4 of these, stacked:
Compared to tapped horns lf extension is limited, but what it does, it does with authority.
This hits the nail.
It's probably also related to excursion as those Funktion One PD drivers aren't exactly long throw.
I think of THs more as a middle ground between a TL and a true bass horn.
This comment from another forum covers the load nicely:
"A properly designed front loaded horn will sound better than a back loaded horn or a tapped pipe. It will have less output though, or be bigger than a back loaded horn or tapped pipe. If you want quality go for front loaded horn.
You will need to decide on how low you want your system to go. The size and cost for a 20 Hz system is probably 4 times compared to a 30 Hz system."
Last edited:
I'd say that the size of the radiation mass and directivity is more important. A properly terminate horn is going to have the highest RM CSA.
@GM - I think I've narrowed down my perspective to the details of the radiation mass, and the transition from piston velocity to free space
"Transition between piston velocity field (normal piston velocity) and sound field in free space"
Horns extend piston velocity to the point of where they couple in the horn...A large horn in its lower notes, still above cutoff will extend piston velocity to larger CSA of the horn...I previously argued that the shape/size of the airmass involved in coupling gets larger before it reaches cutoff. The axial length corresponding to frequency it couples with, will determine the CSA ,of the airmass. This airmass also extends Piston Velocity outwards from the actual diaphragm....The larger CSA of the Airmass/AirPiston, moving at piston velocity, raises Volume velocity and intensity....which I think are some of the building blocks of Direct Energy.....or at least thats the last thing I proposed lol.
For any example of FLH/TL/TH/BR etc To me.... the major factor is the Size of the Radiation Mass and its characteristics, that generally show the transition from Direct energy into free space...... The larger the Vent or Driver involved in the radiation.....the more direct energy.
If we wanted to be scientific and create another factor to "Null" when comparing different enclosures. For sure, Radiation Mass CSA, would even the playing field.....It is similar to using all the same box volumes when when comparing enclosures or using the same driver, etc.
By setting a static Radiation Mass CSA and then comparing enclosures....I predict that the ideas like this
All of this brain storming about Radiation mass CSA and vented vs sealed drivers, brought about this thought....
Increasing motor strength lowers excursion? If a diaphragm could achieve a very high velocity in a very short amount of travel, would it usher in the desired SPl?
@GM - I think I've narrowed down my perspective to the details of the radiation mass, and the transition from piston velocity to free space
"Transition between piston velocity field (normal piston velocity) and sound field in free space"
Horns extend piston velocity to the point of where they couple in the horn...A large horn in its lower notes, still above cutoff will extend piston velocity to larger CSA of the horn...I previously argued that the shape/size of the airmass involved in coupling gets larger before it reaches cutoff. The axial length corresponding to frequency it couples with, will determine the CSA ,of the airmass. This airmass also extends Piston Velocity outwards from the actual diaphragm....The larger CSA of the Airmass/AirPiston, moving at piston velocity, raises Volume velocity and intensity....which I think are some of the building blocks of Direct Energy.....or at least thats the last thing I proposed lol.
For any example of FLH/TL/TH/BR etc To me.... the major factor is the Size of the Radiation Mass and its characteristics, that generally show the transition from Direct energy into free space...... The larger the Vent or Driver involved in the radiation.....the more direct energy.
If we wanted to be scientific and create another factor to "Null" when comparing different enclosures. For sure, Radiation Mass CSA, would even the playing field.....It is similar to using all the same box volumes when when comparing enclosures or using the same driver, etc.
By setting a static Radiation Mass CSA and then comparing enclosures....I predict that the ideas like this
Would go away and the lines between the enclosures would blurry with slight unique differences related to forced internal volume needed achieve matching Radiation Mass CSA....For example a properly terminated bass horn would be huge....
All of this brain storming about Radiation mass CSA and vented vs sealed drivers, brought about this thought....
Increasing motor strength lowers excursion? If a diaphragm could achieve a very high velocity in a very short amount of travel, would it usher in the desired SPl?
No, it does not.
Velocity equals distance (also known as displacement) divided by time.
SPL is the desired result of displacement.
Wrt motor strength and excursion, think about expensive car subwoofer drivers, aka air pumps, with massive motors and high Xmax.
This analogy is (also) apt:
"Volume velocity is a quantity in acoustics analogous to current in a circuit.
V=IR in circuits or I = V/R.
Air presents an impedance to a travelling wave. Pressure is analogous to voltage. Pressure divided by acoustic impedance is volume velocity as voltage divided by electrical impedance is current."
Regarding horns:
This analogy is (also) apt:
"Volume velocity is a quantity in acoustics analogous to current in a circuit.
V=IR in circuits or I = V/R.
Air presents an impedance to a travelling wave. Pressure is analogous to voltage. Pressure divided by acoustic impedance is volume velocity as voltage divided by electrical impedance is current."
Regarding horns:
I have a theory on long short throw for mid highs.
Perhaps a narrower dispersiom horn can get its sound to a place in room (far throw).
Think a better signal to noise ratio.
Less room reflections.
Like when i had a 12" full range crossed at 150hz.
I was supprised at how loud it would go in room without sounding mushy.
My theory is less hf bouncing all over the place.
Perhaps a narrower dispersiom horn can get its sound to a place in room (far throw).
Think a better signal to noise ratio.
Less room reflections.
Like when i had a 12" full range crossed at 150hz.
I was supprised at how loud it would go in room without sounding mushy.
My theory is less hf bouncing all over the place.
Hello Norman
Yes you would think. In a normal size room I am not sure ends it up mattering as much. The dimensions are so small in a room compared to say a stadium that the actual differences in the reflected field?? You are only controlling the directivity over a limited range and where the sound power is most intense the only control is that offered by the driver and baffle size.
My preference is for the short throw wide horns such as the JBL 2344 and the M2 waveguide. They sound more natural to me than systems with higher directivity like the 4344 as an example.
Rob
This seems to illustrate the importance of flare type and path length in the horn (before the mouth) as a factor for lf extension.
It's the same for waveguides, a catenary, conical or similar 'fast' flare will not provide the same load characteristics and lf extension as a traditional (Salmon-type) profile, no matter how large the mouth.
Why do you think I wasn't mad about the HF beaming of a traditional horn...
Natural is a subjective word in this context...Natural could mean the acoustics reflecting inside the room you are in....cause that does happen, naturally,... Or natural could refer to the accuracy in signal reproduction...or it could mean that you hear what you personally expect to hear...It could mean, neutral...Can you please elaborate? What really threw me off, was the jbl 4344 being used as an example of "high directivity"
Hello Camplo
4344 are old school monitors so they are using an exponential horn on the 2425/26 compression driver and diffraction lenses same on the 2405. The diffraction lenses on the exponential only work horizontally and marginally so. Same with the 2405. In the vertical they beam to the point that when you set them up it's important to have the HF drivers at ear height or at least aimed that way.
If you compare a 4344 to a 4430/4435 an Array 1400 or the M2 it is a night and day difference as far as uniformity between on and off axis response. The newer designs are far better. The difference is clearly audible especially if you change your seated position, stand or move around the room.
Because of this in actual use if you stand or move off axis there is a clearly audible tonal shift. It's essentially "head in vise". Speakers that do that do not sound real/natural to me using sounds in real life as an example. I will admit it's a preference but when at a real live event have you experienced a similar tonal balance change in a couple of feet?? I certainly haven't.
Rob
Last edited:
The term 'natural' (sound) would justify its own thread, but I guess I know what you mean.
With regard to horns versus waveguides/direct radiators, it's mainly about the 'perceived signature' of the wavefront and the interaction with space.
Very short horns, such as the M2 waveguide, sound more like a dome tweeter on steroids.
This short conversation, following a visit to a mastering studio (see pics), between some guy and Peter Qvortrup (Audio Note UK) - who, after more than 40 years in the industry still detests horn loudspeakers, is illustrative:
"How did you like the Meyers? I've never heard them, only heard about them."
PQ:
"Hi H....k, you mean the speakers? I thought they were terrible when I am honest, but even so, the test cuts we heard sounded unbelievably good. Peter"
Last edited:
Thank you for explaining. "They sound more natural" = They have a wide pattern, or neutral off axis character.... Possibly constant directivity even....
My stance has always been this.....User error....Its like playing a woofer at Xlim and blaming the speaker for distorting ....Stay in the sweet spot, there is nothing else acceptable for monitoring.
I try to only judge speakers while in the sweet spot....for critical listening, I would want to only be in the sweet spot... At the top of the HF there is always beaming.....
Distortion increases as you move off axis....Can I say that?
Last edited:
No, the 'test cuts' (mixed using those Meyer Sound X10s, but listened to at home on his AN-Es) sounded great.
There's another comment from this guy, after Qvortrup's reply:
"I guess nothing beats experience and skills?"
Of course Peter Qvortrup isn't a saint, so here's another, though older comment about the X10s:
"The Meyer Sound speakers are the only horn speakers that I’ve ever heard that I thought avoided that cupped hands sound that you get from most typical horn-loaded speakers. They also are a dynamic as hell which makes them a hit in the pro audio world. They are ugly looking speakers in terms of form-factor, but they are really designed to go behind a screen or be used in a studio. The trick is that they are powered speakers – that means that they have amps inside of them for all of the drivers, not an uncommon feat in the world of pro audio, but an oddity in audiophile circles."
and
"The Meyer Sound X-10 is the biggest sleeper pick in the world of high end loudspeakers on the market today. Coming out of the world of pro audio, you get none of the sex appeal of a traditional high end speaker but all of the studio-grade power, reliability and finesse from a truly full range speaker that can literally rock your world in ways no other speaker can. In terms of ultimate value, the Meyer Sound X-10s are cheap compared to the ultimate level speakers in the market today."
Anyone who has followed this thread knows what your objectives are.
The comments from Rob and myself are of course more of a general nature.
Last edited:
No recognition of the possibility that the fidelity of the speakers attributed to the masters quality.....Still it makes no sense... Speakers shouldn't sound good, only tell whats there.... So his comment was likely like the one above about being "neutral" when something more specific was meant.
Constant FR vs view angle, happens in nature....sometimes.....So does a lot of other alternative outcomes.
Constant FR vs view angle, happens in nature....sometimes.....So does a lot of other alternative outcomes.
Last edited:
In principle not, because distortion is a product of the 'source'.
However, the sound image is obviously 'distorted' if you move off axis with highly directive (not CD-type) speakers.
Last edited:
It's the old dichotomy between objective performance and subjective experience/preference.
Do you think I don't listen in the sweet spot?? It doesn't matter if its monitoring or listening you always listen in the sweet spot, The point is how large it is.
There are huge differences in how much beaming occurs depending on horn/waveguide design.
Go look at the polar response comparing a 4331 vs 4430.
Rob
It’s worth noting that a BPH, such as used by Funktion One, acoustically behaves much more like a reflex enclosure at low frequencies than it does a horn. There’s a paper by Bright, 2003 that explores this in detail using BEM.
The boost in on-axis output in that case is most likely attributed to the increase in mouth area & the resulting confinement of radiation to a smaller area - or put another way, the shift down in frequency of the transition to omnidirectional behaviour. Charlie Hughes has a good paper on this on his Excelsior website.
Is there any validity in this guy's remarks because he just sounds like a person who doesn't know what he's talking about...
"cupped hand sound"??? Lets see the FR of this type of speaker.... he doesnt seem to know the difference....