Hi,
So this question is really about tapped vs BLH/FLH. I've read in many places that an advantage of using BLH's for a large sound system is that when using multiple in a stack, let's say 4 they work together to reach a lower frequency range. So say you have a BLH horn with Fs of 35, if you put 2-4 of these together you could feasible reach an Fs of 30Hz or lower. However tapped horns wont do this. The addition of multiple tapped horns will give you a great SPL but no more low end or Fs.
I haven't been able to find an explanation as to why this is, I've only ever read it stated as fact. So is there anybody that could offer an explanation or point me in the direction of one? I'm interested to know why!
Much appreciated.
Thanks
So this question is really about tapped vs BLH/FLH. I've read in many places that an advantage of using BLH's for a large sound system is that when using multiple in a stack, let's say 4 they work together to reach a lower frequency range. So say you have a BLH horn with Fs of 35, if you put 2-4 of these together you could feasible reach an Fs of 30Hz or lower. However tapped horns wont do this. The addition of multiple tapped horns will give you a great SPL but no more low end or Fs.
I haven't been able to find an explanation as to why this is, I've only ever read it stated as fact. So is there anybody that could offer an explanation or point me in the direction of one? I'm interested to know why!
Much appreciated.
Thanks
While a front/back loaded horn is a "real" horn and low frequency extension depends on horn mouth size (which can be increased by making it bigger, adding more horns, or putting it next to a reflective surfaces), the tapped "horn" is actually a 6th order bandpass. Adding more tapped horns will increase efficiency and spl but not lower extension, as far as i know.
Last edited:
A "real" 35 Hz horn is huge and therefore the designer must slice the horn in multiple bits (cabinets), or it cannot be handled for transport. One "slice" of the horn (a single cabinet) has too small a mouth area to function as intended at 35 Hz.
Dave,
Doubling horn length could potentially drop the horn cutoff frequency (Fc) by an octave.
Coupling two or more horn mouth areas does not result in an octave extension, only a slight decrease in Fc, and smoother LF frequency response.
The additional boundary area also results in more forward directivity gain in addition to the 6dB from doubling cone/mouth area and power.
i'm totally on side with Weltersys on this one and like Rademakers i'd like to know the workings of an "optimization" that would achieve a significant lowering of cutoff.
when it comes to bass horns stacked like old school PA it always adds up just as much bass behind the stack as out front, bass arrays to focus the energy where it's needed is where it's at these days as far i'm concerned.
when it comes to bass horns stacked like old school PA it always adds up just as much bass behind the stack as out front, bass arrays to focus the energy where it's needed is where it's at these days as far i'm concerned.
Last edited:
The pioneers thought so, designing a full size horn and dividing it up into whatever size/BW they wanted. Consider Altec's A7 Small VoTT series is a section out of a 55 Hz expo horn, or as the late Bruce Edgar called it, a '1/2 size 55 Hz expo'.
Let's define hard data:
If Bruce Edgar said something to the lines of: I've got this horn, it's Fc is X, I stack two together now Fc is 1 octave lower. I stack 4 together, now the Fc is 2 octaves lower. I consider that decent hard data. Instead he said 3 or 4 words that can mean a number of things, we can't tell 'what hat he was wearing' at the time.
I'm reacting to a statement that I consider BS, that shouldn't be on a forum undebated. So if you have measurements, can guide me to some simulations (HR preferred), or a 'Bruce Edgar level' of eleborate statement or scientific description, I'll consider that hard data.
I can't comprehend you're seriously suggesting this as proof, I hold you in higher regard than that. If that's indeed a reflex chamber there, I think we can both decipher what he truly meant. If not, I think I've left the gas on 😉
If Bruce Edgar said something to the lines of: I've got this horn, it's Fc is X, I stack two together now Fc is 1 octave lower. I stack 4 together, now the Fc is 2 octaves lower. I consider that decent hard data. Instead he said 3 or 4 words that can mean a number of things, we can't tell 'what hat he was wearing' at the time.
I'm reacting to a statement that I consider BS, that shouldn't be on a forum undebated. So if you have measurements, can guide me to some simulations (HR preferred), or a 'Bruce Edgar level' of eleborate statement or scientific description, I'll consider that hard data.
I can't comprehend you're seriously suggesting this as proof, I hold you in higher regard than that. If that's indeed a reflex chamber there, I think we can both decipher what he truly meant. If not, I think I've left the gas on 😉