Mini-Synergy Horn Experiment

Status
This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.
I'm going to assume they want to see it normalized to 0°. This discussion has been had before........quite possibly in one of my threads :rolleyes:. I'll say that I don't see any need for normalizing to 0° but it's easy to do so here you go. I could see normalizing an un-eq'd, raw response to my design axis if I wanted to look at the contour plot without going through the process of eq'ing and re-taking the data.
 

Attachments

  • normalized contour plot.PNG
    normalized contour plot.PNG
    463.3 KB · Views: 503
It's mostly the choice of 0 dB. In the web app this can be adjusted if you want so that a closer match can be had.

What's the point in allowing the user to offset the response? Playing with your NS-15 data I offset +3dB. Doing so doesn't change the -6dB reference so it looks like the pattern is more like 110° (rather than 90°). When I went to change it I thought that it would offset the 0dB reference, rather than the speaker's response :confused:. That said it appears what you've chosen for 0dB tracks 22° very well (your design axis?) but it also could be an average level for the 0° curve.
 
Nate - the point was to allow for a better comparison with other software that may use a different 0 dB reference.

I don't follow your other comment. Yes, changing the 0 dB reference does change the response by shifting it up or down. That's what changing the reference means.

Yes 22 degrees is what I design to.

I can't recall the exact method of setting the 0 dB point, but it is an average over some band of frequencies - I think on the 0 degree axis.

Normalizing an uneq'd response makes some sense, but arbitrarily picking 0 degree to normalize a speaker optimized to some other axis makes no sense.
 
PS - and yes, I have also noted that the choice of dB reference will alter the -6 dB beam-width (the reason for the reference level adjustment.) This will happen more or less depending on how uniform the response is across angles and frequency. To me, comparing beam widths accurately means standardizing on a means for determining the reference level. Its a no-brainer at a single frequency, but a real problem when one is looking at a broad band device.

And don't get me started on how much this gets screwed up when the data is normalized!!
 
Founder of XSA-Labs
Joined 2012
Paid Member
Micro Trynergy with similar mouth size as horn in this thread and 2in full range driver gets surprisingly high sensitivity and bandwidth. Still in progress as no bass ports yet - but looks very promising. Mouth dimensions are about 13in wide x 8.5in high x 11in deep. Single Tang Band paper cone full range W2-852SH driver.

http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/full...l-range-tractrix-synergy-108.html#post4544312

This was measured at 0.7v and 1m (-10dB down from 2.83v):
518822d1449810072-presenting-trynergy-full-range-tractrix-synergy-utrynergy-10db-hd.png
 
Last edited:
Pano - the more I look at the different plots and think about it I can see how they are both useful considering how much variance there is at 0deg on my wg. This falls in with my discussion with Earl a few days ago as the 0dB average can make quite a difference in the displayed plot and I'm not quite sure how to reconcile that with reality. Of course a device with less variance at all angles would be better and I'm going to try to improve that.

Allen - I don't follow......what is it that you see? I *do* plan to redo the eq, but not to any certain axis. This speaker is really used as a pa speaker in my basement gym/workshop so the coverage area is fairly wide. I'll re-eq to an average over the listening area.
 
Micro Trynergy with similar mouth size as horn in this thread and 2in full range driver gets surprisingly high sensitivity and bandwidth. Still in progress as no bass ports yet - but looks very promising. Mouth dimensions are about 13in wide x 8.5in high x 11in deep. Single Tang Band paper cone full range W2-852SH driver.

http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/full...l-range-tractrix-synergy-108.html#post4544312

This was measured at 0.7v and 1m (-10dB down from 2.83v):
518822d1449810072-presenting-trynergy-full-range-tractrix-synergy-utrynergy-10db-hd.png

You must have Umik mic?
distortion rise to topend looks similar when juhazi visit me with his Umik...
 
Status
This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.