Blunenhorfer uses many different types of horns and "waveguides" in their offerings.
They range between conical, multiple section conical, radial and bi-radial exponential expansion, and elliptical.
Similar designs can be found on the market made by Altec-Lansing, B&C, BMS, DSL, EAW, Electro-voice, Eminence, Eighteen Sound and the rest of the alphabet of manufacturers.
weltersys you're right there is a lot of BH speakers ,i`m targeting on those small shallow horns on Genuin FS 1 MK 3 .
and build a 2way with 15PR400 or 12pr320 with the RCF ND850 1.4 on top.They probably cross them high with such a small horn ,maybe those alnico woofers can go there clean.
Theses a mismatch in directivity at 850hz, The waveguide is too small to meet with the 15"... The plane transitions near the edge could be smoother. It looks to be slightly oblate, but it guess it could be a round waveguide. Mbat has much better waveguides in his thread. I wouldn't want to copy the one in this picture.
the think is that i have listen those speakers and really like them.
No horn sound at all,
weird...
No horn sound at all,
weird...
Its not weird, its acoustics. Any well designed Waveguide will sound good. What a lot of people attribute to "horn sound" can commonly be deduced to bad voicing, as in, the frequency response isn't smooth, or using a horn too close to its cutoff, as in, too close to its fundamental resonance. Either can lead to an unpleasant presentation and more a fault of the designer/user than the waveguide itself. Not to say that that there aren't bad horns/waveguides, its just that these aspects, in the past, have been neglected often enough.
Last edited:
Definitely hard to tease out the nuance of where our measures, senses, and understanding are and aren't aligned. Trying to mesh those across different humans... tough to achieve live, much less online. Even the most bright, data-driven people, are still far from aligned internally. I could certainly do with keeping that in mind better myself.
This is not an issue. "Cutoff" is a fictional idea that doesn't exist in reality - there is no cutoff to a real waveguide. The issue is that all waveguide/horns show very low efficiency at LFs (below "cutoff" if you must) and as such require ever more excursion from the driver, which can cause problems. Hence it is the driver limitations that are the issue and not the waveguide. If the driver can handle the excursion then there is no problem going down lower in frequency. In my systems I go below what one might call the cutoff, but then I have efficiency to burn and so excursion is not an issue.
^ If the system has a smooth FR then there won't be any issues with "Group Delay and Decay", so yes "smoothing FR is the only real concern."
@gedlee.... I'd like to find the limitations... so, it is impossible to create a horn with a decay/group delay problem that cannot be fixed by smoothing FR? Is this what's happening here???
As long as all resonation comes from active/passive diaphragm's, and/or helmholtz and quarterwave resonating air columns, group delay and decay will never be an issue to accuracy as long as FR can be smoothed out using filtration???
When you say "system has a smooth FR" do we apply this to before and after EQ or only Before???
I think thats what you are saying? And if so, can you say why this is so? We can see the peaks in GD/Decay at the fundamental of the horn but after FR has been smoothed it seems these errors exist on paper but not perception? Is that correct? Pretty much like THD.... if I am on the right path... how do we explain this from a psychoacoustics standpoint, meaning, why don't we hear these excess group delays and decays? Are they just too small of deviations?
As long as all resonation comes from active/passive diaphragm's, and/or helmholtz and quarterwave resonating air columns, group delay and decay will never be an issue to accuracy as long as FR can be smoothed out using filtration???
When you say "system has a smooth FR" do we apply this to before and after EQ or only Before???
I think thats what you are saying? And if so, can you say why this is so? We can see the peaks in GD/Decay at the fundamental of the horn but after FR has been smoothed it seems these errors exist on paper but not perception? Is that correct? Pretty much like THD.... if I am on the right path... how do we explain this from a psychoacoustics standpoint, meaning, why don't we hear these excess group delays and decays? Are they just too small of deviations?
Last edited:
It's all about masking
Re-sonation means re-sound=sound again, so sound-on-sound, the same sound produces another (attenuated?**) sound, i.e. masking
That's not detail, clarity etc. but it's often called smearing of the sound, mudness etc.
attenuated
For a perception standpoint it doesn't matter 'how much' but if it's there of it isn't there, i.e. 0/1 and afterwards if 1>why, what, how, when...
Hello Camplo
Maybe I am looking at things to simplistically and if I am please correct. The finished system is what counts. all the individual driver IMP phase GD all gets lost in the mix. Just look at the system GD curve and it will follow the FR. What was going on to the horn before changes with integration.
Rob 🙂
Attachments
I'm not sure, I think @gedlee has some more contemporary thoughts on this, like his position on THD. I did conclude with him that with
the multitude of quality drivers, Decay isn't really a thing to be concerned about. So next up, I am guessing that Helmholtz and quarter-wave resonance, are not detrimental as well.
I think some misinterpretation of the graphs on my part, leads me astray. This definitely makes the left side of transient peak interesting to compare to the other side.,
the multitude of quality drivers, Decay isn't really a thing to be concerned about. So next up, I am guessing that Helmholtz and quarter-wave resonance, are not detrimental as well.
The GD/Decay spike lives here, as it does at all filter knees,
I really hope I am not taking what you've said out of context. Along with THD many things in sound reproduction has been analyzed to the nth degree, possibly to its detriment. The aberrations in GD/Decay from the speaker itself are not detrimental as they would appear on paper. No where near as important as Frequency Response.
Oooh so this is what you were waiting for.... I knew this and knew it again like, a page or two back even... it will not stick.... Its so hard to let go what I thought I knew once, I mean, its not just me, we have others reporting the same erroneous ideas. Even at its very worst, this issues isn't something that can't be fixed with filtering for the ambitious.
I think some misinterpretation of the graphs on my part, leads me astray. This definitely makes the left side of transient peak interesting to compare to the other side.,
yes, I agree. Combine that thought with "A resonance is an energy storage system, it takes more time to excite it and then more time to release it. The energy always stays constant" and consider that the room only makes it less apparent, what the Direct Sound is actually doing... and I guess... what are we/I even going on about???
Not so fast, these things can be real issues. For example the resonance of a horn caused by reflections at the mouth is a standing wave issue that cannot be corrected globally. One can correct the FR (and hence the GD/Delay) at a specific spatial point, but it cannot be corrected globally. This is why the mouth treatment is critical - far more so than "cutoff".
Again, it depends on the underlying cause. If it's "cutoff" GD/Decay, then it is not all that important. If it is standing wave reflections or diffraction effects that cannot be globally EQ'd then they are important.
Hello Camplo
That is Rev? Why the window scale sizes? 3/10ths of a second outside? I don't know much of anything about it as I have never used it. Can't you scale in? Seems like a really course scale to see what you speakers are doing. Can't you exclude excess group delay? It just looks odd to me looking at CLIO Pocket or CLIO 7.13. When I take out excess phase it's much a much smaller window you can look at. I will post a CLIO measurement that's ungated in room minimum phase. Even going with Normal where excess is included I don't see the extreme swings.
Just looks like quite a bit of "hash/noise" in there? Trying to resolve the differences.
Rob 🙂
You are going to have to work with me. REW can do excess, I personally can't do it cause I don't know how... I see the trace options available for Min and Excess, but my measurement isn't showing me any traces....
I'm not sure what smoothing @bikinpunk used here, if any.... 12,24, and 48 are common though.
Isn't your above measurement 1/6 smoothed? If so, thats pretty heavy averaging. If I switch my settings to 1/6th I get this;