Yes, They look pretty they do not work as well as they could.
Big CNC and the picture you show suggest doing a translam, something many of us do not like.
For the FE206 probably the best 3 horns are Dallas II, Kirishima, and Vulcan.
None, except for dadoing side panels, benefits much from a CNC.
dave
Increasing the mouth size to achieve the bass tuning in the design and reduce ripple before cutoff.
dave
Well, same comb filtering situation as your long vent, only worse to the point where damping won't solve it without damping out most of the bass, i.e. it will have a ~IB response except even better damped and if it's acoustically large enough, then it can have a nice mid-bass gain to offset baffle step.
That said, while it can sound really bad for good reason [the near God like revered Klipsch corner horn and its various incarnations IME is un-listenable unless XO'd < ~350 Hz], I've been around quite a few folks that find this comb filtering quite euphonic, so I just point out the physics of the situation and move on since we all hear the same, yet not so much.
I think there are too many variables to give a definite answer. So much depends on the room itself, the driver specifics, the damping factor, etc. etc. What is good in one situation maybe junk in another situation.Certainly curved horns work, there are plenty of examples in nature. But they are a *lot* more difficult (expensive) to make, to suit a certain room, even with computerized assistance. I greatly enjoyed my "baby Klipsches" even though my room was far too small, and they could have benefitted from an active sub below 100 Hz. I wouldn't try to claim the response was flat, but it was pleasing and very clear, free from IM distortion etc.
I don't presume to speak for Dave, but from my perspective, it's potentially rather wasteful of material unless you can think of something productive to do with the offcuts. From a functional POV though, the inherent Achilles heel is that you are frequently using the material in what is mechanically speaking its weakest orientation, increasing the potential for delamination or other structural failure.
Last edited:
Besides the issue that Scott outlines, translam also does not use the material in the direction they ar edesigned to work in so one needs much thicker walls further impacting the amount of material you need to make a box.
There is also a tendency to crack.
The only advantage of translam is that one can "fairly easily” achieve unusual shapes not possible using flat starting material. And easy ignores th ezillion pieces the CNC has to spit out, and all your labour assembling it and makeing th =e outside smooth.
It would be useful in executing the poorly designed TL t=you showed in post 1, but it turns out the stuff that would benefit from translam is one of the design issues with the box.
Translam will be seen as a brute force approach to achieving what can and what will be possible much more eleagntly tha brute force translam, and bypass many of the issues with translam — one thing i am particualrily interested is that one can build thin walls that outperform the thicker ones we have been already using to build boxes.
dave
There is also a tendency to crack.
The only advantage of translam is that one can "fairly easily” achieve unusual shapes not possible using flat starting material. And easy ignores th ezillion pieces the CNC has to spit out, and all your labour assembling it and makeing th =e outside smooth.
It would be useful in executing the poorly designed TL t=you showed in post 1, but it turns out the stuff that would benefit from translam is one of the design issues with the box.
Translam will be seen as a brute force approach to achieving what can and what will be possible much more eleagntly tha brute force translam, and bypass many of the issues with translam — one thing i am particualrily interested is that one can build thin walls that outperform the thicker ones we have been already using to build boxes.
dave