| Search | Login/Register
   Home » Horn-Loaded Speakers» Good midbass is complicated, if not unobtainable. (74 posts, 4 pages)
  Print Thread | 1st Post |  
Page 4 of 4 (74 items) Select Pages:  « 1 2 3 4
12-23-2015 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Scott L
Posts 17
Joined on 02-26-2008

Post #: 61
Post ID: 22339
Reply to: 22338
Many aspects combine, or they don't.
fiogf49gjkf0d
IMO  A 60Hz attempt is too low and a 120Hz attempt too high. This is a difficult task, that of properly integrating horn loaded mid-bass with
D.R subs.

What type and slope crossover are you using ?
I'm hoping you are going active here ?

How much air can your sub woofer section move ?
You simply MUST be able to move prodigious amounts of air at the very low frequencies.

Keep in mind, that in order for these two to integrate, you must maintain a linear range of response, to at LEAST, an octave past either side of
the crossover point. And that, is almost impossible with a horn loaded mid-bass. The key word being "almost" but not impossible.

It's very difficult. To use, say, a 100Hz x-over point, your mid bass horn should reach an F3 somewhere close to 50Hz, and your subs should be linear
to 200Hz. Most subs BEG to rise in response as frequency ascends. Ideally, this is dealt with in the design, but a last ditch effort would be to add
EQ. after the crossover.

Yes, please do show pictures !
12-23-2015 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


Boston, MA
Posts 9,544
Joined on 05-28-2004

Post #: 62
Post ID: 22340
Reply to: 22332
Exponential horn Calculator
fiogf49gjkf0d
Actually you do not need anybody to “design” an upper bass horns for you. This page is all that you need. You need to make the Java-crap to be able to run.   

http://rocketsciencecanada.com/Sound/Horns/Tool_ExponentialCalculator.asp

The Cat


"I wish I could score everything for horns." - Richard Wagner. "Our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts." - Friedrich Nietzsche
12-23-2015 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


Boston, MA
Posts 9,544
Joined on 05-28-2004

Post #: 63
Post ID: 22341
Reply to: 22339
Forget word "subwoofer".
fiogf49gjkf0d

 Scott L wrote:
IMO  A 60Hz attempt is too low and a 120Hz attempt too high. This is a difficult task, that of properly integrating horn loaded mid-bass with
D.R subs.

What type and slope crossover are you using ?
I'm hoping you are going active here ?

How much air can your sub woofer section move ?
You simply MUST be able to move prodigious amounts of air at the very low frequencies.

Keep in mind, that in order for these two to integrate, you must maintain a linear range of response, to at LEAST, an octave past either side of
the crossover point. And that, is almost impossible with a horn loaded mid-bass. The key word being "almost" but not impossible.

It's very difficult. To use, say, a 100Hz x-over point, your mid bass horn should reach an F3 somewhere close to 50Hz, and your subs should be linear
to 200Hz. Most subs BEG to rise in response as frequency ascends. Ideally, this is dealt with in the design, but a last ditch effort would be to add
EQ. after the crossover.

Yes, please do show pictures !

Scott, I think you a bit overly complicate the task of integration of mid/upper bass with LF. The key mistake you make (in my view) is semantic. You call LF section as subwoofer that immediately bring in imagination an industry boom box sitting in a corner trying to fill the room with lower octaves. Yes, the integration of those type solutions is very complicated and in my mind it still never work properly. Subwoofers work OK with a pair of mini-monitors and total cost of $500. If you went to extend to build multichannel time-aligned horn installation then you are way out of subwoofers rhetoric and you need to talk/thin about a truly potent LF acoustic system. I personally feel that line-arrays with cylindrical waves, good drivers and long walls work spectacularly well with horns and they are very easy to integrate. So, it is all about a proper chose of topology. Whatever it might be it must not be subwoofers. Subwoofers as a category is consumer-level audio element and the concept should not be used along withany  high-endish objectives.


"I wish I could score everything for horns." - Richard Wagner. "Our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts." - Friedrich Nietzsche
12-23-2015 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Scott L
Posts 17
Joined on 02-26-2008

Post #: 64
Post ID: 22342
Reply to: 22341
Substitute words
fiogf49gjkf0d
 Romy the Cat wrote:

 Scott L wrote:
IMO  A 60Hz attempt is too low and a 120Hz attempt too high. This is a difficult task, that of properly integrating horn loaded mid-bass with
D.R subs.

What type and slope crossover are you using ?
I'm hoping you are going active here ?

How much air can your sub woofer section move ?
You simply MUST be able to move prodigious amounts of air at the very low frequencies.

Keep in mind, that in order for these two to integrate, you must maintain a linear range of response, to at LEAST, an octave past either side of
the crossover point. And that, is almost impossible with a horn loaded mid-bass. The key word being "almost" but not impossible.

It's very difficult. To use, say, a 100Hz x-over point, your mid bass horn should reach an F3 somewhere close to 50Hz, and your subs should be linear
to 200Hz. Most subs BEG to rise in response as frequency ascends. Ideally, this is dealt with in the design, but a last ditch effort would be to add
EQ. after the crossover.

Yes, please do show pictures !

Scott, I think you a bit overly complicate the task of integration of mid/upper bass with LF. The key mistake you make (in my view) is semantic. You call LF section as subwoofer that immediately bring in imagination an industry boom box sitting in a corner trying to fill the room with lower octaves. Yes, the integration of those type solutions is very complicated and in my mind it still never work properly. Subwoofers work OK with a pair of mini-monitors and total cost of $500. If you went to extend to build multichannel time-aligned horn installation then you are way out of subwoofers rhetoric and you need to talk/thin about a truly potent LF acoustic system. I personally feel that line-arrays with cylindrical waves, good drivers and long walls work spectacularly well with horns and they are very easy to integrate. So, it is all about a proper chose of topology. Whatever it might be it must not be subwoofers. Subwoofers as a category is consumer-level audio element and the concept should not be used along withany  high-endish objectives.
A

Ahh, great point !   Okay, please substitute the phrase "low frequency section" for every place that I incorrectly used the word: sub(s)
Then, every thing else I posted is still true. To wit, the last time I checked, you were using 6each @ 10 inch low frequency drivers per side.
That's "getting there" but still not enough to produce an acoustical watt. (which horns CAN do).
12-23-2015 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


Boston, MA
Posts 9,544
Joined on 05-28-2004

Post #: 65
Post ID: 22343
Reply to: 22342
I am not sure what you mean.
fiogf49gjkf0d
 Scott L wrote:
 the last time I checked, you were using 6each @ 10 inch low frequency drivers per side. That's "getting there" but still not enough to produce an acoustical watt. (which horns CAN do).
   
I am not sure what you mean. At the times when I used 6 driver line-arrays for sub 100Hz region it was integrated with 115Hz upper bass horn and I assure you that both integration and overall sound were very fine. I do not think that it would work in larger or non-sealed room however but it worked very well in there, I think it was ~300 sq feet. So, I do not know what you mean saying “not enough to produce an acoustical watt”.  In that room ANY design of midbass horn would be a disasters. 


"I wish I could score everything for horns." - Richard Wagner. "Our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts." - Friedrich Nietzsche
12-23-2015 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Gargoyle
Posts 22
Joined on 02-01-2015

Post #: 66
Post ID: 22344
Reply to: 22343
If I may
fiogf49gjkf0d
 Romy the Cat wrote:
 Scott L wrote:
 the last time I checked, you were using 6each @ 10 inch low frequency drivers per side. That's "getting there" but still not enough to produce an acoustical watt. (which horns CAN do).
   
I am not sure what you mean. At the times when I used 6 driver line-arrays for sub 100Hz region it was integrated with 115Hz upper bass horn and I assure you that both integration and overall sound were very fine. I do not think that it would work in larger or non-sealed room however but it worked very well in there, I think it was ~300 sq feet. So, I do not know what you mean saying “not enough to produce an acoustical watt”.  In that room ANY design of midbass horn would be a disasters. 


My guess is was referring to the pressure levels at the surface of the woofer(s) compared to that of a horn. The sound pressure of a direct radiator has to be much high to achieve a certain SPL at the same distance of a lower pressure horn.

It is a phrase more commonly used in pro-sound circles. Typical direct radiator types are only capable of producing ~3 acoustical watts for every 100 electrical watts input.

One acoustical watt is ~107 db from an OMNIdirectional source.

I haven't done them math to see how your array compares, but I can surmise that Scott is suggesting that your particular implementation in that room was not up to the task of orchestra, which is considered to be ~1 acoustic watt in power. Probably OK for rock though.
12-23-2015 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Scott L
Posts 17
Joined on 02-26-2008

Post #: 67
Post ID: 22345
Reply to: 22344
Pretty darn close
fiogf49gjkf0d
 Gargoyle wrote:
 Romy the Cat wrote:
 Scott L wrote:
 the last time I checked, you were using 6each @ 10 inch low frequency drivers per side. That's "getting there" but still not enough to produce an acoustical watt. (which horns CAN do).
   
I am not sure what you mean. At the times when I used 6 driver line-arrays for sub 100Hz region it was integrated with 115Hz upper bass horn and I assure you that both integration and overall sound were very fine. I do not think that it would work in larger or non-sealed room however but it worked very well in there, I think it was ~300 sq feet. So, I do not know what you mean saying “not enough to produce an acoustical watt”.  In that room ANY design of midbass horn would be a disasters. 


My guess is was referring to the pressure levels at the surface of the woofer(s) compared to that of a horn. The sound pressure of a direct radiator has to be much high to achieve a certain SPL at the same distance of a lower pressure horn.

It is a phrase more commonly used in pro-sound circles. Typical direct radiator types are only capable of producing ~3 acoustical watts for every 100 electrical watts input.

One acoustical watt is ~107 db from an OMNIdirectional source.

I haven't done them math to see how your array compares, but I can surmise that Scott is suggesting that your particular implementation in that room was not up to the task of orchestra, which is considered to be ~1 acoustic watt in power. Probably OK for rock though.


Romy's bass driver array is actually a very good approach. 6 x10's per side is actually enough to produce an acoustical watt at the upper part of the range they cover, but not down to the subterranean depths of an orchestra's hall ambiance. I did not realize his former room in the basement apartment was as small as it evidently was. What about now, though ?    Actually, the point of my post was illustrate the acoustical needs for proper integration of the two types of systems. Also let me add here, I feel for domestic settings, this approach makes the most sense from a practical viewpoint.
12-23-2015 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


Boston, MA
Posts 9,544
Joined on 05-28-2004

Post #: 68
Post ID: 22346
Reply to: 22344
I have no idea why acoustic watt is needed.
fiogf49gjkf0d
 Gargoyle wrote:

My guess is was referring to the pressure levels at the surface of the woofer(s) compared to that of a horn. The sound pressure of a direct radiator has to be much high to achieve a certain SPL at the same distance of a lower pressure horn.

It is a phrase more commonly used in pro-sound circles. Typical direct radiator types are only capable of producing ~3 acoustical watts for every 100 electrical watts input.

One acoustical watt is ~107 db from an OMNIdirectional source.

I haven't done them math to see how your array compares, but I can surmise that Scott is suggesting that your particular implementation in that room was not up to the task of orchestra, which is considered to be ~1 acoustic watt in power. Probably OK for rock though.
Gargoyle, I am not familiar with this dimension: acoustic watt in power, neither have I been familiar how my playback sound “for rock”. The Wikipedia dives a definition of Sound Power or Acoustic Power. I understand what they say but I see not practical use of this measurement, at least for myself. I do not know what kind reasoning you used to convert the reportedly low Acoustic Power into disability of this or that playback to “play orchestra”.  I do not defend my playback – I am very comfortable what it did in that room and I very much insist that it was crème de la crème of all multichannel integrations (and I heard a LOT). Mind you that I did it with knowing what Acoustic Power is.


"I wish I could score everything for horns." - Richard Wagner. "Our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts." - Friedrich Nietzsche
12-23-2015 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


Boston, MA
Posts 9,544
Joined on 05-28-2004

Post #: 69
Post ID: 22347
Reply to: 22345
Still confided.
fiogf49gjkf0d
 Scott L wrote:
Romy's bass driver array is actually a very good approach. 6 x10's per side is actually enough to produce an acoustical watt at the upper part of the range they cover, but not down to the subterranean depths of an orchestra's hall ambiance. I did not realize his former room in the basement apartment was as small as it evidently was. What about now, though ?    Actually, the point of my post was illustrate the acoustical needs for proper integration of the two types of systems. Also let me add here, I feel for domestic settings, this approach makes the most sense from a practical viewpoint.

Scott, I still do not “get” what acoustical watt is. To me it is absolutely bogus parameter. Let presume that acoustic system is abstractedly and anechoicly linear from 200 to 20hz and has some kind of reference ability to produce an acoustic pressure to a reference distance driven by 1W or electrical power. Being placed in a real room the acoustic system will be exposed to all room modes (standing waves) but let discard it.  Another factor that will be effected the real response would be the ability of room to dissipate different frequency. It might for instance produce 90dB at 8 feet and 1W and 100Hz but 70dB at 8 feet and 1W and 40Hz (we discard standing waves juts for sake of conversation). So, in this case we have a basic frequency response as an inverted characteristic of room ability to dissipate different frequency. My question is: why in this picture the concept of Acoustic Power or Acoustical Watt can advance anything? I am not being sarcastic, I just truly do not know where to use it.
 


"I wish I could score everything for horns." - Richard Wagner. "Our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts." - Friedrich Nietzsche
12-23-2015 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Gargoyle
Posts 22
Joined on 02-01-2015

Post #: 70
Post ID: 22348
Reply to: 22346
I will clarify
fiogf49gjkf0d
The "sound power" for a rock concert is 0.1W (~110db),  lower then the 1W (120db) cited for Symphony orchestras.

If ones goal is to "reproduce" symphony in all it's glory, one should aim for 1 acoustical watt at the listening position, or at least as close as practically possible.

That is what I meant by saying it was probably "OK for rock" from a technical reproduction sense, not subjectively.
12-23-2015 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Gargoyle
Posts 22
Joined on 02-01-2015

Post #: 71
Post ID: 22349
Reply to: 22348
Explanation
fiogf49gjkf0d
 Romy wrote:
My question is: why in this picture the concept of Acoustic Power or Acoustical Watt can advance anything? I am not being sarcastic, I just truly do not know where to use it.


Sorry, I'm not trying to answer for Scott, but think of it this way, the resistance of air is nonlinear, but the calculations of wattage is usually done in a linear fashion, 100 watt amp plus 100 watt amp is 200 watt.

It is a parameter that you can apply to anything that produces sound, the electrical wattage is almost arbitrary and system dependent.

Now as far as what frequency for orchestra etc, one can surmise that 1 acoustical watt was more or less full band of whatever song they were playing during the test.
Just as the 100 acoustical watts (140db) cited for a turboprop aircraft taking off would be a combination of the frequencies made by the engine.

An engineer could then figure out how much wattage he actually needs to reproduce a turboprop taking off, based off of the acoustic power and the efficiency of his speaker combinations.
He could then place this system on a runway and ideally from some distance it will sound the same as a real airplane, minus the motion.

12-23-2015 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


Boston, MA
Posts 9,544
Joined on 05-28-2004

Post #: 72
Post ID: 22350
Reply to: 22349
I am still not there.
fiogf49gjkf0d
So, Gargoyle, from what you says this concept of “acoustic watt” is used to predict the necessary power/gain of amplification needed for a drive an acoustic system in a given room. I feel that the acoustic wattage is very odd way to do it. BTW, the acoustical resistance of air is NOT nonlinear. For the same temperature, altitude and wave shape it is very linear. The dissipation of different frequencies in the space is nonlinear but it has nothing to do with resistance of air. The wattage calculations in high-end world is not usually what people do. People usually try to have more or less even frequency response across all bands and drive what they drive while observing if amp get to a critical operation. Sorry, I truly do not see a use of “acoustic watt” in any playback consideration. Well, this is just my take.


"I wish I could score everything for horns." - Richard Wagner. "Our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts." - Friedrich Nietzsche
12-23-2015 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Gargoyle
Posts 22
Joined on 02-01-2015

Post #: 73
Post ID: 22351
Reply to: 22350
Say watt
fiogf49gjkf0d
 Romy the Cat wrote:
So, Gargoyle, from what you says this concept of “acoustic watt” is used to predict the necessary power/gain of amplification needed for a drive an acoustic system in a given room. I feel that the acoustic wattage is very odd way to do it.


Almost, except the acoustic system is on the same side of the equation as the amplification. It's borderline semantics I know.
It is somewhat odd in the niche of HiFi, but in the broader sense it is practical because it is transportable to other things that do not have speakers.


 Romy the Cat wrote:
BTW, the acoustical resistance of air is NOT nonlinear.


A 100 horsepower car may do 100 MPH, but the same car with 200 horsepower cannot do 200 MPH.
It may take around 400 horsepower to reach 200 MPH. That is why I say the resistance is nonlinear.




12-24-2015 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
noviygera


Chicago, IL
Posts 144
Joined on 06-12-2009

Post #: 74
Post ID: 22353
Reply to: 22351
Left channel photo
fiogf49gjkf0d
This is left channel. Right channel is mirror image.Noviygera_Lchannel.JPG
Noviygera_Lchannel2.JPG

I am using 6db active crossovers all around.The subs are pair of 18" Aurasound 1808 per side. The current midbass is the white color horn you see. It is Funktion One DS15.  The issue with this one is it designed to be used in PAIRS (sadly, as I discovered after purchasing). I tried it and having a pair stacked sounds a lot better (I can do easily by putting both midbass horns on one side and use a short stand). First of all, PAIRED, they play flat to 60hz in my room although with some ripples, not flat flat. Second, the sound is much more balanced and even sounding than single unit. This is one possible solution but it means I would have to buy another pair of these to have a quad and they are pricey.Second solution is what made me reconsider them in my system -- to build a proper single midbass from scratch.I can go in long detail about the rest of system but the main point is that the midrange horn plays ok to 200Hz although when measured, in reality begins to roll off slowly below 300hz. I have no issues with this it and it is fine sounding. The issue is how to best cover the range between 250 hz and subwoofer.
Page 4 of 4 (74 items) Select Pages:  « 1 2 3 4
Home Page  |  Last 24Hours  | Search  |  SiteMap  | Questions or Problems | Copyright Note
The content of all messages within the Forums Copyright © by authors of the posts