Rerurn to Romy the Cat's Site

Jorge wrote:

I guess it would be simple enough to add a couple of inches in order to bring the throat down to 4" in order to try the Studio 8M.  I have already reduced it temporarily to 3" in order to try the JBL 2490h compression driver.  I made an interesting test:  I put the JBL 2490 on one side and the cone driver on the other side and unhooked the rest of the channels,  I switched form one side to the other trying to see what differnces I could find between them,  in the begining the differences were very big,  I started adjusting the back chamber volume milimetrically untill I  got 90% of what the 2490 was doing so wonderfully, there are still big diferences but they balance out,  the 2490 is more detailed, transparent and dinamic,  while the cone driver goes lower, keeping most of the attributes of the compression driver.  This little bit lower,  maybe down to 110-100 hz allows better integration with the channel under it,  without this extension, there was a hole in there and this frecuency is so important,  the lower register of even female voices was cut off and done by a woofer with terrible results.  Now if I could get another horn to take it from there....

Jorge,

I see you got Studio 8M from the Rakesh’s little enterprise.  What would be very interesting to see how 2490’s at it’s bottom knee will be able to work against Studio 8M. I wonder how low 2490 might credibly go? Would it be ~130Hz? The advantages of 3” exit 2490 are a bit dubious for upperbass channel, would it has 2” exit then it would have much beer EQ by horn. I truly like the idea of having metal diaphragm for upperbass horn. Would the 2490 be THE diaphragm? I do not know but I do not think so, because 2490 itself a reasonably “smooth” diver. I would like to have instead some kind of ugly-resonating diaphragm with a lot of colorations but running a few octaves below of where it resonates. Partially it is what I am accomplishing wish Injection Channel but no one say that the effects that I got by Injection might not be handled by the same driver that cares the main channel pressure.

I do not mind a lot of new people get the new Studio 8M but unfortunately it will close the window of opportunities for people to find another good driver suitable for 100Hz horn. What would be interesting if those who get the Fane this round would not use it as is but try to do something abnormal with it. The 3” throat on Studio 8M would give slightly larger compression, more output and more EQ from horn. It would be interesting to hear what Fane would do in 3” throat configuration. When I did my Midbass horn I went for 4” due to my objective to stay with certain max horn length. At that time it was the issue in my room.

Now I would not have room size restriction and I if I do Macondo from scratch then I might go might go for 3” throat hyperbolic horn.  I am still not too wild about the mix of exponential and tractrix profiles in the same system. To my knowledge there is absolutely no one who care about the visual aspect of multichannel horn ails with different profiles. Still I think if to make the external profile similar but internal profiles different then it might be possible to do something very offensive from appealing perspective. Unfortunately people do not get that such an insignificant change from 4” to 3” in upperbass horn would lead to very dramatic change of entire speaker.

Anyhow, it is interesting how the new 25 users that get those Studio 8M will use them. I wish something “new” would derive from all of it…

Rerurn to Romy the Cat's Site