Hi
Is there any experience which port form avoids Problems in the Horn?
Is circular better or is this always exerimental?
At the moment i am using these slots:
Is there any experience which port form avoids Problems in the Horn?
Is circular better or is this always exerimental?
At the moment i am using these slots:
Hi Christian
If you read through Mark100´s many threads on synergy horns, you can learn a bit from him. I know it is pretty comprehensive by now. He has made many experiments with hole-shapes and placement under the cone.
One thing that he has found out is, that it is important with symmetry on the midranges (not so much on the woofers). So he basically makes a round hole directly under the center (dust-cab) of the midrange-driver.
Maybe you can try to use only one midrange-driver on each side with two round port-holes arranged symmetrically under the cone? So you will only have two instead of four midranges per horn.
The area of your port-holes stil seems pretty small? The FaitalPRO 5PR160 has a Sd of 85 cm2, divided with 12 makes 7,1 cm2 divided by two is 3,54 cm2 wich translates to a 21mm round hole. So you could try with two round holes of 21 mm under one driver.
Happy experimenting
Steffen
If you read through Mark100´s many threads on synergy horns, you can learn a bit from him. I know it is pretty comprehensive by now. He has made many experiments with hole-shapes and placement under the cone.
One thing that he has found out is, that it is important with symmetry on the midranges (not so much on the woofers). So he basically makes a round hole directly under the center (dust-cab) of the midrange-driver.
Maybe you can try to use only one midrange-driver on each side with two round port-holes arranged symmetrically under the cone? So you will only have two instead of four midranges per horn.
The area of your port-holes stil seems pretty small? The FaitalPRO 5PR160 has a Sd of 85 cm2, divided with 12 makes 7,1 cm2 divided by two is 3,54 cm2 wich translates to a 21mm round hole. So you could try with two round holes of 21 mm under one driver.
Happy experimenting
Steffen
Hi Steffen
Will try to find the related ones.
Yes, read a lot... and also forget a lot 😉
Will try to find the related ones.
Will try that... but i am just using the frequency range up to 400/500Hz.
The holes in the drawing are not the final ones and not correct position. I already moved them up a little bit and made them bigger. I think i can move them even more to the mouth... so i could place them below the center!
Hi again Christian
I think that Mark100 had a thread on the Klipsch-forum, under the name "Gnarly", where he experimented with different port-hole-shapes. Long time since I have been there! Maybe you can find something useful there?
Steffen
I think that Mark100 had a thread on the Klipsch-forum, under the name "Gnarly", where he experimented with different port-hole-shapes. Long time since I have been there! Maybe you can find something useful there?
Steffen
Hi Christian
I was just looking at your drawing, when it hit me! Your first-horn-part is flat/narrow and wide in cross section where the midrange-ports are located, so I could imagine that it does disturb the horn-path/sound-waves more than in a conventional conical 90x60 horn that is much wider/opposing portholes are further apart.
How about placing the midranges on the narrow side? One on each side i.e. top/bottom. In that way the horn-path will not be disturbed so much, maybe!?
Just an idea.
Steffen
I was just looking at your drawing, when it hit me! Your first-horn-part is flat/narrow and wide in cross section where the midrange-ports are located, so I could imagine that it does disturb the horn-path/sound-waves more than in a conventional conical 90x60 horn that is much wider/opposing portholes are further apart.
How about placing the midranges on the narrow side? One on each side i.e. top/bottom. In that way the horn-path will not be disturbed so much, maybe!?
Just an idea.
Steffen
Hi Steffen,
Yes, same idea. But first will try the "traditional" way because this way i can work with 4 drivers. To make things easier, i will try to make a cutout and replace just the insides 😉
Yes, same idea. But first will try the "traditional" way because this way i can work with 4 drivers. To make things easier, i will try to make a cutout and replace just the insides 😉
Hi guys,
Christian, pls don't think I'm unwilling to try to help. It's just my builds differ enough from yours, that I don't think I have enough experience to say too much.
And Steffen, thanks for the votes of confidence.
The long flat horn section your are putting the mids one big part that differs from what I've found works for me...I'm eager to see how it works out.
The second difference I mentioned earlier in the thread, is that I don't see mids being able to reach down to sub territory. By that i mean to 100Hz.
I've had trouble even getting 12"s down to a solid 100Hz, without adding reflex ports.
That's half the reason I went with round ports centered under the cone....I found they went lower than ports under the edges, and overall response was smoother. The other half is that it let me put large low-mids nin the top and bottom horn sections and seal them up easy....to save weight.
Saving weight has always been my major compromise.
I've no reason to believe that ports aren't best placed in the horns corners. But I do have reason to believe it's not as crucial as commonly thought, and allows for design compromises.
Imo, the genius of TD's unity/synergy horn rests on a few major realizations.
One being putting drivers on the outside of a pyramid, rather than on a flat baffle, reduces the c2c spacing between drivers.
Another being, with the VHF/HF at the pyramids apex, and then mids, then lows, then subs etc moving down the pyramid......has the potential to mitigate the natural z-axis physical offsets needed between acoustics centers as passbands decrease in freq.
And another, the often discussed horn flare rate matching for drivers locations. I haven't made much progress with this one haha.
I think with those foundational realizations , we are free to experiment and play to hearts content. If it works, it works 🙂
I mean all this a way of encouragement.....and to say, I wouldn't expect things to work on first try...
Christian, pls don't think I'm unwilling to try to help. It's just my builds differ enough from yours, that I don't think I have enough experience to say too much.
And Steffen, thanks for the votes of confidence.
The long flat horn section your are putting the mids one big part that differs from what I've found works for me...I'm eager to see how it works out.
The second difference I mentioned earlier in the thread, is that I don't see mids being able to reach down to sub territory. By that i mean to 100Hz.
I've had trouble even getting 12"s down to a solid 100Hz, without adding reflex ports.
That's half the reason I went with round ports centered under the cone....I found they went lower than ports under the edges, and overall response was smoother. The other half is that it let me put large low-mids nin the top and bottom horn sections and seal them up easy....to save weight.
Saving weight has always been my major compromise.
I've no reason to believe that ports aren't best placed in the horns corners. But I do have reason to believe it's not as crucial as commonly thought, and allows for design compromises.
Imo, the genius of TD's unity/synergy horn rests on a few major realizations.
One being putting drivers on the outside of a pyramid, rather than on a flat baffle, reduces the c2c spacing between drivers.
Another being, with the VHF/HF at the pyramids apex, and then mids, then lows, then subs etc moving down the pyramid......has the potential to mitigate the natural z-axis physical offsets needed between acoustics centers as passbands decrease in freq.
And another, the often discussed horn flare rate matching for drivers locations. I haven't made much progress with this one haha.
I think with those foundational realizations , we are free to experiment and play to hearts content. If it works, it works 🙂
I mean all this a way of encouragement.....and to say, I wouldn't expect things to work on first try...
Hello Mark
Thank you for your support! And don't worry... less experience than me is almost impossible in this area 😉
I am happy about every tip and hint. The only problem would be if someone came and said: This is the right way... without real knowledge.
Luckily nobody does that 😉
Next I try to mill two parts with the cutouts... that helps to try different holes, positions and maybe different drivers too 😉
Thx to everybody
Thank you for your support! And don't worry... less experience than me is almost impossible in this area 😉
I am happy about every tip and hint. The only problem would be if someone came and said: This is the right way... without real knowledge.
Luckily nobody does that 😉
Next I try to mill two parts with the cutouts... that helps to try different holes, positions and maybe different drivers too 😉
Thx to everybody
I would try 2 smaller holes per mid, because smaller holes, at my case, have less impact on the HF Response.
Hi Josef
Yes, will try different holes and sizes. Thats why i am planing to build the "inlets" Hopefully that will work 😉
Yes, will try different holes and sizes. Thats why i am planing to build the "inlets" Hopefully that will work 😉
There are many trade-offs, centering the holes on the mids should improve linearity and increase the frequency at which cancellation occurs in the mids compression chamber (like a simple phase plug). Along these lines a ring entry could be even better, I've never seen anyone try it but if you're experimenting....
There is also this design from PK sound which looks like it does the business: https://patents.google.com/patent/US9894433B2/en?oq=PATENT:+US9894433B2
There is also this design from PK sound which looks like it does the business: https://patents.google.com/patent/US9894433B2/en?oq=PATENT:+US9894433B2
Hi Christian.
Hmm. It looks like you create two band-pass-chambers in series!? One between the cone and the red part, and a second between the red and yellow part. I would think that you have to open the hole in the red part up, so that the cone sees the yellow part? But then it seems that you will have a lot of volume between the cone and the yellow part, creating a high-pass-filter with a too low corner-frequency. Bla Bla Bla, hard to describe, and maybe I am all wrong.
Just try it and see and learn.
I have been contemplating: Due to the rather narrow throat-part (not much expansion compared to a conventional conical horn), that maybe you need to have two midrange sections: Upper midrange and lower midrange/bass. With a single (one each side) driver close to the throat with two small ports and two drivers (two each side) further out, to get enough loading to go deeper!? Just a thought.
Steffen
Hmm. It looks like you create two band-pass-chambers in series!? One between the cone and the red part, and a second between the red and yellow part. I would think that you have to open the hole in the red part up, so that the cone sees the yellow part? But then it seems that you will have a lot of volume between the cone and the yellow part, creating a high-pass-filter with a too low corner-frequency. Bla Bla Bla, hard to describe, and maybe I am all wrong.
Just try it and see and learn.
I have been contemplating: Due to the rather narrow throat-part (not much expansion compared to a conventional conical horn), that maybe you need to have two midrange sections: Upper midrange and lower midrange/bass. With a single (one each side) driver close to the throat with two small ports and two drivers (two each side) further out, to get enough loading to go deeper!? Just a thought.
Steffen
Hi Steffen
Yes, maybe you are right… but it seems, I have to try different ways to learn and see how they react. The second chamber on the other hand, maybe result in less problems in the tweeter… don‘t know 😉
And maybe, I will build a complete new horn from scratch… who knows 😉
I huge playground… just missing time 😉
Yes, maybe you are right… but it seems, I have to try different ways to learn and see how they react. The second chamber on the other hand, maybe result in less problems in the tweeter… don‘t know 😉
And maybe, I will build a complete new horn from scratch… who knows 😉
I huge playground… just missing time 😉
You are absolutely on the right way. You can use damping in the second Chamber to tune the 4th Order. the First Chamber should be small as possible.
Thx a lot!
That's definitely the biggest project a have ever made... and i am so happy to get all of your help!
That's definitely the biggest project a have ever made... and i am so happy to get all of your help!