juniper Posted August 25, 2015 Share Posted August 25, 2015 (edited) I was wondering what wings do on speakers or their purpose, or if anyone ever thought about putting them on Jub bass bins. On youtube there is a video named DIY Klipschorn 2, but the speakers look like Jub clones but with wings. Even though its coming out of computer speakers, the sound is very interesting. Edited August 25, 2015 by juniper Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldtimer Posted August 25, 2015 Share Posted August 25, 2015 Wings would allow one to play with various immediate reflection properties. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moray james Posted August 25, 2015 Share Posted August 25, 2015 Wings would allow one to play with various immediate reflection properties. wait I read that but I gotta go make a cup of coffee before I think about it. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Richard Posted August 25, 2015 Share Posted August 25, 2015 (edited) Wings are used on low frequency enclosures to minimize diffraction. This can result in: More directivity in the bass range. Smoother frequency response. Deeper low frequency response. Dependent on the specific equipment that is used. For example, tapped horns will exhibit more forward directivity but not extended low frequency response. Conventional horn loaded low frequency speakers can show improvement in all three areas. Wings on a Jubilee bass horn would allow them to be used away from a corner and not lose too much LF response. Edited August 25, 2015 by Don Richard 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moray james Posted August 25, 2015 Share Posted August 25, 2015 I was wondering what wings do on speakers or their purpose, or if anyone ever thought about putting them on Jub bass bins. On youtube there is a video named DIY Klipschorn 2, but the speakers look like a Jub clones but with wings. Even though its coming out of computer speakers, the sound is very interesting. not sure as you did not provide a link and I did not feel like spending the time searching past this one. If that is that the video you refered to? If so the user has what appear to be a set of Jubilee. On is out from the corner the other does not look to have a corner so he is on the left channel using short wings to prevent bass from rolling back around the cabinet and similarly on the right channel since he has no corner there the wings will help to project the low frequencies. Using wings will also help to extend the mouth just a little but mostly here it looks to be for the benefit of additional directionality. This is probably the owner simply making the best of a less than ideal situation. Proper corner placement would be much more effective. (got my coffee now). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
juniper Posted August 25, 2015 Author Share Posted August 25, 2015 (edited) Thanks for the info guys, very interesting. Moray its the same system but in the other video under Klipschorn diy 2 the recording sounds very nice. Edited August 25, 2015 by juniper Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris A Posted August 25, 2015 Share Posted August 25, 2015 On 8/25/2015 at 10:18 AM, juniper said: I was wondering what wings do on speakers or their purpose, or if anyone ever thought about putting them on Jub bass bins. This is a very interesting subject, IMHO. Another question might be "why isn't there a wedge on the front of the Jub bass bin, like a La Scala bass bin, in addition to wings?". I think that there are a lot of people that think about bass bin design but become totally color blind when they put those loudspeakers in rooms (we've seen that recently). Additionally, when you consider how small the mouths of the bass bins are vs. fully expanded bass horn mouths: any increase in the effectiveness of the horn at the mouth to extend its effective size has a fairly dramatic effect on the LF response and on avoiding HF diffraction effects from the two mouths of the Khorn and Jubilee "W" section bass bins (also called "bifurcated"). Quote The real point of a horn (so far as efficiency goes) is to couple the acoustically small driver far to the left of center of that graph to the big end's constant radiation resistance to the right side. Once you reach the large discontinuity of the mouth exits on these horns, they really don't couple nearly as well to the room to form an extended mouth out of the corner of the room. Putting "wings" or baffles on all four sides of the bass bin mouths would definitely improve that effective coupling--even though the horn profiles are exponential expansion. Its all about the mouth size, I found, and really not the horn length. Chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrWho Posted August 25, 2015 Share Posted August 25, 2015 For corner horns, the walls of the room are supposed to be the final expansion. That's the whole beauty of the design. Wings let you bring the speaker away from the walls. Btw, Roy mentioned that putting a nose on the Jubilee bass bin would improve its HF polars... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris A Posted August 25, 2015 Share Posted August 25, 2015 Roy mentioned that putting a nose on the Jubilee bass bin would improve its HF polars. Yes, in fact, I believe that would be the major effect, especially if wings were used to effectively extend the horn mouth so that the two mouths join into one mouth at or before the exit. Chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrWho Posted August 26, 2015 Share Posted August 26, 2015 I'm not convinced it'd improve the HF polars though...once you bifurcate, you're dealing with two acoustic sources. I just don't see mathematically how the waves are going to line up again on the Jub LF. Roy is a smart dude so I'm sure he's got it figured out - I'm just not seeing it in the math, or even conceptually - short of doing very dramatic things that I wouldn't describe as a "nose". Or maybe "better" is a relative thing. My target is a constant coverage result whereas "better" could fall very short of that and still be better... I need to get around to using Akabak more freely - I feel like it is capable of modelling some of these ideas - I'm just not comfortable enough yet to trust the results. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris A Posted August 26, 2015 Share Posted August 26, 2015 I need to get around to using Akabak more freely - I feel like it is capable of modelling some of these ideas - I'm just not comfortable enough yet to trust the results. Actually, the plots that I've seen of AkabaK and Hornresp plotted with actual measured SPL/frequency on these type of horns show that Hornresp does a lot better at lower frequencies (below 2 kHz) and AkabaK does better above that point (assuming that you can model it in Hornresp). I'm not convinced it'd improve the HF polars though...once you bifurcate, you're dealing with two acoustic sources. Having two horn mouths emitting side by side at greater than 1/4 wavelength separation induce polar cloverleaf patterns and other diffraction artifacts (including interference maxima)--that are much worse than combining mouths together again internally. I think that the same issue appears when combining two line array speakers together as a common acoustic source (assuming symmetric paths). For instance, Danley claims that their designs achieve wave summation (not cancellation) at the boundary between the horn mouths. Chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garyrc Posted August 26, 2015 Share Posted August 26, 2015 The old Altec and JBL theater speakers (the big 4 woofer per channel kind) tended to be installed with wings -- big wings. The old Fox theater in downtown San Francisco had Altecs that did not have wings (or if they did, they were so small I've forgotten them, and that theater had so-so bass. The Coronet in S.F. had JBLs (commissioned by Ampex for Todd-AO); the enclosures themselves were so big that they didn't need wings -- the broad expanse of the speaker bin served the purpose wings would have -- the Coronet had great bass. Cinerama theaters (for the original 3 panel Cinerama) tended to use the biggest Altecs, with wings -- great bass. The Imax in S.F. does not use wings (last time I checked) -- weak, pitiful bass compared to the above. Somewhere on the Klipsch forum there is a thread that shows various theater speaker set-ups; a behind the screen view of a Cinerama set-up clearly shows the wings between the speaker enclosures. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
juniper Posted August 27, 2015 Author Share Posted August 27, 2015 I have to try this, thinking of using geared piano hinges full length of the cab, maybe two per side, so I can fold two pieces of wood to try different configs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrWho Posted August 27, 2015 Share Posted August 27, 2015 that are much worse than combining mouths together again internally. So how did you come to that conclusion? Specific scenario: stock Jub LF versus Jub LF with a straight walled noise piece at any angle....I'll posit that they're going to have the same polars (same enough to consider the problem unsolved). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris A Posted August 27, 2015 Share Posted August 27, 2015 So how did you come to that conclusion? Huygens principle. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrWho Posted August 28, 2015 Share Posted August 28, 2015 So what was the result of your calculation? How much do the polars improve? The wavefronts aren't spherical by the time we reach the front of the normal Jub LF - and those wavefronts (up to the original mouth) don't change shape when we add a nose piece. The only thing that changes is the diffraction along the inside edge....but the frequencies we care about aren't diffracting that much here since they're so high in frequency. What I'm getting at is you don't get to assume the waves become coherent just because they share what looks like a common mouth. Using Huygen for both of these wavefronts works out to a very very similar polar response. The only solutions that work better are ones that try to bend the wavefronts to line up....like some of the more advanced compression driver manifolds....I just don't see how you do that here within a sane footprint. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris A Posted August 28, 2015 Share Posted August 28, 2015 (edited) I don't believe that I'm going to be able to answer your rhetorical questions (i.e., questions that aren't really questions, but arguments) in the space limited here to "Wings on Jubilees". I'm not sure that you even want me to answer any of your questions, so I'll wait until you start up a thread on that subject, then I'll attempt to answer any questions that I can ascertain are questions, and that I believe can help. Just one thought to munch on until that time: On a folded horn (with or without dual bifurcated mouths), where do the final high frequencies originate and how much of the horn's path do they actually use to form their pattern before exiting the horn mouth(s)? I'd also recommend thinking about Danley's multiple-entry horn designs (which, of course, you believe don't work as advertised, but I actually do.) Think also about equivalent bandpassed filters in parallel and in series. Think about "evanescent modes" and the "cut-on frequency" of a horn segment -f(co) = 1.84c/2πa Chris Edited August 28, 2015 by Chris A Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrWho Posted August 29, 2015 Share Posted August 29, 2015 So just to be clear, you don't have any numbers indicating this alleged improvement? No dimensions or design targets for the people wanting to actually implement something? No data from other designs? I think it's only natural to consider adding a nose alongside the wings if you're gonna go through all that work. Misconstrue my motives all you want, but these have only been serious questions. Your disrespectful attitude is unappreciated - which is extra annoying because you're actually well read. Try to smile sometime - I hear it's good for the soul. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klipsch Employees Chief bonehead Posted August 29, 2015 Klipsch Employees Share Posted August 29, 2015 I'm not convinced it'd improve the HF polars though...once you bifurcate, you're dealing with two acoustic sources. I just don't see mathematically how the waves are going to line up again on the Jub LF. Roy is a smart dude so I'm sure he's got it figured out - I'm just not seeing it in the math, or even conceptually - short of doing very dramatic things that I wouldn't describe as a "nose". Or maybe "better" is a relative thing. My target is a constant coverage result whereas "better" could fall very short of that and still be better... I need to get around to using Akabak more freely - I feel like it is capable of modelling some of these ideas - I'm just not comfortable enough yet to trust the results. Why am I not surprised doc.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klipsch Employees Chief bonehead Posted August 29, 2015 Klipsch Employees Share Posted August 29, 2015 that are much worse than combining mouths together again internally. So how did you come to that conclusion? Specific scenario: stock Jub LF versus Jub LF with a straight walled noise piece at any angle....I'll posit that they're going to have the same polars (same enough to consider the problem unsolved). We know the what limits the bottom end cut off. What limits the hf on folded horn if the diffraction slot/discontinuity wasn't there? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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.