BWaslo has published a design with a single sealed back mid and two 6.5" (IIRC ) woofers
BWaslo has published a design with a single sealed back mid and two 6.5" (IIRC about the size) woofers
My take is that the 5"s are necessary because Danley wants low extension..ie f-3 @50Hz. This is the key nut, imo.
I don't think it's possible to dig that deep with 12"s and have port placements that will reach up to the CD Danley uses. And probably not possible even with coax CDs that go down to 5-700Hz.
So if a bridge is used (5")...why not use a cheaper CD, and let the 12"s or 15"s extend on down?
Satisfy more markets, at least those willing to handle the size/weight.
It's kinda why I chose 100Hz as the low end goal...to get away from the bridge...plus I knew i wanted subs anyway...
@Cowanaudio...I want to see you make a synergy out of that awesome horn you showed your're working on for the dcx464
It's already been done.
Four 12s and a DCX464 makes for a potent high density box. Crossover is below 300Hz, the DCX is happy with that in a big WG at lower than stadium levels.
These are all excellent designs, they all deserve the lip treatment Don is perfecting.
I've been researching materials and ideas on how to construct the horns and baffles. Between sand, epoxy, and polymer concrete, I believe there is a solution. I also think its going to be hard to beat the Jericho Shark, with looks to load low and spread the horizontal polar.... The Jericho Revisited for the benefits of a round horn...These 3 last designs are hard to choose from. The Jericho revisited is already a keeper in my book...but there might be a 200hz contender in the Jericho-Shark or any of its latest revelations
These are the last 3 horns overlaid from @docali. I'll provide a sim for the "drba_SWH160_SF138_SE6P" (aka shark) because it's modest size and it will only get bigger with the round over. It's the middle one, the black tipped one.
P.S. The archive photo from Kolbrek&Dunkers Horn book (a fantastic book) shows how relatively modest sized the docali horn designs are. This is when they discovered how important it is to put units on the drawing.
Attachments
That WG is around 60 degrees. Mid ports are elongated. I don't follow the patents, I prototype and come to my own conclusions.
Last edited:
It's already been done.
Four 12s and a DCX464 makes for a potent high density box. Crossover is below 300Hz, the DCX is happy with that in a big WG at lower than stadium levels.
This is even beyond what I had in mind, or would have thought possible.
With 4 x 12" that only need to play up to 300Hz, extension into the 40s should be feasible.
A ND940 with 2x10" in a synergy might work with a sub (tapped horn?) below 100Hz.
Impressive work!
Are there perhaps any clips of the synergies (with the dcx464) "in action"?
I guess some of us would love to get an impression of the way these sound. A decent smartphone or DSLR camera would suffice to capture the vocal range.
Hi William,
Your Aras look absolutely fantastic.
One Q: Have you had a chance to compare the B&C DCX 464 to any of the Be drivers out there (e.g. Radian or TAD) - and/or to the BMS 4594HE? In that case I would really appreciate your thoughts - thanks!
Best regards
Peter
Your Aras look absolutely fantastic
.One Q: Have you had a chance to compare the B&C DCX 464 to any of the Be drivers out there (e.g. Radian or TAD) - and/or to the BMS 4594HE? In that case I would really appreciate your thoughts - thanks!
Best regards
Peter
I come to the conclusion that mid chamber and port lengh can be tuned to exactly compensate for the volume of the horn so that in hornresp sim, compensating effect can be seen, and there's no more the first dip in mid response, and neither in high way. Is it about that ? I don't explain well, but if it is, you'll understand.
In my specific and maybe extreme case for example, the magic happens with 2 liters front volume for one 8" speaker only as mid, but 24cm port.
Sorry for the off-topic, i'm opportunist
Hi William,
Your Aras look absolutely fantastic
One Q: Have you had a chance to compare the B&C DCX 464 to any of the Be drivers out there (e.g. Radian or TAD) - and/or to the BMS 4594HE? In that case I would really appreciate your thoughts - thanks!
Best regards
Peter
I've not heard any Be drivers. I've used the BMS coax's before. Systems were too different to compare. Both drivers got the job done.
It's not just me, it's a small but dedicated team committed to build some very special loudspeakers.
Last edited:
These are the last 3 horns overlaid from @docali. I'll provide a sim for the "drba_SWH160_SF138_SE6P" (aka shark) because it's modest size and it will only get bigger with the round over. It's the middle one, the black tipped one.
P.S. The archive photo from Kolbrek&Dunkers Horn book (a fantastic book) shows how relatively modest sized the docali horn designs are. This is when they discovered how important it is to put units on the drawing.
I've been thinking about the enclosure construction, there are a lot of variations, but I feel like maybe I underestimated the amount of size I have to work with and was thinking that i might be able to use TL for the bottom and mid woofer.
I have a question about Tl's, what if I designed a TL where the volume of the Line wasn't big enough to house the Driver motors, how do you compensate for the driver chamber or is this just not recommended?