Hi JRKO,
Thanks for the kind words 🙂
The front horn I made works from 1000 to 250Hz, as per Tannoy's specs, so you would end with a bigger midrange/upperbass? and the frequency extremes will be perceived as weeker if you only do the front horn
...IMHO.
One could try to make a simpler rear horn but probably will end being not to pretty...
Guy R Fountain new his job, the enclosure gives balanced, expanding "point" source sound 😎
Hi Zen Mod,
That speaker is VERY OK!
Regards,
M
Thanks for the kind words 🙂
The front horn I made works from 1000 to 250Hz, as per Tannoy's specs, so you would end with a bigger midrange/upperbass? and the frequency extremes will be perceived as weeker if you only do the front horn
...IMHO.One could try to make a simpler rear horn but probably will end being not to pretty...
Guy R Fountain new his job, the enclosure gives balanced, expanding "point" source sound 😎
Hi Zen Mod,
That speaker is VERY OK!
Regards,
M
Hi,
have a look at Nelson Pass' rear loaded horn. It has only one long radius fold but takes up a bit of space (like warehouse sized space).
have a look at Nelson Pass' rear loaded horn. It has only one long radius fold but takes up a bit of space (like warehouse sized space).
I have a rectangular room and the corners of te short side only allow about 10feet between the drivers.
If I put a corner horn in the corners of the longer side they will be about 17 feet between drivers and I would have to toe them inwards to get them to cross anywhere near my listening seat.
I thought about the rectangular GRF but cant find that much inco about it.
If I put a corner horn in the corners of the longer side they will be about 17 feet between drivers and I would have to toe them inwards to get them to cross anywhere near my listening seat.
I thought about the rectangular GRF but cant find that much inco about it.
Thanks Qi, that was an answer for a now deleted post.
Hi JRKO,
I was about to post this on my other thread...
For non-perfect rooms, three options:
1) as you mentioned put the speakers on long axis wall. The sound (HF) change a little if you are closer or farther than the focal point but not too much. Bass should not be a big problem given the nature of Autograph's bass, but bass traps/panels would help if any boom appears.
2) put wood panels on the sides of the speaker, prolonging the rear horn.
3) modifie the rear wall with nice woodwork with high WAF 😉 as with second option.
Last 2 options as per my drawing wich is not to scale. Only for orientation:
A denotes Autographs (or other) and blue lines represent modded rear wall or good looking wood panels. 😎
What do you think?
M
Hi JRKO,
I was about to post this on my other thread...
For non-perfect rooms, three options:
1) as you mentioned put the speakers on long axis wall. The sound (HF) change a little if you are closer or farther than the focal point but not too much. Bass should not be a big problem given the nature of Autograph's bass, but bass traps/panels would help if any boom appears.
2) put wood panels on the sides of the speaker, prolonging the rear horn.
3) modifie the rear wall with nice woodwork with high WAF 😉 as with second option.
Last 2 options as per my drawing wich is not to scale. Only for orientation:
A denotes Autographs (or other) and blue lines represent modded rear wall or good looking wood panels. 😎
What do you think?
M
many thanks for the considered response maxlorenz
Unfortunatly the wall panelling is out of the question - WAF = nil
What do you think of the rectangular version?
Alternativly what about a rear horn loaded version where the horn vents below the driver?
I have found a cabinet maker willing to do the job who just needs the plans😀
Unfortunatly the wall panelling is out of the question - WAF = nil
What do you think of the rectangular version?
Alternativly what about a rear horn loaded version where the horn vents below the driver?
I have found a cabinet maker willing to do the job who just needs the plans😀
Hi JRKO,
Sorry about WAF 🙁
You should read the opinions about sound comparison between Autograph and GRF corner, wich has only rear horn (I think GRF rectangular can't better it), here:
http://users.on.net/~richard.norrish/Autograph/
Rick's page has trully excellent photos.
Hey Qi and JRKO! I found an Autograph Pro rectangular tribute page with upper view:
http://www.ominous-valve.com/big_spkr.html
My rectangular adaptation looks easier though...
I may still have my Autograph plan on my PC, I'll see.
http://melhuish.org/audio/horn.html
Lenght, throat to mouth ratio and shape all influence sound and Freq. response. Too complicated to me, that's why I prefer a proven design.
For other Tannoy options see:
http://www.hilberink.nl/speaker.htm
Goto "cabinets, DIY and design Info"
Regards,
M
Sorry about WAF 🙁
What rectangular enclosure?
You should read the opinions about sound comparison between Autograph and GRF corner, wich has only rear horn (I think GRF rectangular can't better it), here:
http://users.on.net/~richard.norrish/Autograph/
Rick's page has trully excellent photos.
Hey Qi and JRKO! I found an Autograph Pro rectangular tribute page with upper view:
http://www.ominous-valve.com/big_spkr.html
My rectangular adaptation looks easier though...
Good to hear. What will you build?
I may still have my Autograph plan on my PC, I'll see.
For technical aspects of horns see:
http://melhuish.org/audio/horn.html
Lenght, throat to mouth ratio and shape all influence sound and Freq. response. Too complicated to me, that's why I prefer a proven design.
For other Tannoy options see:
http://www.hilberink.nl/speaker.htm
Goto "cabinets, DIY and design Info"
Regards,
M
maxlorenz said:
Yes Yes!
Our very own PIP has done a masterful complete 3d sketchup rendering of the GRF .
The pic really does not do it justice.
When you view it in sketchup it is AWESOME!
Hi Qi,
Let's see if I catch you.
Yes, I remember Pip's corner GRF exploit.
Look at this pick from Richard Norris:
http://www.users.on.net/~richard.norrish/Autograph/autographs for web/IMG_6011.JPG
Where you can compare sizes...and imagine difference in sound.
The Rectangular Autograph is a bigger animal, right?
Tomorrow I will do some cuts for my reduced Autograph 😎
(I spent only USD65 on plywood!)
Regards,
M
Let's see if I catch you.
Yes, I remember Pip's corner GRF exploit.
Look at this pick from Richard Norris:
http://www.users.on.net/~richard.norrish/Autograph/autographs for web/IMG_6011.JPG
Where you can compare sizes...and imagine difference in sound.
The Rectangular Autograph is a bigger animal, right?
Tomorrow I will do some cuts for my reduced Autograph 😎
(I spent only USD65 on plywood!)
Regards,
M
Maxlorenz!
It is just that the compound folding in your Autograph (and the Westminster) is much more complicated / developed.
The GRF and rectangular Autograph have the much simpler / less developed flair. It is really an expanding pipe -- not a horn at all.
PIP's 3d rendering (albeit corner-horn) shows the same flair development as the rectangular Autograph you referenced.
That was my only point.
My preference is the more complicated compound flair -- as in yours -- as does the reviewer on Richard Norris' site...
It is just that the compound folding in your Autograph (and the Westminster) is much more complicated / developed.
The GRF and rectangular Autograph have the much simpler / less developed flair. It is really an expanding pipe -- not a horn at all.
PIP's 3d rendering (albeit corner-horn) shows the same flair development as the rectangular Autograph you referenced.
That was my only point.
My preference is the more complicated compound flair -- as in yours -- as does the reviewer on Richard Norris' site...
Hi,
an expanding pipe fits my interpretation of a conical section horn.
But the Westminster and the Autograph are more towards exponential than conical. They might even be exponential, but I have no way of measuring the flare rate or it's variation as one moves along the expanding pipe.
That puts them both into the real horn category.
an expanding pipe fits my interpretation of a conical section horn.
But the Westminster and the Autograph are more towards exponential than conical. They might even be exponential, but I have no way of measuring the flare rate or it's variation as one moves along the expanding pipe.
That puts them both into the real horn category.
Hi,
if the area is square (vertical as well as horizontal) then you have constant expansion.
I think the vertical section shows a much larger expansion giving an exponential or something close.
But either way, they are horns.
if the area is square (vertical as well as horizontal) then you have constant expansion.
I think the vertical section shows a much larger expansion giving an exponential or something close.
But either way, they are horns.
Nice try but, no no no...
The flair I posted is all you get.
The top and bottom panels are parallel giving no additional flair.
Once again -- an expanding pipe...
The flair I posted is all you get.
The top and bottom panels are parallel giving no additional flair.
Once again -- an expanding pipe...
Hi,
I am not asking you to post a design on the Forum.
I am saying that the Autograph has a vertical section that tapers more strongly than the horizontal section shown in your post.
If you estimate the cross sectional areas at various distances along the horn you will be able to see that the expansion rate is either constant or varying.
If the area doubles with each increase in distance from the throat then it is exponential.
If it only increases but does not follow the doubling rule then is is something other than exponential. Faster increase is moving towards hyperbolic and a slower increase moves it towards conical.
I am not asking you to post a design on the Forum.
I am saying that the Autograph has a vertical section that tapers more strongly than the horizontal section shown in your post.
If you estimate the cross sectional areas at various distances along the horn you will be able to see that the expansion rate is either constant or varying.
If the area doubles with each increase in distance from the throat then it is exponential.
If it only increases but does not follow the doubling rule then is is something other than exponential. Faster increase is moving towards hyperbolic and a slower increase moves it towards conical.
The flair I posted was to prove MY point -- not yours.
My position is that the flare rate of the GRF is SIGNIFICANTLY less than on Mauricio's corner Autograph (and on the Westminster).
They expand on the horizontal AND vertical planes.
The GRF expands only on one plane making it look more like a TLINE
But, of course, this is my opinion.
Each to his own...
Boys😀 ...I see a lot of energy here! Better spend it on building speakers😉
This theoretical discussion is very interesting. Lets keep it technical, SVP.
Cheers,
M
This theoretical discussion is very interesting. Lets keep it technical, SVP.
Cheers,
M
maxlorenz said:
Well, it certainly explains why the GRF only gets down to 30hz -- not 18hz like your corner Autograph.
HOWEVER -- point taken, my friend...
To celebrate first anniversary, I sanded and gave a first varnish hand to one of them 
Wood's pink tones disappeared but the tiger like stripes (I don't know the name in English) remained 😎
Hope U like it.
M
Wood's pink tones disappeared but the tiger like stripes (I don't know the name in English) remained 😎
Hope U like it.
M