Lots of nonsense here about corner speakers……..a baffle wall is just about the best option if you want to actually hear the speaker and not the room. But yes, you’ll need your own crossover tweeks for the low end if your design criteria is M2.
This would/will be quite an undertaking… discreet 4 channel DSP and amplification offers the best possible outcome. There’s lots of excellent 15” woofers that can handle this.
Better get some heavy drapes for that glass wall………nothing you could do with drivers can compete with all those reflective surfaces…….not an ideal acoustic space that warrants the effort you plan…..sorta like building a Ferrari to drive around the market lot.
Take this all with a grain of salt though as this comes from a mix engineer…..I’ve used $500 speakers in a $5k room for decades
This would/will be quite an undertaking… discreet 4 channel DSP and amplification offers the best possible outcome. There’s lots of excellent 15” woofers that can handle this.
Better get some heavy drapes for that glass wall………nothing you could do with drivers can compete with all those reflective surfaces…….not an ideal acoustic space that warrants the effort you plan…..sorta like building a Ferrari to drive around the market lot.
Take this all with a grain of salt though as this comes from a mix engineer…..I’ve used $500 speakers in a $5k room for decades
Here is an existing build with a false wall layout + speaker placement very much like the proposal in post 1. The room seem to be similarly full of hard surfaces.
http://www.cowanaudio.com/
click on the link for "unity, the finale"
Horn used = 90 degree horizontal.
"the response above the 340Hz crossover changes by no more than a dB or two anywhere in the room"
It looks like, in this case, controlled directivity "won", in a hard room.
http://www.cowanaudio.com/
click on the link for "unity, the finale"
Horn used = 90 degree horizontal.
"the response above the 340Hz crossover changes by no more than a dB or two anywhere in the room"
It looks like, in this case, controlled directivity "won", in a hard room.
This one has pattern control to 100Hz
https://community.klipsch.com/index.php?/topic/161404-a-k-402-based-full-range-multiple-entry-horn/
You already have a different HF driver and baffle concept to the M2 in mind, so I don't feel bad for suggesting a radically differnt horn as well 🙂
https://community.klipsch.com/index.php?/topic/161404-a-k-402-based-full-range-multiple-entry-horn/
You already have a different HF driver and baffle concept to the M2 in mind, so I don't feel bad for suggesting a radically differnt horn as well 🙂
I'm not too sure about the way that plot has rendered. Not to mention that the vertical instead will be the limiting factor.
Generally speaking though, a large conical has benefits.
Generally speaking though, a large conical has benefits.
If it was my build (looking at the pix in post 1), I'd simply scale the horn up to being as big as the space allows. Bigger horn = better pattern control.
The "wasted" bit in the second image (between the horn edge and the TV)? That's free real estate.
There is a charming clone of the K402 horn on an Aussie forum (Stereonet). One could copy + further modify this clone to suit almost any scale / angle / transition curve at the horn mouth.
It would be achievable, though not necessarily as simple as that. For example if you hold it longer you may simply be strengthening the reflection.
Again, not so simple. Changing the angle changes the other horn parameters at the same time. Scaling changes the audibility priorities and the room conditions.
I'm intrigued / don't get it.
If:
Horn (A) has pattern control to 200Hz
Horn (B) has pattern control to 100Hz
(assuming everything else is identical)
What is the mechanism that could cause B to have a stronger reflection?
Oops, gotta stop using the term with coverage angle. Thanks, feel silly never looking it up 😀
You say that like it wasn't ambiguous 🙂 I thought by "gap" you meant the ~octave gap between where the different sized horns would lose pattern control.
So you are saying that a physical gap (transition from horn to a flat wall) would "scatter" some "residue" - (whatever that means). And this is a good thing.
...but a physical transition to a flat screen (in exactly the same plane) would not have the same effect? How?
How does a soundwave know the difference between a flat wall and a flat TV?
I don't see how this part of post 47 makes sense. Could you maybe start over - and maybe make the explanations less terse?
I'm not saying it is a good thing, only that it can be. One designs in or learns where reflections are going to happen and what the circumstances of those are. It depends on the application. It's not enough to say you'll join it up so there are no gaps and assume it's an improvement any more than you might smooth over automobile body work so there are no gaps and assume you won't create low pressure systems that affect its top speed.
When I try to reduce a peak, let say the huge one K have at 43Hz, especially on the left spesker which has to be in a corner, it reduces a dip even further. Also, some peaks and dips are only heard in certain spots in the room. I hope to get a larger listening space soon.
If you are building a complete wall for a speaker, why not build slightly bent basshorns? It will for sure sound more livelier than another ported woofer. If the bend is only 90 degrees you should be able to use it up to a midrange horn. Horns can be made with a more narrow dispersion that regular speakers and be less effected by the corners it is in. What is special about the M2 is the woofer.
I don’t think the midrange horn in the JBL M2 is any better than the round JMLC horn that you have now.
I don’t think the midrange horn in the JBL M2 is any better than the round JMLC horn that you have now.
Last edited:
Most round horns I know have appaling directivity in the top octave, If that is the case with this one, before you know it you'll be looking for a tweeter.
You can hang heavy curtains on the sides to alleviate the effects of both room asymmetry and side reflections. The floor must be treated as ceramic is a very hard material. However, it may be possible to avoid treatment of the ceiling (and thereby also maintain the skylights) by adding some kind of diffusing pattern.
In my opinion, the TV screen not being a hard wall only has one problem which is resonance. If you're able to avoid rattling by any part of the TV / shelves, then I think you would end up with good sound with good stereo imaging.
The wall (baffle) in the above post extends well beyond the speakers (true 180*) which I believe would have an effect on the radiation pattern and reflections, except at very low frequencies. In fact, the baffle seems to be almost double the size of the large mid-horn and with the toe-in, most of the sound clearly goes into the room and not to the sides. The room looks long and the ceiling seems to be really high as well.
It's a very clever design.