noviygera wrote:

Number one, that I'd like to run by you guys due to it's simpler nature and closer to reality execution is the idea I have been thinking about. No first hand experience with any of this. Say we use something like altec 1505b multicellular horn that shall be used 400 to 5k. Now take the very central horn sector (the one in the middle vertically and horizontally) and disable it's midrange function and place a wider dispersion tweeter horn in it (or in its location). This shall cover 5khz and up. It may be a exponential profile but modified of wider dispersion. So we end up with a point source from 400-15kz, true horn loaded but with wide, even dispersion, unlike the 1505b on it's own.From there we use some sort of concentric midbass configuration, possibly sealed box or short horn of the same length as the 1505b for natural time alignment. For example a quad of 12" light paper woofers -- two above the 1505b and two below. A sort of pseudo concentric configuration.This midbass section may be used 80-400hz. Some subs of choice below 80hz. The 1505b type midrange horn may be made longer as well, I think, maybe to load down to 350hz. The MAIN idea here is approximation of a point source 80-15khz but more or less properly implemented. The tweeter will need a delay line, but other channels won't. Something like this for the delay line: https://www.kv2audio.com/products/processors/sdd3.html Yes, the tweeter will have to have digital delay. But still filtering all around can be implemented with 6db/oct crossovers, I guess. Also an omniderectional super tweeter can be used above 15khz, and time aligned physically. I have a second "idealhorn" concept as well but it is more wacky, more experimental and "out there". I can share that one as well if interested. At least this one is doable.

rowuk wrote:

I see a problem with any „coaxial“ attempt in one horn. The length of the horn is correct for one band, but not both HF and MF. If the horn is optimized for MF, if is too long for HF and works like a transmission line at those frequencies. The wrong horn flare means that the horn EQ is applied to the wrong frequencies with no appreciable gain where we need it. Is a point source a „worthy“ goal? What sonic advantage does it offer? Is there a problem with convergence of the MF, HF and UHF at the listeners seat or is it a myth to promote hifi agendas? Horns are decade devices as a rule (with few exceptions). That is based on the geometry of the horn, not how wide band the driver is.

noviygera wrote:

rowuk wrote: I see a problem with any „coaxial“ attempt in one horn. The length of the horn is correct for one band, but not both HF and MF. If the horn is optimized for MF, if is too long for HF and works like a transmission line at those frequencies. The wrong horn flare means that the horn EQ is applied to the wrong frequencies with no appreciable gain where we need it. Is a point source a „worthy“ goal? What sonic advantage does it offer? Is there a problem with convergence of the MF, HF and UHF at the listeners seat or is it a myth to promote hifi agendas? Horns are decade devices as a rule (with few exceptions). That is based on the geometry of the horn, not how wide band the driver is. I like the concept of point source not because it's trendy but because it provides equally timed room reflections and a natural acoustical environment. And a larger sweet spot of time aligned source of sound. In my 1st example there will have to be DSP delay on the tweeter.