I would suggest staying as close as possible to the original design as far as horn area and length. You are correct that most reasonably sized horn systems are compromised. It is difficult to imagine how any speaker will sound based on drawings, numbers, and graphs. I generally try for something that seems reasonable, looks nice, and then hope for the best. There is certainly plenty of room for some artistry and intuition in speaker building.
OK, 1st things first: Don't know why, but with it as expo flare the LW doesn't work, so changed it to par to use it; that said, it must be par since any flare with one set of parallel walls is defacto parabolic.
Note too that HR's auto driver/vent pathlength difference calculation is zero since that's normally the case with typical vented alignments, but presumably you're not going to be listening with your face buried in the cone, so the ROT is 1/2 the pathlength distance, which smooths it out somewhat and gets rid of the deep 3rd harmonic dip.
Anyway, is this based on the posted cab drawing?
If so they apparently 'had a clue' as my way is to design a full size/optimum (TTBOMK) horn and scale it (1/8 in this case) and except for mine having a little more (guessing mostly inaudible) HF gain in the ~250-680 Hz BW and a bit smaller @ 158 L Vs ~205.2 L (guessing more output impedance factored in) the simmed plots overlay.
This truncated limits it to ~70 Hz without EQ to trade efficiency for BW in that if 95 dB/m transients are loud enough you can EQ flat from Fs - up.
Note too that HR's auto driver/vent pathlength difference calculation is zero since that's normally the case with typical vented alignments, but presumably you're not going to be listening with your face buried in the cone, so the ROT is 1/2 the pathlength distance, which smooths it out somewhat and gets rid of the deep 3rd harmonic dip.
Anyway, is this based on the posted cab drawing?
If so they apparently 'had a clue' as my way is to design a full size/optimum (TTBOMK) horn and scale it (1/8 in this case) and except for mine having a little more (guessing mostly inaudible) HF gain in the ~250-680 Hz BW and a bit smaller @ 158 L Vs ~205.2 L (guessing more output impedance factored in) the simmed plots overlay.
This truncated limits it to ~70 Hz without EQ to trade efficiency for BW in that if 95 dB/m transients are loud enough you can EQ flat from Fs - up.
You're welcome!
Thanks! Good to know the Wizard is top notch! Not surprised though, DMB 'goes the extra mile' for getting HR as accurate as possible, so all things considered, its sim s/b more technically correct than mine.
Thanks! Good to know the Wizard is top notch! Not surprised though, DMB 'goes the extra mile' for getting HR as accurate as possible, so all things considered, its sim s/b more technically correct than mine.
A Fs tuned 'sectioned' design, so longer, smaller with greater LF power handling, though worse group delay, less mids gain as the trade-off and not really needed in a room corner boundary gain HIFI app, so all things considered doesn't seem the best choice for your app.
OKAY. I have reached total brain saturation, and I've decided to put the idea of designing a (proper) horn specifically for the Beta 8 to rest for now. As much as I want to follow it through, the rabbit hole is a bit too deep. Between studying to become an electrical engineer and my fifteen other hobbies it'd simply take up too much time right now.
Fortunately, there are plenty of seemingly suitable horn designs i could make use of, but I'd very much like some input from the sages here.
The ones I've narrowed it down to are:
Do any of these stand out as particularly suitable, or should i be fine going with any of them? I ultimately intend to build a SE EL84-based amp to drive them.
Fortunately, there are plenty of seemingly suitable horn designs i could make use of, but I'd very much like some input from the sages here.
The ones I've narrowed it down to are:
- The Vulcan/Avebury (What's the functional difference?)
- The Frugel-horn (XL?)
- The Ron Clarke Horn
- Rutcho's universal horn
Do any of these stand out as particularly suitable, or should i be fine going with any of them? I ultimately intend to build a SE EL84-based amp to drive them.
Last edited by a moderator:
Internal detail differences. Scott has done many in this format. Vulcan probably.
Joan likely has. a better chance.
dave
Last edited:
They should each have their own 'signature' sound in theory, but considering the 8" Coral's vintage 'slant' and can only make educated guesses as to how it would sound in each, though would be tempted to make another 'Mellow Monster' system based on Harry Olson's RCA manifold BLH that took me to a whole 'nother level of 'HIFI' before following my 'dream' to large Altec prosound/cinema systems.
In short, IF there's a 'standout' for me it would be a custom designed Megalith or if going 'smooth as a baby's bottom' HIFI, a Ron Clarke variant.
In short, IF there's a 'standout' for me it would be a custom designed Megalith or if going 'smooth as a baby's bottom' HIFI, a Ron Clarke variant.
Essentially a bigger FXL, no? Read something about it being slightly less bass forward, figure the Beta 8 could maybe need some help in that regard. The form factor and simplicity (and free plans) is appealing, though.
First I've heard of 'em! Only thing I'm not ecstatic about is the sheer width of them, prefer tall/narrow enclosures for footprint reasons. If they sound good, though...
I'm definitely partial to the Megaliths, and I understand Scott provides a service for that -- But do you know if it tends to get pricey? All i got is a pair of Beta 8's and student loans
I could certainly spring for the plans, but not all too much more.Smooth don't sound half bad, and the Dallas II's seem simple enough. Beta 8 doesn't perfectly match up with the FE206E, but maybe one could get away with it?
Excited to be narrowing it down! I can smell the Hifi from here.
...Or is that burnt toast?
Schmackshorn but with the top part bifurcated like the "mellow Monster"
http://www.mh-audio.nl/Plans/other plans/Schmacks Horn.pdf
The central placement of the driver will agument the baffle step to a lower frequency
http://www.mh-audio.nl/Plans/other plans/Schmacks Horn.pdf
The central placement of the driver will agument the baffle step to a lower frequency
They are the same basic design. Called Joan as Scott had to reduce the gain to keep the size down, hence Joan, cousin of Frugel-Horns. The larger drivers used do not really need the gain.
dave
Like any simple design it's easy enough to convert it to high aspect ratio. It impressed a lot of folks around the world, but like any horn design it's just a concept, so ideally needs to be designed to suit one's modern day app.First I've heard of 'em! Only thing I'm not ecstatic about is the sheer width of them, prefer tall/narrow enclosures for footprint reasons. If they sound good, though...
I'm definitely partial to the Megaliths, and I understand Scott provides a service for that -- But do you know if it tends to get pricey? All i got is a pair of Beta 8's and student loans
Smooth don't sound half bad, and the Dallas II's seem simple enough. Beta 8 doesn't perfectly match up with the FE206E, but maybe one could get away with it?
No clue, not involved in his and/or Dave's business in any way other than what I can see online.
Dunno without dims to reverse engineer, but assume none of these are drop-ins, I just made observations from experience of the basic designs and/or prior published info; didn't mean to imply any of them were fine as is.
Looks like the driver is very versatile based on your provided specs and looking at the default options in the hornresp design wizard--performs well in reasonably sized closed box, bass reflex and TL enclosures too.
Would be pretty cool to try something like that out to be honest -- Bring it into the 21st century a bit.
For now though, I've decided to go with the Dallas II's. I modeled them in fusion 360 to calculate volumes and tapers, but some parts have me confused.
Far as I've understood it, you don't really want a section of a horn where the taper increases and then promptly decreases. The encircled area in the attached pictures, though, has one such section. Expands by ~30mm at the top then narrows back down, creating a "pinch point". I followed the plans from frugalhorn, but i gather they were reverse engineered from pictures and such since the original plans have disappeared.
Just want to make sure I'm not "correcting" something that's been put there intentionally. Figure it could just be a compromise between ease of building and theoretical efficiency.
-- And for anyone interested, i will be posting all 3d files, plans and documentation from this thread for posterity once i know things are in spec.
Your understanding is incorrect. An expansion in the horn can be quite useful as it acts as a low pass filter taking out some of the higher frequencies from exiting the mouth 9a good thing).
The Vulcan i posted a visualization of, extensive use of this, and the Olson/Nagaoka stepped taper to get teh mouth response desired.
Modern horn simulators have shown us many more possibilities.
The RonHorns were simulated using Ron’s propritory modeler (based on his years of work designed “ducts” for industry. It was one of the first properly simulated before being built… not guesses as the Coral horn would be an example of.
dave
Last edited:
Well damn, that's cool. Makes simulating and tuning it a lot more difficult, though
I'm starting to get comfy with Hornresp, but I'm not sure it can do more than 4 horn sections. Figure it comes out to ~3 conical sections terminated with an exponential curve.
Aaaah, of course!! Hope restored. Finished modeling, so now it's on to simulation.
Last edited by a moderator: