Rerurn to Romy the Cat's Site

op.9,

to put your comment I perspective it is necessary to know what surface you had on your Lecleach horns before. If you search the site (use world textured or structured) then you would know that I am a vocal opponent of smooth surfaces on horns. When I see those manufactures sell their glossy and shiny horns I truly smile. Somewhere in this site I pitched enter theory that sound shell be scratched off the surface of the horn instead of sliding and slipping from the walls of the horns. Pretty much an abrasive sand paper is one of the greatest surfaces… In the time when John Hasquin was still in business he taught me to finish the horn surface with textured paint, it is what I do and moderating the dryiness of the pains it is possible to moderate the granularity of painting. Alternately you might use hairy wood of rough plaster surface as Jessie might do with his plaster horns.

Now about the Mr. Gedde’s idea of open cell foam.  It would work but I do not like the solution as foam instead of demanding diffusion does also absorption. I did use foam for experiment in past and I have seen HOW it works. Well, properly if to use very fine and very thin (a few mm) sheet of foam and to cover the horn very accurately then it will created the necessary boundary effect of surface randomanization however I would propose a slightly different angle.

Would it be possible that overly-absorbing characteristics of the Geddes foam redeem the upper range problem of your BMS 4592ND driver? In my past I did corrected the problem with some on my compression drivers by foaming the horns, then I learned that it is preferable to get a better driver. Sure, I have an agenda and I sweepingly do not like the BMS drivers. The improvements that you repost do suggest that the BMS did not work out well before in your horn. So, it might be an opportunity to look at the problem from different perspective.

Rerurn to Romy the Cat's Site