WHG - understood.
The optimum will always have a declining curvature for a length sufficient to shape the wavefront, followed by an increasing curvature towards the mouth to minimize the mouth diffraction. The specifics will vary, of course, but in the end I predict that they will all come down to something very close to what mabat has shown. Which is, by the way, very close to what I have been using for decades. Numerical solutions are all well and good, but in the end if they just come down to what has already been done then it's king of a moot point.
The optimum will always have a declining curvature for a length sufficient to shape the wavefront, followed by an increasing curvature towards the mouth to minimize the mouth diffraction. The specifics will vary, of course, but in the end I predict that they will all come down to something very close to what mabat has shown. Which is, by the way, very close to what I have been using for decades. Numerical solutions are all well and good, but in the end if they just come down to what has already been done then it's king of a moot point.
Are we talking subwoofers, woofer woofers, mid woofers, or just in general?
I can’t say that AE has a woofer that is better as a sub, above it’s 29hz fs.
Going to borrow the thread real quick. I'm building a similar system to what Camplo is doing but I'm going to use multisubs below 80Hz. I want to use closed boxes for the td15m for size reasons. Wich is the smallest volume you can get away with without loosing midbass slam and tonality. A quick simulation in Speaker Box Light gives a volume of 67 liters for a q of 0.7 and -3dB at 80Hz. Seems spot on but is there a better way to do it?
You're welcome!
Better yet, use dual 15" [16" Altec won't fit] as it was originally designed for, but TTBOMK was never installed anywhere.
Here's an original between a pair of later A5 for perspective: http://michaelchrist.com/gifs/downstairs.jpg
GM
Let me fill you in, I am planning to use the 18h+ to handle the range beneath a 15M.
I would not suggest using a crossover to multiple subs, that's not the way it works. The subs and main overlap. I have never found that one could actually go too small as long as you EQ the net result. It's not the driver/box that matters, the room dominates everything in that region, so the source is almost never an issue.
Sealed max 'slam' is tuned to Fs/Qts' which tunes it up around 100 Hz/1.0 Qtc' and the smallest cab I recommend. Tuning it to 80 Hz is another option.
FWIW, HR calcs a ~ 107 L/0.707 alignment.
Qts' = Qts + any added series resistance [Rs]: HiFi Loudspeaker Design
GM
Oh, what is that good for?
In axisymmetric form, not much I expect
.The parabolic expansion rate is however used in rectangular cross-section bass horns, where two of the flat panels are parallel and the other two are tapered. The initial front horn segment of a Klipschorn is a good example. This is why the parabolic flare is included in Hornresp
.Missing Element
Hi David,
I forgot about this one.
I would consider it to be a decreasing curvature with length, even though it is a negative one (concave); because like the OS horn, the radius of curvature is increasing with the length away from the throat aperture. Unlike the OS horn, it approaches an asymptotic cylinder instead of a cone.
Regards,
Bill
Including an axisymmetric parabolic horn?
Hi David,
I forgot about this one.
I would consider it to be a decreasing curvature with length, even though it is a negative one (concave); because like the OS horn, the radius of curvature is increasing with the length away from the throat aperture. Unlike the OS horn, it approaches an asymptotic cylinder instead of a cone.
Regards,
Bill
Last edited:
I prefer a positive conjecture,
Hi Earl,
because "nothing ventured, nothing gained".
Streamlining a design process, does not require a different outcome, just a quicker one, or one that opens up additional design opportunities to be explored; and in the case at hand, addresses horn shape optimization.
Regards,
Bill
I meant "kind", but "king" works too.
Hi Earl,
because "nothing ventured, nothing gained".
Streamlining a design process, does not require a different outcome, just a quicker one, or one that opens up additional design opportunities to be explored; and in the case at hand, addresses horn shape optimization.
Regards,
Bill
Last edited:
No. Asymptote [1] has its exact definition and meaning and you can't use the term whatever way you like if you want to be well understood. It doesn't approach a cylinder. That is just nonsense.
[1] Asymptote - Wikipedia
[1] Asymptote - Wikipedia
Last edited: