IMHO, the acoustic resistance is very low and there is only some few reactance at 500Hz
Indeed, at 500Hz the XT1464 won't load the driver very well. In a domestic application this isn't problematic, the loss of directivity control is.
Bjørn Kolbrek's latest blog entry touches on the subject.
Bjørn Kolbrek's latest blog entry touches on the subject.
Why is that problematic?
If it were to maintain directivity down to say 500 Hz, you need an extremely large woofer to match.
It depends on your design objectives, directivity control is not only about matching drivers and horns.
Last edited:
If that polar map is of an OSWG it's probably not accurate as I see no axial aberrations from the mouth that always occur in a circular device.
There is nothing oblate-spheroidal (OS) about any of those devices. You really need a better name.
It's well known you rely on B&C drivers (as I do to some extent).
However, this driver might solve the issue and likely also sound better at the low crossover point of the NS-15.
I've heard both the DE500 and the HF10AK and honestly; the Faital sounds better down low (<1500Hz).
The DE550 is better suited to the crossover of the NS-15 due to its 2" VC, but it doesn't quite make it to 20kHz.
Last edited:
It's made with Marcel's STH/ATH tools, which is (to a great extent) based on, and I believe also a tribute to your work.
These aberrations?
I'll leave it at that, because I won't take credit for Marcel's (huge amount of) work.
The point of these ABEC sims was to illustrate that 'bigger is better'.
Attachments
Last edited:
Developed and designed by an Italian AES member:
This fellow seems to like Mantaray 5.. series (MRII 594A) and... FaitalPRO drivers.
This fellow seems to like Mantaray 5.. series (MRII 594A) and... FaitalPRO drivers.
Last edited:
Hello Gedlee
Thank you for joining the conversation, it is an honor! As you can see this topic has gone viral. Predictable I think, since the 2-way is the "coaxial" we never had. Make that make sense....anyway...
Do you have any ideas to help me produce a better final product?
I'm aiming to put the area between the top woofer and horn at ear level. The horn can be angled. Me sitting with feet flat, makes the enclosure about 47" tall
That would put the center of the bottom woofer at ~23.5"
With a xover of 630hz, I wonder what is the most dramatic listening angle I should allow from the 15"s
I forget what KA I'd be at. Though I intend to use room correction at the sweet spot, the polar shape ultimately will affect the rooms energy, Changing the eq for my listening position affects everything else and being that I can't seem to get in the middle of that polar (close listening distance).....wait....thats it!.....I need to be able to angle the woofers as well........back to the drawing board!
Thanks so much Gedlee!
greetings from Wyoming Mi!
Thank you for joining the conversation, it is an honor! As you can see this topic has gone viral. Predictable I think, since the 2-way is the "coaxial" we never had. Make that make sense....anyway...
Do you have any ideas to help me produce a better final product?
I'm aiming to put the area between the top woofer and horn at ear level. The horn can be angled. Me sitting with feet flat, makes the enclosure about 47" tall
That would put the center of the bottom woofer at ~23.5"
With a xover of 630hz, I wonder what is the most dramatic listening angle I should allow from the 15"s
I forget what KA I'd be at. Though I intend to use room correction at the sweet spot, the polar shape ultimately will affect the rooms energy, Changing the eq for my listening position affects everything else and being that I can't seem to get in the middle of that polar (close listening distance).....wait....thats it!.....I need to be able to angle the woofers as well........back to the drawing board!
Thanks so much Gedlee!
greetings from Wyoming Mi!
It's only 3.5 ft3 bigger than my cab(s) and since you've got 2 woofers in each, I would think it's rather efficiently-sized 😀
Last edited:
Sometimes you have to improvise.....My chair is adjustable, I can always lower my chair, thus lowering the intended sweet spot. 47" inches tall has its merits.
Angling the speakers up would just cause more vertical reflections....thought we were trying to avoid this.
I read that comb filtering is product of horizontal array and not so much vertical. Otherwise I just might consider horizontal even after all that discussion we just had.
Its either really tall and wide or really wide and tall. I'm trying to keep the depth down to keep the resonant note up high on those walls.
Bare with me folks.
Angling the speakers up would just cause more vertical reflections....thought we were trying to avoid this.
I read that comb filtering is product of horizontal array and not so much vertical. Otherwise I just might consider horizontal even after all that discussion we just had.
Its either really tall and wide or really wide and tall. I'm trying to keep the depth down to keep the resonant note up high on those walls.
Bare with me folks.
I like how these big horns have similar/aligned width to the width of the bass cabinet. Makes the design very neat looking to me. As opposed to circular based mid horns (like avantgarde, etc.) I think it even provide more integrated sound near field as the horns are physically closer to the bass driver? Is there much sonic benefit that circular horns provide over the rectangular styled ones ?
I have a pair of 204hz azurahorn horn (uses JMLC profile) for 8" driver, but the flare has been cut down. I find it difficult to find a way to mount it to so it is close to the woofer and mounted in some stable platform.
I have a pair of 204hz azurahorn horn (uses JMLC profile) for 8" driver, but the flare has been cut down. I find it difficult to find a way to mount it to so it is close to the woofer and mounted in some stable platform.