It's a statement against the youngsters' addiction to screens, yes.
I am not exactly young... but still feeling like a 16 year old sometimes 😉
One shouldn't kill one's inner child.
I am not exactly young... but still feeling like a 16 year old sometimes 😉
One shouldn't kill one's inner child.
Last edited:
Possibly, but Marcel did some sims of a horn made of flat slices, to see if the work to blend them was really necessary.
The results looked "sub-optimal", to be polite.
But maybe not much effect in this case.
That will be informative, thanks once more.
I suppose if the horn is built from flat slices then the slices are cut essentially the same so the only extra work is just a bit of calculation.
It just seemed more work to think about.
Best wishes
David
Last edited:
LeCleach has been mentioned too. Not my personal preference to terminate a waveguide, in theory it could be quite different to a radius.
Technically it's a truncated front loaded horn [FLH], i.e. a 'slice'/section out of a full size 'x' Hz horn.
GM
GM
What was once old is yet new again. 😉 Altec had a mid range horn like this in its 9862 studio monitors: Altec Lansing 9862 - Great Plains Audio
GM
No, for the original 605, which would have been driven with a matching impedance amp with variable DF tone controls: 1945 DUPLEX
Your 'E' will need similar EQ to 'fill up' the 110.
GM
Curvature
1) At the point of inflection the radius of curvature of both curves should match.
2) You can implement this profile, and others as well, with a single fairness curve. [1]
3) Check out the profiles generated by shape optimization regimens. [2]
4) The declining curvature in the throat, gently spreads a higher pressure wave front.
The increasing curvature at the month mitigates lower pressure wave reflectance.
WHG
1) At the point of inflection the radius of curvature of both curves should match.
2) You can implement this profile, and others as well, with a single fairness curve. [1]
3) Check out the profiles generated by shape optimization regimens. [2]
4) The declining curvature in the throat, gently spreads a higher pressure wave front.
The increasing curvature at the month mitigates lower pressure wave reflectance.
WHG
Last edited:
There is no point of inflection. If you mean at the join, yes, it should match (I guess). It will.
Thanks for the reading. I'm actually quite happy with how it's done now - this is the waveguide I will go for.
Last edited:
Is your mouth simply a linear function of x such that the slope at the junction is the same as the slope of the hyperbola and it is infinite at x = the waveguide length? This function would be easy to compute, and I agree that it would be better than a radius because the rate of change is gradual and happens mostly near the mouth.
It's exactly a clothoid (aka Euler spiral), i.e. a curve that has linearly increasing curvature along its length. It is actually quite hard to compute with 🙂
Euler spiral - Wikipedia
I believe there are other options of suitable curves - even a whole classes of splines. I chosed clothoid. The first one who suggested it to me was Dr. Bohumil Sýkora, Czech audio guru (I think he has an account here as bobolix). It was the BEM simulation that helped me to realize how much of the horn contour this curve can really take.
Euler spiral - Wikipedia
I believe there are other options of suitable curves - even a whole classes of splines. I chosed clothoid. The first one who suggested it to me was Dr. Bohumil Sýkora, Czech audio guru (I think he has an account here as bobolix). It was the BEM simulation that helped me to realize how much of the horn contour this curve can really take.
Last edited:
I stated that wrong above. No linear function of x could become infinite in a finite x, so it would likely be something like a Tan function, but still pretty simple.
But I agree that this kind of waveguide termination makes a lot more sense than a simple radius - which has an instantaneous change in slope at the junction. I wish that I had thought of this before.
But I agree that this kind of waveguide termination makes a lot more sense than a simple radius - which has an instantaneous change in slope at the junction. I wish that I had thought of this before.
Last edited:
I suppose it might be well approximated by something easier to compute. I haven't tried that. I thought about (Bezier) splines but that's not simpler at all in the end.
Status update, was able to get contact with AE through Facebook messenger, couldn’t get the 18h+ in 16ohm and was made aware that I was fortunate to be able to get the TD15M in 16 ohms, as such special request are fulfilled only with special orders which normally require a minimum order count. 8 ohms for the sub is probably trivial to the sum. I’m not sure if I want to run the sub sealed or ported. The fs of that sub is 35hz vs 20hz of the td15h but I feel the larger diaphragm, lower excursion is a good thing. Anyone think that the 15H is better based of the fs? If I chase loudness goals the 15H runs outside it’s xmax, but below xmech, the 18 stays within xmax and I figured the lowered excursion was a bigger deal than the fs...I understand how this results, playing below the port tuning, when tuned to fs, but, if I ran them sealed is the woofer fs so significant in regards to the spectrum played below it? I’m not sure if that’s a win either since sealed increase excursion by large. Looking for some opinions
Last edited:
That’s why I’m here, for the learning. Sounds like youre suggesting that AE isn’t ideal for a subwoofer? When I first suggested the 18h+ for the sub I didn’t receive any negative commentary...until now
As for 'thin/flabby', the video combined with others AE experience indicates it's plenty rigid, but short of an IB to ~mimic the video's air mass load, won't know how stiff it is until being driven hard in the cab. That said, known John, Nick since their beginnings and they've learned not just the physics, but the 'art' of driver design, so wouldn't think twice about recommending or using them.
Again, 'horses for courses'; you ideally want the Fs to be at/below whatever the lowest frequency it's likely to need to reproduce at some useful SPL. With a 29 Hz Fs I don't see how they can legitimately list it as suitable for HT, which always been referenced to 20 Hz nor low enough for a modern studio monitoring app, but if your music doesn't go below the lowest note on a piano [27.5 Hz] it's low enough.
GM
Again, 'horses for courses'; you ideally want the Fs to be at/below whatever the lowest frequency it's likely to need to reproduce at some useful SPL. With a 29 Hz Fs I don't see how they can legitimately list it as suitable for HT, which always been referenced to 20 Hz nor low enough for a modern studio monitoring app, but if your music doesn't go below the lowest note on a piano [27.5 Hz] it's low enough.
GM
The 18h has 14mm and a lot more surface area vs.
15m which has only 6mm and a lot less surface area. Plus the resonant freq. is higher.
-the 15m really shouldn't be considered a subwoofer in any high spl design - it just doesn't have the linear excursion.
As far a "flabby" is concerned - that's an issue with diaphragm "buckling" (mostly around the surround/outer-cone edge) which almost all cones have to some degree. In fact the AE driver's also have this, but overall they are more controlled than most within their linear range owing to their curve-linear cone.