Rerurn to Romy the Cat's Site

Yes, I was not able to decipher right the way why they did it. My initial feeling was that they made PROPER horn and use a PROPER driver and then, because the approximation of cut off to horn rate they had audacity to cut off the response on the horn. It would be VERY interesting and very commendable. Not a lot of people would have balls to do it on 60Hz horn. However, since I learn the driver (drivers!!!) that were use in this horn I do know that they juts truncated the response of the horn because the driver does not match the horn and has way too easy cone feedback to the horn’s throat reactance.

jessie.dazzle wrote:

I would have thought this crossover point to be WAY too close to the horns cut-off frequency.

Yes it would be true for higher cut off horn but would it be the same for 60Hz horn? With lowering frequency the rules of proximity change and I do not know the progression. At 7kHz you would need a cut off ~2 octaves below the horn rate. At 1kHz you would need ~1 octave. At 300Hz your might sometimes go away with slightly more than half octave. How this work at 60Hz? Will it be linear dependency or logarithmic? I thought to observe how GOTO think would be educational, but it was not as they juts fixed problems with high cut off.

The biggest questions of all would be if loosing of 10Hz would be worthy then to apply many other things that might be done. I personally if I go for 60Hz horn would drive it with 30Hz crossover (juts unloading the necessary excursion form the horn as I do in my upperbass) and then use back chamber and damping from amplifier would try to write up the proper bass structure.

Rerurn to Romy the Cat's Site