Rerurn to Romy the Cat's Site

guy sergeant wrote:

I don't think I'd be tempted to make a back loaded horn to begin with.

Yep, it is what it is. The back-loaded horns might have as convoluted back path as Scriabin music is but the sad truth about them is that all back-loaded horns sound absolutely identical. Some people put the quality of construction as the keystone of the design. Some people put a lot of faith into some kind of exotic drivers made from skin of adolescent Dolphins soaked in urine of Buddhist monk pregnant with second child. Some people use computer modeling and time analyses. Some use laser to read horn vibration. Ironically no matter what they do the result is always the same and the speaker sound like back loaded horn. I guess a person in his evolution of loudspeaker topology has to do over it…

Some people mistakably think that horn is some kind of Philosophic Stone that can create new elements from other elements. Yes, the Philosophic Stone does exist it called nuclear division and it can create from dreck but a horn is not a nuclear division. If it were then we would attach horn to violins and have contrabasses or attach horn to flutes and to have bassoons. We do not do it for some reason, not we have needs for it. We do want to have string or wind sound in different octave and we use different initials and different playing techniques to benefit own respectful sonic region.

Arno, do not consider mine or anybody else disbelieve in back-loaded idea as an obstruction in your project.  The back-loader horns are very popular and many people use them. You need to hear once a single bar from a properly implemented, time-aligned multi-channel installation and it will be end of your subscription of back-loading dipole radiation with a single driver. The back-loaded single driver sounds like a puff of Marlboro Lite. If you’re accustom to smoke full Cohibas then the that Marlboro Lite will not be comfortable even for your lips…

Rerurn to Romy the Cat's Site