You might want to look at this "tall" sub that Freddi had Thejessman build from a plan and design by Tb46 - it uses a low cost Infinity 1260W - which is a great performer for the price:
Or you may want to consider the MOAK (never yet built):
More info here: http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/subwoofers/254948-moak-mother-all-karlsonators-aka-magnificent-monster.html
I thought about contacting you but knew you were going to the Horten show the same weekend. Next time.
Plus I spent some time in Horten myself. Pretty much a waste though. It's funny to hear ridiculous expensive systems which is far far behind a good DIY system. People want to me fooled and throw money out of their window.
When listening doesn't matter is a better description...
Attachments
xrh971,
Thanks for the info. Very impressive for the money.
I could fit something a little bigger and use better drivers.
Thanks for the info. Very impressive for the money.
I could fit something a little bigger and use better drivers.
Tell them:I feel like a stranger in that thread I started.
"hey, you- get off of my cloud"
Mick Jagger
I also find it funny how people often post completely off topic, sub discussions in your midbass horn thread, multi-way in the full-range (single driver) section, mid/high discussions in the subwoofer forum....
The SynTripP 2W2PVSPSH (2-Way 2-Part Virtual Single Point Source Horn) construction and testing is nearly complete, and does nearly what you are looking for (90-900 Hz with 90x40 pattern for the LF, same pattern up to 16 kHz using the HF driver, look for the thread coming soon..
Art
Last edited:
Synergy horn seems like the next step in horn design.
I'll wait till others have walked the path and made it easy for us followers.
A giant Seos horn (30") could be an interesting canditate for synergy horn. Not too expensive and with the potential of a low cross over.
Using stellar drivers, it's going to be expensive though.
A CBT horn is another interesting approach.
I'll wait till others have walked the path and made it easy for us followers.
A giant Seos horn (30") could be an interesting canditate for synergy horn. Not too expensive and with the potential of a low cross over.
Using stellar drivers, it's going to be expensive though.
A CBT horn is another interesting approach.
the problem with SEOS is that they are designed for specific drivers. slapping on a typical random driver doesnt mean it will measure well. like a lottery, your results may differ.
Don't know how your midbass horn is progressing, but I recently finished testing mine:
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/mult...ual-single-point-source-horn.html#post4114406
It sounded great all through my neighborhood 😀
@ Omholt,
Is it the reason why Vott (front loaded) were given up at the profit of Onken design ?
It seems also after some reading than the very complex synergy horn design give in upper bass and mid bass an articulation and détails than the other designs have not ? Is it true ?
To read John aka Patrick Batman : synergy horns seem also hard to design... If I understand the threads on DIYAUDIO :
-Horn loaded, especially Gedlees' : better Imaging and depth on the soundstage for the flagship! (Gedllee is only distributed in USA or at the risk of a shipment: flight case?)
-Synergy horns : better articulation, transparency but need more space between the listener and the Speaker (projection ? design maid for Pro events where trebles need more energy due to the concerts !). A diy designed seems to be first with Red... in AUstralia (approval of Danley?!)
- Others : have no really advantages in relation to the two first above !
????
Choice is difficult for a newbie who want to dive in a big boy system 🙁
Is it the reason why Vott (front loaded) were given up at the profit of Onken design ?
It seems also after some reading than the very complex synergy horn design give in upper bass and mid bass an articulation and détails than the other designs have not ? Is it true ?
To read John aka Patrick Batman : synergy horns seem also hard to design... If I understand the threads on DIYAUDIO :
-Horn loaded, especially Gedlees' : better Imaging and depth on the soundstage for the flagship! (Gedllee is only distributed in USA or at the risk of a shipment: flight case?)
-Synergy horns : better articulation, transparency but need more space between the listener and the Speaker (projection ? design maid for Pro events where trebles need more energy due to the concerts !). A diy designed seems to be first with Red... in AUstralia (approval of Danley?!)
- Others : have no really advantages in relation to the two first above !
????
Choice is difficult for a newbie who want to dive in a big boy system 🙁
A synergy can be made using a full range driver as the mid and HF, thereby leaving the bass to mid bass duties to an easily inplemented bandpass bass injection port farther away from throat where it is not as critical. I have built such a horn using a tractrix profile and it works very well. Super low distortion because the sensitivity is so high (110 dB). If you want to try an easy to implement low cost design look in the Trynergy thread.
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/full-range/261427-presenting-trynergy-full-range-tractrix-synergy.html
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/multi-way/212194-whats-best-pair-speakers-youve-ever-heard-36.html#post4114374
Between the Synergy and Geddes's speakers you really can't go wrong in my opinion but room setup should be the determination factor.
I've been to Geddes's house and heard his Summas setup in his HT. I also own a pair of Synergy SM60F which I use in my HT system. The SM60F don't have a lot of deep bass as it drop precipitously below 55hz. Thus they work well in a HT type system with independent subs. But if I were opting for Summas, I'd opt for the sealed version and use independent subs anyway.
The thing about Synergies is the very narrow directivity as designed, so you speaker positions matters a lot to developing the soundfield correctly. I sit rather close (~10-12 feet) in my HT so I have them toed in steeply. You could also opt for one of the wider dispersion Synergies.
I couldn't do a fair comparison as I haven't heard them side by side, but both are fantastic speakers.
Synergy horns are quite something. 2-way is not ultra hard to pull off imo. Some things in design are critical, others can be choosed somewhat more freely.
I would say that for example 50 x 50 deg conical horn does not sound like very directive transducer like some other horn geometries that highly beam HF. Conical does not beam HF and does not give the sense of "artificial resolution" of beamy HF (like we call the phenomenom in Finland). I find that big conical geometry sounds just natural and has very little horn coloration overall. But of course they feel much more directive than your regular direct radiating box speakers (which is a positive thing in my opinion).
Imaging depth is a clear strong point of synergy imo (in theory). I have never heard a Danley design synergy, but mine are not "in your face" at all and draw very good image depth layering. Can be a balance thing but also the diffration profile can affect very much how "forward" the sound is and how good the stage/image separates from the speakers and how logical the "distance cues" are presented (based on which we are sensing the distance).
I would say that for example 50 x 50 deg conical horn does not sound like very directive transducer like some other horn geometries that highly beam HF. Conical does not beam HF and does not give the sense of "artificial resolution" of beamy HF (like we call the phenomenom in Finland). I find that big conical geometry sounds just natural and has very little horn coloration overall. But of course they feel much more directive than your regular direct radiating box speakers (which is a positive thing in my opinion).
Imaging depth is a clear strong point of synergy imo (in theory). I have never heard a Danley design synergy, but mine are not "in your face" at all and draw very good image depth layering. Can be a balance thing but also the diffration profile can affect very much how "forward" the sound is and how good the stage/image separates from the speakers and how logical the "distance cues" are presented (based on which we are sensing the distance).
Last edited:
Thanks,
hope it is in the OP field as we spoke about depth of soundstage, slam and mid-bass like uper bass. Finally my understanding is a front loaded classic driver seems easier to do and has an equal SQ in mid-bass (>80/100 hz to say below 400 ....) than a cd driver in a more large deep and huge spherical classic round horn when we used to see.
Many seem to say than the air impedance maid by a horn and the room coupling seems difficult with compression drivers below 400 to 500 hz....
hope it is in the OP field as we spoke about depth of soundstage, slam and mid-bass like uper bass. Finally my understanding is a front loaded classic driver seems easier to do and has an equal SQ in mid-bass (>80/100 hz to say below 400 ....) than a cd driver in a more large deep and huge spherical classic round horn when we used to see.
Many seem to say than the air impedance maid by a horn and the room coupling seems difficult with compression drivers below 400 to 500 hz....
Thanks for the link and update.
I have a person who's designing the midbass horn for me know. Not much too share right now. He's looking at different options and has much better tools then Hornresp.
My goal is to match K402's directivity, an even response and get CD as low as possible with a size I can live with.
A synergy horn is great at first thought, but it means I would not be able to use the horn sizes I like. So all in all too compromising. Some people use a cone driver in the upper mids which I can't understand considering that there are much better compression drivers for that task.
Yes about there. I have just seen a few Synergy horn examples so I can't answer to them all. It is possible a cone horn driver is good for PA since compression drivers don't like to be driven too hard. For home hifi compression drivers are amazing down to 300Hz using maybe 2 watt. That is why this thread is so interesting. The difficult part has always been to me to find a good midbass driver. I prefer 15" woofers to get deep midbass, at the expense of mids.
Last edited: