View attachment ME464 report (1).pdf
Look at that ;-). The DCX doesn't sound really good with the me464 (in my eyes). The DCX also haf a problem in the highs with high volumes. Btw. The BMS 4594 ND sounds really bether. Especially in high levels. I don't see the problem by the DCX at the crossover point. It is above this point. But all this is not a thing by the horn. I heard the DCX very much on different horns and Marcel's design get the very best out of the both coaxials, promise you.
Look at that ;-). The DCX doesn't sound really good with the me464 (in my eyes). The DCX also haf a problem in the highs with high volumes. Btw. The BMS 4594 ND sounds really bether. Especially in high levels. I don't see the problem by the DCX at the crossover point. It is above this point. But all this is not a thing by the horn. I heard the DCX very much on different horns and Marcel's design get the very best out of the both coaxials, promise you.
Marcel's horn looks super by your measurements, and I don't doubt your hearing assessments at all. thx for sharing it.
I too think the DCX/ME464 combo isn't the best sound i can get from the dcx. The dcx has sounded better in all my synergies and on the xt1464. Maybe it is just the ME slot, simply dunno.....
It's not bad by any means on the ME, it's just not quite as open sounding as on other horns (to my ears).
The BMS 4594he is also my favorite because of its higher and smoother extension. This morning, in ideal outdoor measurement conditions, i remeasured the dcx464 on the xt1464 to see if i could get better performance and coherence above 15-16kHz, than shown in prior post. No dice. I get the same wildly varying performance i got before, and like seen in your measurements. I'm thinking that has a lot to do with my preference for the BMS. (Which is surprising because i wonder how much, if any, i can even hear up there !!)
I haven't had any issues with xovers in either of these coax CD.
I'm curious what drivers Earl found problematic.
Again, awesome looking horn...congrats to you guys..
I don't remember the model, but they were all BMS. That was 10-15 years ago and perhaps they have gotten better, but I still doubt that one could not find flaws in the polars at the crossover.
We've been through this before, but once again: the most thorough analysis of a coaxial compression driver, by a manufacturer that doesn't even offer such drivers 
2 Quotes:
"The high frequency region is more affected by the geometry that forms the bullet piece with the folded duct. The effect of phase inversion of the system, discussed in section 3.1 (Figure 3), allows to determine the spectral regions that are more affected by the destructive interference within this folded duct. This information is useful as an initial criterion of optimization of the radiating system and an alternative that can improve the frequency response in regions above the transition zone, controlled by the high frequency transducer.
In a first approximation, the solution to this problem could be to increase the volume of the compression chamber to avoid the roll-off in the high frequency range to be so abrupt or to modify the tweeter so that the resonance frequency decreases to the pass band immediately next to the Midrange decay. Although both possibilities are feasible, the design of a system of this type involves a compromise between efficiency and
"flatness-smoothness" of the acoustic response."
"It must be remarked that an increment of the input voltage involves the higher order harmonics appearance due to the nonlinear distortion imposed by the electrical and mechanical parameters as well as the adiabatic compression in the compression and rear chambers."
2 Quotes:
"The high frequency region is more affected by the geometry that forms the bullet piece with the folded duct. The effect of phase inversion of the system, discussed in section 3.1 (Figure 3), allows to determine the spectral regions that are more affected by the destructive interference within this folded duct. This information is useful as an initial criterion of optimization of the radiating system and an alternative that can improve the frequency response in regions above the transition zone, controlled by the high frequency transducer.
In a first approximation, the solution to this problem could be to increase the volume of the compression chamber to avoid the roll-off in the high frequency range to be so abrupt or to modify the tweeter so that the resonance frequency decreases to the pass band immediately next to the Midrange decay. Although both possibilities are feasible, the design of a system of this type involves a compromise between efficiency and
"flatness-smoothness" of the acoustic response."
"It must be remarked that an increment of the input voltage involves the higher order harmonics appearance due to the nonlinear distortion imposed by the electrical and mechanical parameters as well as the adiabatic compression in the compression and rear chambers."
Last edited:
It was.
It's an illusion, a 21" up to 300-400Hz.
To illustrate the quality/performance ratio of the DCX464, you may want to check Joseph Crowe's comparative test with the Lamar M2-16 Field Coil Compression Driver (that supposedly costs > €2000).
It's an illusion, a 21" up to 300-400Hz.
To illustrate the quality/performance ratio of the DCX464, you may want to check Joseph Crowe's comparative test with the Lamar M2-16 Field Coil Compression Driver (that supposedly costs > €2000).
I'm being asked whether the ST260 could be scaled for a 1.4" throat. Sure, then it's around ⌀360 x 118 mm -
The waveguide can be scaled to whatever throat diameter needed. All the response plots simply shift lower (for an increased size) or higher in frequency in the same ratio.
It's not the best that can be done but it will work.
The waveguide can be scaled to whatever throat diameter needed. All the response plots simply shift lower (for an increased size) or higher in frequency in the same ratio.
It's not the best that can be done but it will work.
Attachments
Last edited:
Finallly, I have an automatic optimization framework ready (Ath+ABEC+AutoIt) - with an axisymmetric device I'm able to get to 20 seconds per iteration.
Sample of 100 results: ATH - Advanced Transition Horns - Gallery
(any of them available on request)
Sample of 100 results: ATH - Advanced Transition Horns - Gallery
(any of them available on request
)
This is what happens if you let k to vary in the interval 0.7 - 6: ATH - Advanced Transition Horns - GalleryWhy dont we have more K=10 WGs?
//
(In the previous examples k=1 was fixed, i.e. all pure OS throats).
Last edited:
