Rerurn to Romy the Cat's Site


In the Forum: Horn-Loaded Speakers
In the Thread: Problems with horns: upper bass
Post Subject: On ApproachPosted by Dresden on: 11/19/2008
fiogf49gjkf0d
In reference to the two (or three) prototypes, the base design contains one (1) driver, a second proposal to the base design uses two (2) drivers (using almost the same exact enclosure--an increase of volume/area in the chamber containing the two [2] drives being the sole modification), and the third proposal consisting of a longer loading horn, albeit without the attempt to load the rear acoustic energy into a rear-facing horn.  (The purpose of my stating two OR three prototypes:  the last proposal is a distinct departure from the base design.  In all honesty, it deviates from the base design to the extent that it barely resembles said design.  My focus remains on the first two proposals, the third being a potential but ultimately less desirable alternative).

I agree 'it is not so simple'--it would be naive of me to think execution of such a project will be straightforward (a Japanese table I built took over twice the amount of time and resources to arrive at the envisioned design).  After viewing a plethora of information (and documented, cross-referenced attempts/results) on similar projects, and considering the various approaches on how I may achieve the decided target performance, I believe I've arrived at a good starting point as it pertains to the Mid/Upper bass horn.

In pursuit of obtaining the desired performance, I'm willing to commit the prototypes for a useful purpose (a giant candy dispenser, sizable piggy bank, heavy-duty trombone case, unconventional bench, the first every communal urn, or other), should the project prove a failure after all is said and, well, constructed.  (It may seem absurd to 'waste' so much energy and time [and resources], should it end that way, but it wouldn't be the first time I've had to 'kill my babies'.)

P.S.  I'm not sure what paragraph you're referring to when you wrote, 'what do you think the relation of this third paragraph with the context of this thread?'.  Is it a paragraph pertaining to something I wrote, or the third paragraph in a reply you or someone else posted in this thread?

 Romy the Cat wrote:

 Dresden wrote:
I've concluded that building at least two--and perhaps three--different versions of a Mid/Upper bass horn design will be required to determine which of the three configurations perform best.

Unfortunately it is not so simple. Even if you built three different versions of an upperbass horn (with is a crazy things to do but a commendable experiment anyhow) then it would hardly indicate which configuration “performs best”. There are 3 things that I would like to point your attention

1)    The sound of your upperbass horn will be 60% depending from the way in which it imbibed into your room.

2)    The sound of your upperbass horn will be 30% depending from the way in which the GIVEN upperbass integrated with rest of the channels

3)    If you go went the pain to read many post of this site then you will see that I very seldom, if ever, give a direct recommendation what to do. I know that it pisses a lot of simplistic audio-idiots out there but there a lot of reasons for me to do what I do. My “homework” to you, as to a person who would like make commercial upperbass horns: what do you think the relation of this third paragraph with the context of this thread? Mind you that it very loaded question.

I like the title of you post” The Purpose and Approach”. This in many ways is the answer to the idea of perfect loading, or the perfect loudspeaker, or whatever else is “perfect”. This view kind of subside my excitement about the “generic” commercial projects and one of the major ingredients – “the purpose” is not plugged in the recipe of the cooking….

Rgs, Romy the Cat

Rerurn to Romy the Cat's Site