It's not for me either.
No.
Cerberus sims now complete, though I'm not sure if this is going to be one for the site.
Double horn, of the Calhoun / Shadow persuasion, 60in tall. 4 Extremis 6.8 woofers. 1.5mm total excursion from the 4 drivers (so, thats 0.375mm each) at 17Hz. Xmax of the Extremis is 13mm, one way. If you want the FR...
Doesn't look particularly special, but remember the excursion, or lack thereof. Got a plate amp? Then these are going LOUD. Impedence is pretty mild, no nasties at all to worry about according to the software. The upper mouth will roll off earlier than the lower, so it should interact & blend with the room well.
Pit Hinder said:
No.
Cerberus sims now complete, though I'm not sure if this is going to be one for the site.
Double horn, of the Calhoun / Shadow persuasion, 60in tall. 4 Extremis 6.8 woofers. 1.5mm total excursion from the 4 drivers (so, thats 0.375mm each) at 17Hz. Xmax of the Extremis is 13mm, one way. If you want the FR...
Doesn't look particularly special, but remember the excursion, or lack thereof. Got a plate amp? Then these are going LOUD. Impedence is pretty mild, no nasties at all to worry about according to the software. The upper mouth will roll off earlier than the lower, so it should interact & blend with the room well.
Attachments
Cal Weldon said:
The links under the icons to the bigger 3D render weren't working (fixed) the link to the plans was fine. (sorry working to lat einto the morning)
http://p10hifi.net/tlinespeakers/FH/download/shadow-plans0v9.pdf
dave
I'm in love cal and dave, summer project is in this thread.
A question, but I am NOT in the understanding of Horn math:
The stepped throats, are they required to be stepped as per the concept of Nagaoko?
Or could they be a logarithmic curve or even flat panel? That makes it a long horn I'm guessing.
This is mainly for aesthetics.
Also, what is the difference between the Calhoun (2 drives on front baffle, 1.5 alignment if using a FR and a WR I assume is compatible) and the half-way bi-pole layout your built project is?
Last on:
The Shadow is a primarily a Sub-horn for the calhoun, but can be made into a standalone MTM as shown in plans, correct?
Regards
PS, dave, your frugal horn link in your Sig has a typo, and the Family tree link in the actual page is broke.
A question, but I am NOT in the understanding of Horn math:
The stepped throats, are they required to be stepped as per the concept of Nagaoko?
Or could they be a logarithmic curve or even flat panel? That makes it a long horn I'm guessing.
This is mainly for aesthetics.
Also, what is the difference between the Calhoun (2 drives on front baffle, 1.5 alignment if using a FR and a WR I assume is compatible) and the half-way bi-pole layout your built project is?
Last on:
The Shadow is a primarily a Sub-horn for the calhoun, but can be made into a standalone MTM as shown in plans, correct?
Regards
PS, dave, your frugal horn link in your Sig has a typo, and the Family tree link in the actual page is broke.
No horn math involved here (or not much -I use some which I for sizing the terminus) -the rest is all basic reflex & QW calculations.
It'll always be a BVR whatever you do to it. To work this way they do indeed need to follow the expansion as designed. Shifting to continuous expansion will change the response quite dramatically. The point of these boxes was to show that it's quite possible to design something extremely simple that works well. One modification you could make however is to replace the stepped strike panels which form the flare with simple angled panels. I like the steps as they are in keeping with the rest of the design, and they brace the cabinet nicely, but the other should do fine too.
MTM or TMM arrangement? They'll need to be closer to corners to get some more gain as baffle-step will be an issue, or require a BSC circuit, which you could size via one of the calculators available -I suggest the Excel file on Martin King's website.
Yes, Shadow could be made into a dedicated system, with an appropriate tweeter and XO.
It'll always be a BVR whatever you do to it. To work this way they do indeed need to follow the expansion as designed. Shifting to continuous expansion will change the response quite dramatically. The point of these boxes was to show that it's quite possible to design something extremely simple that works well. One modification you could make however is to replace the stepped strike panels which form the flare with simple angled panels. I like the steps as they are in keeping with the rest of the design, and they brace the cabinet nicely, but the other should do fine too.
MTM or TMM arrangement? They'll need to be closer to corners to get some more gain as baffle-step will be an issue, or require a BSC circuit, which you could size via one of the calculators available -I suggest the Excel file on Martin King's website.
Yes, Shadow could be made into a dedicated system, with an appropriate tweeter and XO.
Thanks for the reply, it was the stepped look I didn't really care for, a angled panel with a sand-filled cavity (bottom) works better for my tools and time.
It mentioned MTM in the design document notes. Not my focus, but just curious as it was mentioned.
Interested in seeing what cerebus works up to be.
It mentioned MTM in the design document notes. Not my focus, but just curious as it was mentioned.
Interested in seeing what cerebus works up to be.
Dave, Scott, and Cal,
Cal, I see that your drivers aren't centered in what I guess can be called the CC, not sure what to call it in a BVR. And in Dave's models he has the 2 drivers on the front baffle niether of them are in the center, both seem to be mounted where Cal's front driver is. I see that the center of the cabinet may be a little low, but i'm sure with feet and a slight slant the listener can be perfectly on axis. I know with BR its not the best idea to have the port directly behind the driver, but from the other models it seems it is fine with BVRs.
I personally like the symetrical look a little more, would it be alright to put a wr/fr125 in the middle of the cc on the front and one side firing right next to it?
Josh
Cal, I see that your drivers aren't centered in what I guess can be called the CC, not sure what to call it in a BVR. And in Dave's models he has the 2 drivers on the front baffle niether of them are in the center, both seem to be mounted where Cal's front driver is. I see that the center of the cabinet may be a little low, but i'm sure with feet and a slight slant the listener can be perfectly on axis. I know with BR its not the best idea to have the port directly behind the driver, but from the other models it seems it is fine with BVRs.
I personally like the symetrical look a little more, would it be alright to put a wr/fr125 in the middle of the cc on the front and one side firing right next to it?
Josh
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.