What ever horn that comes next, I will be the builder, it will likely be 3d printed. What I was showing in the other picture picture is a butterfly patch. Its used to cover up knots/blemishes on B grade wood... It is not something that would ever be on the outside of a finished piece of work, like furniture, cabinets... an expensive horn.
for my understanding, this kind of patched wood, was this used partially for your elliptical tractrix or what is the reason why you show us the picture?
Could you provide a link to Celestion showing your story/setup or is it only planned?
Could you provide a link to Celestion showing your story/setup or is it only planned?
Camplo,
On 3/13/2019 in the original post you wrote:
"I've been on a quest to build my own own reference monitor."
So far, in your near five-year quest you have displayed an unfinished elliptical tractrix horn laying on an unfinished 2x18" cabinet with a resonator slot.
What is your design?
Art
Come on you know what it is, its a large horn crossed at 200hz to some woofers. That in itself is a platform. Whatever it is, it was enough to draw their attention its not like I messaged them. Otherwise its not finished yet 🤣 Don't be mad at me 🤣
I'm not mad at you, but a large horn crossed at 200Hz sitting on a platform made from some woofers in a sealed box with a resonator slot between them is no more a "design" than four tires, an engine and a tachometer is an automobile 🙂
Best of luck finishing a design and building a reference monitor!
Best of luck finishing a design and building a reference monitor!
For a two way design, one would expect to explore options that don't limit bandwidth as much, as well as offering consistency over a wider range. Based on conventional wisdom it can be difficult to give up the features of conventional devices.. loading, for example.. or novel features like slots.
Don't get me wrong, it's valuable to experience these things. They still have their uses, and you won't spend your time wondering.
It can take somewhat of a leap of faith to try a modern approach.
Don't get me wrong, it's valuable to experience these things. They still have their uses, and you won't spend your time wondering.
It can take somewhat of a leap of faith to try a modern approach.
Can you elaborate? When I listen to it... it sounds amazing... whats missing? What aspects are missing that any project needs to be officially called a design?
I think you are talking about constant directivity waveguiding. I am so set on the vocal range living on one acoustical axis that I would only entertain the synergy type approach or an MTM. The simplicity of just a single driver horn is hard to beat. I have a 15" on a baffle that's almost identical in width/height as my horns mouth, and iirc the horn was dryer than the woofer, at 200hz... it would be worth it to experiment again... what I think is that the horn has a higher DI. I also didn't appreciate moving the xo point higher... It caused the vocals to become compartmentalized... Im listening at 1m. I can cover 20hz-20khz with the system in full. Wheres the bandwidth limitations?
There isn't an aspect that we've not covered and discussed. What type of design do you hypothesize I try?
Heres an interesting thought... who here has heard a "design" just like or very similar to mine????? If the answer is no... how could one conclude that something is "off"... with not ever experiencing such a thing? There is one user here who has crossed a large exponential horn to a woofer at 200hz, and he, loves, it...
I was thinking to make a website that showcased the design once it was finished. I put them on hold, basically telling them it wasn't finished yet. I didn't want to make contact with them again until I was finished with everything. To be honest, I am not like, turned on about it. It is flattering, especially in wake of the negativity that I have been subjected to by some. Anyone talking down on my design, whens the last time a major manufacture contacted you, about one of your designs lol.
Other wise, I am more interested in earning the respect of my peers here, than any type of fame or notoriety.
Well design it so I can put your name on it... Can't you do better than this?
I spent a fair amount of time/energy evaluating the B&C DCX464 CD & ME464 horn combo, set directly on top of a 18" sub, either sealed or ported.
Xover at 300Hz when playing at full SPL, and I tried lower frequencies for lower listening levels.
Nice sound, something I'd probably be happy with, if I weren't accustomed to the greater clarity of the CD covering less bandwidth in my other builds.
Did you happen to get any outside 1m measurements? Can you share the mdat?
I always felt that your views here are not fair.... Try again, with a horn that has a proper cutoff for crossing at 300hz. That would mean a horn with a cutoff closer to 1 octave lower than the XO point... or possibly half n octave with a steep filter.
Here ya go. Although not at 1m. Taken at 3m off deck.
The main reason I measure outside is to get into the acoustic far field, to get away from 1m measurements
(acoustic far field can't happen at 1m, other than for really small speakers.)
Also, here's a set of polars using 300Hz hp.
The Me464 has a proper cutoff at 300Hz, at least according to B&C and my meas.
But Camplo, the idea of 300Hz from a CD has come to be such a non starter for me,....... even if the horn could load the CD down to zero Hz.
The problem imo is with the CD itself, no matter how good it is ....trying to span too many octaves..
.which ime introduces what I think is some form of intermodulation distortion.
I think anytime we ask a driver to exceed 3 octaves, we are leaving SQ on the table..
And that's as true for subs, as it is compression drivers, as it is for midranges, etc etc..
Only way to avoid the SQ hit from drivers spanning too far that i know, is it to keep the volume down.
Which for you, apparently wanting giant 1m headphones, damn well might work beautifully 🙂
Hi Mark
I always wodered how one of these DCX (i.e. either this one or the smaller one) would fare on a smaller horn used within a four way system. One would not make use of the driver's LF capability but maybe this would be advantageous in terms of HD and IMD further up.
Regards
Charles
To crossover at 300hz you'd want a horn with a cutoff of 150hz -225hz.... So until you've tried that... you've never tried it with any chance of meeting your expectations, thats all I'm saying. Even if you still find it lesser than desired, you might find it better than expected, but until then, we won't know. Thank you for sharing your knowledge and measurements btw... getting people to share measurements can be like pulling teeth sometimes...never did get that. Speaking of measurements.... the mdat is at 3m or 1m? Did you just take these measurements? I've never seen such a phase in a measurement, Is there something wrong here? I take it this is off the deck, your usual set up? Oh wait, theres 2 measurements... one has normal looking phase, the other looks very unfamiliar. OK one has timing offset one does not, according to notes..
Last edited:
You're welcome with regards to the meas.
I'm just so convinced that increasing mult-way count makes for better sound, I just can't get excited, even care about a lower horn cutoffs
Measurement from previous mdat were at 3m, and taken a few years back.
If you at the data tabs, they tell the phase story.
Measurement 1 shows Delay 177.8724 relative to Loopback with no timing offset.
#2 shows Delay 0.0002ms with 177.8724ms timing offset.
Taking the first measurement with no offset, then putting its measured delay into the subsequent measurement,
is my standard method of setting time and looking at phase.
I like that method much more than letting REW estimate IR shifts, because it gives me the same timing results as my dual channel measurement programs.
And skips what I think are the the over complications, over analysis, of IR shifts, min phase, excess phase, yada....by going straight to an interpretable phase trace....
Just my method, although I highly recommend it.
I'm just so convinced that increasing mult-way count makes for better sound, I just can't get excited, even care about a lower horn cutoffs
Measurement from previous mdat were at 3m, and taken a few years back.
If you at the data tabs, they tell the phase story.
Measurement 1 shows Delay 177.8724 relative to Loopback with no timing offset.
#2 shows Delay 0.0002ms with 177.8724ms timing offset.
Taking the first measurement with no offset, then putting its measured delay into the subsequent measurement,
is my standard method of setting time and looking at phase.
I like that method much more than letting REW estimate IR shifts, because it gives me the same timing results as my dual channel measurement programs.
And skips what I think are the the over complications, over analysis, of IR shifts, min phase, excess phase, yada....by going straight to an interpretable phase trace....
Just my method, although I highly recommend it.
Hi Charles, what size horn are you thinking?
I think it would work great on about anything. I've liked it on everything from a XT1464 to the big ME464. Not to mention my various size syn builds.
I agree, the dual radiators should theoretically improve IMD. Do note though, the higher section of the DCX does have higher THD than the lower.
I posted some sweeps (and some at pretty dang high SPLs) on a thread titled DCX464, a while back.
LOL this is more or less a dead lock as you sorted out lmh 😉 But feel free to download one of my calculators if want to do it yourself. To do it better than your current horn is no big issue as the tractrix horn has a way too small mouth area which very important how you intend to use the horn.
No, I was just reminiscing about choices made.. I would add that hard choices can limit the already tight compromises to the point that the result becomes quite unique.
In any case you're right that your system would have potential. Here we are talking details, you've got to expect that.
I have used literally all the JBL 235X series horns, the 2356 cutoff is 120Hz, one watt at 30 feet could do ~100 dB SPL.
The 2350 and 2350 cutoff was higher, but at close range, still could produce deafening levels crossed over as low as 225Hz.
Though the 2350 horns could be used as low as 225Hz in a home environment, cone drivers sounded far superior in the range from 225-1200Hz even at levels that were not stressing the HF drivers.
I don't doubt that the HF horn you purchased sounds better to you than the resonator slot 18s" at 225Hz, but until you've tried comparing the sound of properly deployed cone drivers in that range (as many of us have..) you still don't know what you are missing.
Art