Rerurn to Romy the Cat's Site

scooter wrote:

That is a really interesting point for designs going forward...

I would very much argue that it is interesting point. Not because it not interesting but to highlight the fact that this interesting point has no practical answer.

First of all in the case of Rakesh horn what N-Set proposed is not necessary. Those 115Hz Hasqiun-style horns that Rakesh emulates are well dumped with own mass and own construction techniques – layers of particles boards with lagers of proper glue are great damping environment. In addition it is juts 100Hz – not too stressful foe the horn of this design. When and if Rakesh goes for his 50Hz horn it will be much different story – in there firmness of the assembly will be much flimsier for the frequency it cares and to use randomly interchanged damping and randomly interchanged thickness will effective.

Why in such case I would argue the rational of this approach? In particularly why would I argue it if I myself used the very same approach in construction of my own 42Hz horn? The answer is that all logic that we use is purely intellectual self-gratification. Sure we can measure the resonances  in mouth but we have no mechanism to evaluate how different degree of resonances and different randomness of mass distribution in reality affect Sound.

In addition, in case of 50Hz horn there are zillion OTHER reasons why the horn sound in one way or another. How to subtract from those zillion reasons the contribution of random masses? I do not know the answer.

The problem is complicated further by the fact that the people who built many horn and try different construction methods also not able to say truths because of various reasons. It is just too complex, too expensive to investigate and in most cases not necessary or needed to wide public, therefore not worthy to invest for horn builders.

So, my attitude is following. I build my 42Hz horn and I exposed all my techniques I used. In the very end I do like how it sound but I would not name a single specific technique that I feel is responsible for the sound that I like. Furthermore, if my horn was used in playback differently then I might be less (or more) satisfied with how it sound. So, looking back to my midbass horn project I might call myself an experienced guy (it took 10 year of thinking about that horn)  but do I feel that my experience give me option to say definitely about this or that construction techniques as an assurance of proper midbass sound. I do not feel this way and therefore I would argue any certainty in large horn construction.

I have seen a lot in audio. I have seen amazingly sounding bass enclosures made with over-damped and under-damped boxes. I have seen (even owned) insanely expensive enclosure what the microscopic resonances were measured by laser readers and the enclosures still sounded like shit. I have seen the enclosures made from thin horrible wood with firmness of cardboard box and some of them had phenomenally interesting bass. I feel that there are no rules and there are no winning patters. It is very complex to foresee anything in bass resonance and I feel that empirical practicing, observing own very specific results, proper interpretation of results and then to react upon those results is the only way to accomplish Sound of own envision. I am not even mentioning that what a person envisions is a reflection of his various non-audio qualifications, but it is a while deferent subject….

Rerurn to Romy the Cat's Site