From what I can see, the old config files no longer work in ATH 4.7.1?
The new config files features this format:
ABEC.Polars:SPL = {
MapAngleRange = 0,90,19
NormAngle = 10 ; [deg]
Distance = 3 ; [m]
Offset = 95 ; [mm]
}
But there's no apparrent way to generate polars on the X and the Y axis?
When I include a stanza like this, it doesn't work. (It used to.)
ABEC.Polars.Dist = 2 ; [m]
ABEC.Polars.Step = 7.5 ; [deg]
ABEC.Polars.Points = 8
ABEC.Polars.Horizontal = 1
ABEC.Polars.Vertical = 1
ABEC.Polars.Diagonal = 0
ABEC.Polars.DiagonalInclination = 0.0
The new config files features this format:
ABEC.Polars:SPL = {
MapAngleRange = 0,90,19
NormAngle = 10 ; [deg]
Distance = 3 ; [m]
Offset = 95 ; [mm]
}
But there's no apparrent way to generate polars on the X and the Y axis?
When I include a stanza like this, it doesn't work. (It used to.)
ABEC.Polars.Dist = 2 ; [m]
ABEC.Polars.Step = 7.5 ; [deg]
ABEC.Polars.Points = 8
ABEC.Polars.Horizontal = 1
ABEC.Polars.Vertical = 1
ABEC.Polars.Diagonal = 0
ABEC.Polars.DiagonalInclination = 0.0
Yes, sorry about that. You have to set an inclination angle for anything else than the horizontal. It's missing in the manual:
ABEC.Polars:SPL_V = {
MapAngleRange = 0,90,19
NormAngle = 10 ; [deg]
Distance = 3 ; [m]
Offset = 95 ; [mm]
Inclination = 90 ; [deg]
}
Last edited:
Dear Mr. Geddes, the horn previously didn't had the rollback on the mouth. With this version I had the problem with a reflection (i guess it was a reflection) on the axis up to about 20 degrees. From 20 degrees and more it comes to a peak. So the gain on axis and 30 degrees out of axis were nearly the same. And I also had the problem with the box behind the horn. The rollback version is much more tolerant of what is behind the horn. I have to say, that the horn without the rollback was a 90 degrees design. First i tried to eliminate the reflexion with different damping materials on the mouth and also on the cab behind. The result was clearly bether but not to handle for professional use.
isitone, Very nice! did you turn it manually with some jig/template? I mean it is pretty accurate work, the measurements are really good.
May I ask how many hours of work went into it and how much experience is needed to achieve such piece? One of my relatives has suitable lathe but I don't have very high hopes turning one yet since I don't have experience and the owner is not into audio nor precisionIt could be nice if you gave a quick summary what it takes to turn such horn at home? Thanks!
Dear Mr. tmuikku, yes, I have a template for the profile. In my first profession i was carpenter and i have e little bit the feeling for woodworking. But if you watch some videos how to work it with a lathe you will find the way fast and easy. I will you give the courage to try it.
The ripples / resonances are likely - at least to some extent, inherent to the DCX464's design, probably due to interference from the HF diaphragm and the exit channel.
The ripples (> 8k) are at least present in the plots I've seen from the DCX464.
Perhaps Mark(100) has some measurement data for comparison.
The ripples (> 8k) are at least present in the plots I've seen from the DCX464.
Perhaps Mark(100) has some measurement data for comparison.
Hi Ro,
I posted this some time ago in the dcx464 thread...so nothing new.
When i saw the lack of coherence in it at above 16kHz, I thought i'd grab some new outdoor measurements this morning as there is no wind today...but not to be...boats, waves on shore etc....coherence fell everywhere.
Anyway, it's the dcx464 on xt1464 which is the best behaved horn i have.
Hey, a question for all:
How do you like to see polars in these type mag vs freg graphs?
Do you EQ on-axis (or whatever near to on-axis angle is chosen to tune to), and then measure polars?
This is what I like and is in graph below.
Or do you measure raw and show raw?
I use this for choosing xover points, but find it too difficult to judge horn performance, trying to see if ripples are uniform across angles.
Or do you prefer to measure raw, then show normalized to on-axis?
(Have to admit, this is my least favorite to see)
Thanks ! mark
.
My experience with these has not been good. There is always a problem at the crossover point between the two diaphragms.
That's as good as it gets.
Vance Dickason's HF waterfall with the prototype La Tromba horn and the DCX with the ME464 for comparison (mind the 10 dB increments):
Attachments
Last edited:
Obviously it's not "always". Or do you see any problem in what isitone showed?
Well, the resonance in the HF unit at 5,5k seem to be coming back as the first bigger wiggle (dip!) in the combined FR at just 5,5k. Buts thats really not at the XO point (?). I'm sure the XO have the same problems as any xovered system - and then maybe some as it seem that the mid and hf membranes are physically connected somehow?
My question was around the penalty of a xo vs. more EQ to the top? Given one wanted to get the same BW from a single and a 2 way CD?
//
My question was around the penalty of a xo vs. more EQ to the top? Given one wanted to get the same BW from a single and a 2 way CD?
//