Ascendo Black Swan. Simple 2way, not sure where its crossed over, or the dimensions of the horn, along with the fc. I guess I'm not the only one in like an elliptical horn. The article on Rectangle horns with rounded corners is intriguing. I think @docali showed us some designs of rectangle horns with rounded corners in the past, but I would not have known to appreciate them at that time. Still, I think an elliptical horn is a good middle ground in between round and rectangle.
Well, it's not new design. I've not seen this one before but my first thoughts when i saw the picture was: looks like Red Spade audio PSE144, without the MEH part.
http://www.redspade.com.au/audio/PSE-144-point-source.php
http://www.redspade.com.au/audio/PSE-144-point-source.php
Insane looking speakers, but using my imagination - they might sound fantastic!
What size are the woofers, and what is their power drive ?
I've been struggling all day trying to generate an elliptical tractrix coordinate map
Can you elaborate some more? My thoughts are that, in your situation the dispersion is already wide enough that using an elliptical would be too much of a good thing. With a large horn, the directivity is a high at the HF, so elliptical helps to alleviate that.
I don't follow your question. The reality is that an OS based waveguide can have a very wide range of almost perfectly flat DI ( rising slightly being a bit easier and maybe preferable) I don't see how its aspect ratio will change any of that.
"is already wide enough" - this baffles me since my whole idea is to have as narrow a directivity as possible within the size constraints, hence I don't see how "wide enough" describes anything.
I could argue that if you wanted to have a high aspect ratio it should be tall and narrow, not the other way around.
"is already wide enough" - this baffles me since my whole idea is to have as narrow a directivity as possible within the size constraints, hence I don't see how "wide enough" describes anything.
I could argue that if you wanted to have a high aspect ratio it should be tall and narrow, not the other way around.
Elliptical mouths for loading horns, results in wider dispersion of Some of the HF, due to the increased expansion rate on the horizontal walls, compared to a round horn of the same F.
Increasing dispersion width in your situation makes no sense, as you are satisfied with the sweet spot size of a round waveguide. Only KA would benefit in your situation which you are satisfied with as well, already.
Increasing dispersion width in your situation makes no sense, as you are satisfied with the sweet spot size of a round waveguide. Only KA would benefit in your situation which you are satisfied with as well, already.
You seem to be equating directivity width with sweet-spot width and I don't think that it is that simple. It has more to do with the rate of change of directivity with angle than the actual directivity width. In essence, I am saying that my round device, pointed in, is likely to have a larger sweet spot than an elliptical one, or at least the same.
Isn't it kind of the other way around? When you work within the available size constraint you attempt to narrow the vertical, which means it should be longer and taller than before, or else you end up with a vertical profile that loses low end control at a higher frequency than previously and it flips.
Sweet spot.... I guess this could be as ambiguous as the discussion on F=Cutoff. I thought it was common to say that the sweetspot is where the HF, it being the most narrow dispersion, drops 6db. So the the upper roll off, F6, of the on to off axis response? Can we call it that? I mean, where ever you want to say that This is high enough, 20khz for example, where ever 20khz falls -3db or -6db moving off axis, thats the cutoff for the sweet spot. Respectively you could use 7khz or 10khz for another benchmark. I used 16-17khz since I can't seem to hear much higher.
Because of the similarities of throat characteristics at the beginning of the line, of 2 comparable waveguides, Round and Elliptical, wouldn't this suggest the same sweet spot size? Its all matter of wall angle isn't it.... Where the waveguides start to diverge in wall angle, the directional differences will occur. Since a round and elliptical waveguide might start at say 2" round there will be similarities at the ~6.7khz and above, but isn't it true that the length of the line has an effect? I am asking, does a 2" source vs a 2" source front loaded by a 6"line of 2" diameter have the same HF polar?
Most of the designs we see use a horn that is wider than tall. Why is this if the opposite is the real bread winner? Are we less sensitivity to issues on the vertical polar?
I think you're reading more in to this than was intended..
Step back from that. What does a common axisymmetrical waveguide look like.. 90 degrees all round? What about a typical ellipsoidal.. 90x60? The width is still typically 90 degrees. Why do people seek these options in the first place, is it because the horizontal was too narrow? No, it's usually because the ceiling exists.
(P.S. I don't like ceiling reflections, but non axisymmetrical waveguides aren't necessarily my preferred response to that.)
That's not my definition. To me the "sweet-spot" is where the image stays centered as it should. How big this area is depends on the amplitude and phase characteristics as well as the polar pattern of the sources.
I don't know what this means.
If I understand your question, the polar patterns are somewhat different for a source in the end of a tube and one in a baffle or free-space (but the do tend to converge as the frequency goes up, say ka = 10. The frequency response will be dramatically different due to the tube resonances.
I don't like them either, but my prefered solution is to do something in the room for the ceiling. I use a diffusor.
That would suggest that the only proper use of a horn is within the abilities of the horn to induce directivity. This rule is unnecessary if the driver that is taking over, also provides no directivity as well. That is the case with my crossing point of 200hz with a horn that is ~19" tall. Having a XO point within 1/4wl has been very rewarding given the large dimensions I choose to work with.