these two horns will be a good representative of constant directivity vs beaming.
I became a believer in horns after several auditions of the Altec 511, I don't really remember caring about how wide the sweet spot was, I'm pretty this is not a constant directivity horn....If you sit outside the sweet spot, thats called user error.
Anyone have a polar chart for the Altec 511?
The fact that anyone who loves neutral audio presentation could still want a beaming horn over a constant directivity horn, but constant directivity is soooooooo great....is very concerning. So who the hell is still buying this "inferior" technology? and why?
Last edited:
Hmm a Jon Bocani thread, do you think that is in any way comparable to those performed by Floyd Toole and Sean Olive and others?
The Harman tests and those at the NRCC before sometimes used multiple listeners so no they would not have been exclusively on axis.
Draw a picture if you want to see where the beam can go. Pick the angle at which the beam is down by 6dB and draw it out. Depending on the toe in and listening distance the coverage will change.
No one normally listens to a system of the size you are proposing at 1m, I've said before in another thread that is certainly not ideal from a driver summation point of view.
I see I should have waited as your post changed considerably after I responded.
There are many very sensible people who choose horns that have those beaming qualities for very valid reasons but usually those are constraints that not everybody has to abide by.
Lynn Olsen is probably the best example in his use of the Azurahorn. He wants a system that is flat on axis without the need for any EQ as he wants to use low power tube amplifiers of his own design. He is willing to trade the benefit of more constant directivity for the fact that it will work within his other constraints.
If you already have some good CD waveguides then you will be in a good position to report back the differences when you have compared both in the same room performing the same job.
Not everybody likes or wants the same thing, that's OK.
The Harman tests and those at the NRCC before sometimes used multiple listeners so no they would not have been exclusively on axis.
Draw a picture if you want to see where the beam can go. Pick the angle at which the beam is down by 6dB and draw it out. Depending on the toe in and listening distance the coverage will change.
No one normally listens to a system of the size you are proposing at 1m, I've said before in another thread that is certainly not ideal from a driver summation point of view.
I see I should have waited as your post changed considerably after I responded.
There are many very sensible people who choose horns that have those beaming qualities for very valid reasons but usually those are constraints that not everybody has to abide by.
Lynn Olsen is probably the best example in his use of the Azurahorn. He wants a system that is flat on axis without the need for any EQ as he wants to use low power tube amplifiers of his own design. He is willing to trade the benefit of more constant directivity for the fact that it will work within his other constraints.
If you already have some good CD waveguides then you will be in a good position to report back the differences when you have compared both in the same room performing the same job.
Not everybody likes or wants the same thing, that's OK.
Last edited:
Welt I've heard this horn, it isn't constant directivity, and I really liked it....so when I hear constant directivity its going to blow my mind...thats the consensus?
Once again, if you aren't sitting in the sweet spot...You're doing it wrong!
lol I know, This is one of the reasons why I need a low crossover, The size of the system will be a moot point if the KA at crossover is very low.
Also I think the horn I heard was actually an Altec 311...which would have an even more narrow polar... I also sat as close as 1-2m and I didn't care about the beaming because unless I started swaying crazily from side to side, I was in the sweet spot. The damn Rona has everything shut down or I'd look to audition that system again, to be more confident about my experience with those horns.
No idea why its sideways.
Attachments
Last edited:
Ignoring what authorities (*) say, I just can't stand beaming sources anymore. So I really can't understand why would anyone go that route intentionally. I hate how the stereo image collapses with even a small head movement. But again, this is nothing against your design choices camplo. You may well like it - the first and the foremost reason being you made it yourself (remember the Beranek's law?)
* And there really shouldn't be any authorities, just a science, but this is not quite how it works, I'm afraid.
* And there really shouldn't be any authorities, just a science, but this is not quite how it works, I'm afraid.
Just to be clear, I am a horn noob, I really don't know whats about to happen but....would you say that the 2386 vs 2380a is a fair demonstration?
Also constant directivity, in all directions does seem like the scientifical, more natural presentation...sending the same neutral signal in all directions, that signal is wanted to go....makes sense...the question is, is it going to be a deal breaker or even night and day, compared to a beaming horn (SWEEET SPOT OOONNNLLYY) I cannot stress that enough.
Beaming has other advantages....less reflections equals a higher ratio of Direct energy, in your ears, which is an increase in resolution. A wide polar of a dome tweeter, creates much more room energy, in turn, much more room distortion...though I am not studied on reflective theory....I can only imagine that the signal never returns looking like it started...that is distortion, if I can't hear the reflections, or the the direct energy is drowning out the reflective, even better...but I'm not sure one has to go to the lengths of beaming to create this, yet, why not exaggerate the effect, in turn, exaggerating resolution.
Also about formulating the beam width at 1m.....Don K knows how to do the math.
Am I miss judging the Altec horns? other than loosing treble I did not experience this " stereo image collapses with even a small head movement"...A small head movement to me would equate to turning my head 5 degrees to the left. I also never left the chair....I think I do recall loosing the stereo image if I moved too far to one side but we are talking about leaning over several feet....who does that while auditioning a mix inthe studio? or ever? Once again, small is relative, please use exact wordings when it comes to beam width, Small head movements, etc etc
I really wish I could go listen to those horns again (looks over at his box of horns and drivers)
I found a place to mill the wood for me...Waiting for a quote to see if its worth my while.
Last edited:
![511B [nested].PNG](/community/data/attachments/761/761629-e649cff0ad7724e4fbfb0f6eb871e3f8.jpg)
![511B [unbaffled] polars.PNG](/community/data/attachments/761/761632-22b56ff8a9bc8d91318cfce7a6864262.jpg)
Don K once calulated the size of the sweetspot at 1.5m for the HvDiff horn design and it was....
80cm!?!? Thats the beaming everyones crying about? I mean yeah its going to get more narrow as we go up to 20khz but....to what 20cm? 10cm? I tried to do the formula on my calculator but I didn't work out...my calculator didn't like Tan or something.
Last edited:
I'm only saying how it works for me, I don't want to speak in too general terms and I also haven't heard all the horns of the world. But I also know that I hadn't heard the best stereo image until I heard my first "true CD" design. In many cases the image does not form at all - you just hear the loudspeakers. And if it forms, can be lost easily outside a very small sweet spot (talking about inches here). I can have only conjectures why is that and I won't present them here.
Inches, now that would be undesirable, but in the above example the window was formulated to be 80cm at 14khz...lets say its 40cm at 20khz...thats still bigger than my head. The sweet needs to be bigger than my head I'd say, at 1 meter.
The Altecs btw, Image crazy...never heard such imaging in my life, it was life changing. Not saying much with this being the first horns I've heard....Sure did blow away the expensive MTM with an AMT tweeter, I was shown at another store...as well as some magnapans....though not the same room so its unfair aye
With Ka in mind, there is room to move the xover up....I am probably more worried about KA than Constant Directivity or not...KA will be the decider of how close I can listen.
_I'm not sure if I care about this aspect unless there is an argument that this could augment one way or another, the way I EQ music.
Last edited:
You seem to be mixing beaming and pattern width in you last few posts.
Beaming is where polar response becomes narrower as frequency rises. Everything does this to some extent very little meets a true constant directivity across the whole bandwidth of the device.
A horn might have a nominal pattern of 90 degrees but end up with a pattern of only 10 degrees or so at the highest frequencies. This will make the sweetspot for all frequencies the horn produces very small.
No one is crying about an 80cm coverage that is not huge but workable for a single listener.
Some of Toole's reasoning for more constant directivity is based on the idea that the reflections returning to the listening position will be more similar in timbre to the direct sound which is beneficial.
A source that beams may well have less room interaction at those frequencies but that will introduce an EQ to the sound of the reflections and degrade the overall perception of the speaker.
Earl is in the camp that wants the horn to have more narrow directivity than a direct radiator on a baffle in the higher frequencies to reduce early room interaction with his placement but make the coverage more constant within that more narrow range.
The downsides to a source that doesn't have as constant directivity could be offset in this way through more room treatment like studios used to do and maybe still do when their monitors had/have terrible off axis response, just absorb it all.
That can lead to other issues so lots of research is pointing towards less room treatment and smoother off axis response.
Beaming is where polar response becomes narrower as frequency rises. Everything does this to some extent very little meets a true constant directivity across the whole bandwidth of the device.
A horn might have a nominal pattern of 90 degrees but end up with a pattern of only 10 degrees or so at the highest frequencies. This will make the sweetspot for all frequencies the horn produces very small.
No one is crying about an 80cm coverage that is not huge but workable for a single listener.
Some of Toole's reasoning for more constant directivity is based on the idea that the reflections returning to the listening position will be more similar in timbre to the direct sound which is beneficial.
A source that beams may well have less room interaction at those frequencies but that will introduce an EQ to the sound of the reflections and degrade the overall perception of the speaker.
Earl is in the camp that wants the horn to have more narrow directivity than a direct radiator on a baffle in the higher frequencies to reduce early room interaction with his placement but make the coverage more constant within that more narrow range.
The downsides to a source that doesn't have as constant directivity could be offset in this way through more room treatment like studios used to do and maybe still do when their monitors had/have terrible off axis response, just absorb it all.
That can lead to other issues so lots of research is pointing towards less room treatment and smoother off axis response.
Again:
JBL2360:
https://www.audiopro.de/medias/item/11960/jbl_2360_deutsch.pdf
2360A, 2365A, 2366A, Flat-Front | JBL Professional Loudspeakers
Start loading @300Hz up to 10KHz
JBL2360:
https://www.audiopro.de/medias/item/11960/jbl_2360_deutsch.pdf
2360A, 2365A, 2366A, Flat-Front | JBL Professional Loudspeakers
Start loading @300Hz up to 10KHz
Can you find where the ABEC plots are for the horn you want to use I tried to look before but didn't find them. That will show more conclusively what the pattern width vs frequency is.
I must admit I didn't follow the whole thread - do you plan to be sitting 1 meter in front of the horns?
Well that changes the situation and I'm not sure that such a big loudspeaker you are going for here would make much sense in the first place...
I must admit I didn't follow the whole thread - do you plan to be sitting 1 meter in front of the horns?
Will it rip a hole in the space time continuum lol, its just a mater of KA.