Jump to content

Progress on MiniPseudoLaScala


Recommended Posts

It is a good question, and one which I looked into. However, I don't have the calculations here to allow detailed discussion.

My conclusion was that the back chamber volume does scale down, as do the general dimentions.

PWK's equation for back chamber volume was based on driver area times flare rate, as I recall. So it is a matter of scaling factor^3. This works in dimentional analysis.

Getting the best bass response out of horn system may well require more emperical testing. There are two patents issued to PWK which hint that in finite length horns, the back chamber should be smaller. This is because the reaction from the finite horn is larger.



Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the reduced LaScala (exponential, wall placed, 10" driver), has 1.6 sq. ft mouth, these are the first order design parameters I would expect:

fc 125Hz (linear response 140Hz up to mass cut-off of driver)

throat 16.5" sq.

horn length; 2.46 ft.

doubling distance 7.5"

air chamber volume behind cone: 360 cubic in.

These numbers indicate that the response should drop off rapidly after 140Hz from wall placement. How significant are the deviations of the reduced LaScala from these numbers?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Create New...