Jump to content

A K-402-Based Full-Range Multiple-Entry Horn


Chris A

Recommended Posts

 

 

Note that I personally do not wish to add the reflex bass distortion (phase/group delay and impulse distortion) of reflex ports to the current design, instead preferring the tighter bass of a closed box system over a vented one, despite having its harmonic distortion rise due to EQing the bass performance to be flat again. 

 

Have you seen this article?

http://www.data-bass.com/data?page=content&id=82

 

 

 

After seeing the drivers they used in the DTS-10 tests Data-Bass lost all credibility in their testing methods.

 

You cannot just throw any driver in any style cabinet and expect it to work properly.

 

Two thumbs down. :emotion-45: :emotion-45:

 

Not sure I agree with this. I own those drivers (even though I don't have DTS-10's anymore) and they have twice the excursion of the "Super LAB" drivers from Eminence. They do have more ripple in their response, though, but that would be EQ'd out or overwhelmed by room modes anyhow in the real world. They do give way more SPL output from a DTS-10 cab if that is what you want.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For starters the high roll surround would not be a good candidate in pressure situations such as a horn plus compare the T/S parameters from one to the other, big difference.

 

I think if they would have used the Eminence LAB 12 woofer for comparison the testing would have not favored the direct radiating subwoofer models nearly as much as it did in their testing.

 

Fair is fair and i think the table should be leveled and retested for a real comparison from one to the other.

 

The Lab 12 will work in many different style cabinets, why not use it then.

 

Maybe they did not have one on hand for testing i don't know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I would venture to say that you don't hear complaints from many Danley owners because there aren't very many. They are very expensive and not designed for home use. His customers are stadiums, churches, hall, arenas, some cinema.........and a few groupy audiophiles that wouldn't dare complain after spending that much money. :)

I'm not saying they are not very good sounding...........I just don't think there are very many conventional owners.

This is the funniest thing I have read in a while! Thanks for that one.

Like your Avatar which screams "not designed for home use! Since we both sold our Khorns in 2007, I also had a 5-way MWM Stack, as subtle as a pair of Hummers in a living room, like yours, but the poor man's version.

It appears that Chris have had the same goals. Improve sound at home and reduce the space while increasing placement options for better imaging.

On two occasions, I heard the very best sound I have ever heard from a fellow Forum member. His SH-50s and 4 Epic subs driven by a NAD 390 DD and fed from a $400 laptop with JRiver software. He is an Architect, Bass Player, and has done his own recordings. His room size and room treatments mean he needs no EQ to get 3D sound. The speakers just disappear into a deep soundstage. On some recordings, the sound even comes forward as well as behind but never FROM the Danleys.

My next house will have similar dimensions and room treatments for sure, now that I own some of the best transducers, it will be time for the most important upgrade.

 

 

While I have plenty to say in response to this, I'm checking out of this side topic as I don't want to continue to ruin one of the very best threads in a long time.  Sorry Chris.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Note that I personally do not wish to add the reflex bass distortion (phase/group delay and impulse distortion) of reflex ports to the current design, instead preferring the tighter bass of a closed box system over a vented one, despite having its harmonic distortion rise due to EQing the bass performance to be flat again. 

 

Have you seen this article?

http://www.data-bass.com/data?page=content&id=82

 

 

 

After seeing the drivers they used in the DTS-10 tests Data-Bass lost all credibility in their testing methods.

 

You cannot just throw any driver in any style cabinet and expect it to work properly.

 

Two thumbs down. :emotion-45: :emotion-45:

 

 

Wow.

 

I agree that you can't just swap drivers all random like, but your insinuation here is just flat out ignorant.

 

Ricci has measurements of the DTS-10 with stock drivers and the LMSR drivers. You can even overlay them on his website. The LMSR has 5dB more output all around and better LF extension. If anything, credibility should go up because Ricci knew that driver would perform better before even sticking it into the cabinet.

Edited by DrWho
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

just a small detail....the 402 is not a conical expansion...

 

The way that it is constructed--I agree with you, but for its effective properties related to flare rate expansion vs. off-axis port location (the low-pass acoustic filter), it behaves just like the horns that Danley uses. 

 

So for the simplicity of calling it something other than "the straight-sided walls of the modified tractrix horn", I'll just refer to that area as a "conical", even though it doesn't expand on an x^2 profile.

 

Chris

 

to make it even more simple, just call it a megaphone.......

 

 

Works for me! haha

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Note that I personally do not wish to add the reflex bass distortion (phase/group delay and impulse distortion) of reflex ports to the current design, instead preferring the tighter bass of a closed box system over a vented one, despite having its harmonic distortion rise due to EQing the bass performance to be flat again. 

 

Have you seen this article?

http://www.data-bass.com/data?page=content&id=82

 

 

 

After seeing the drivers they used in the DTS-10 tests Data-Bass lost all credibility in their testing methods.

 

You cannot just throw any driver in any style cabinet and expect it to work properly.

 

Two thumbs down. :emotion-45: :emotion-45:

 

 

Wow.

 

I agree that you can't just swap drivers all random like, but your insinuation here is just flat out ignorant.

 

Ricci has measurements of the DTS-10 with stock drivers and the LMSR drivers. You can even overlay them on his website. The LMSR has 5dB more output all around and better LF extension. If anything, credibility should go up because Ricci knew that driver would perform better before even sticking it into the cabinet.

 

 

Insults are not needed here.

 

Check out the big picture here and look at the fluctuations between the two.

 

Just because the TC drivers have more output in a very small area of the frequency response chart they are better ?

 

 

 

DTS 10 W Lab 12

 

DTS 10 W TC LMS

 

Looks a heck of a lot smoother with the Lab 12 to me.

 

If you need more output additional cabinets would be best anyways.

 

Sorry for mucking up your thread with this Chris.

Edited by jason str
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No worries. I'm enjoying the subject matter discussions.  I hope everyone else is enjoying it, too.

 

Thanks for the port-related info, Mike.  Both you and I know that's going to take a little more effort and experimentation to get a good port or passive radiator design, tested and tweaked to get desirable characteristics.  The good news is that it can be added later by cutting holes and adding ports/radiators.  So when I can produce another unit or extra box, I'll try out some of those ideas. 

 

Feel free to expand on your port design that you mentioned because I know that others may want to hear about it, too.  The article that you linked does stimulate more ideas, so even if there is a bit of difference of opinion in its specifics, it serves its purpose.  Thanks for posting that link.  Jason, I note your objections to the apparent selection of the drivers used in the article.  I think that the usefulness of that article is in generating ideas for port design approaches, and it is useful in that regard.  If you or anyone else know about other good articles on designing using passive radiators, etc. for this kind of design, I'd like to hear about them.

 

I haven't swapped out the K-69-A yet, because my wife and I have been having too good of a time listening to music and re-running some notable movie soundtracks.  It's been extremely engaging.  I haven't really noticed the K-69-A's HF ringing for much of that music, perhaps due to mixing engineers that place the cymbals and other HF instrumentation in the left and right channels more often than the center.  Sometimes the strings (violins, violas) sound a bit steely due to the exact EQ used, but that seems to be the only objections that I've found.  What's mesmerizing is the midrange and mid-bass performance.   I think you all would really enjoy hearing it. 

 

I'll try to cue up the TAD driver in the center in the next couple of weeks.  I have a growing list of things to do, still, it seems.  I do want to verify that there isn't any added diffraction or directivity issues in that area from the internal through ports in the horn around the woofer's acoustic high pass frequency.  Using a TAD there would certainly remove some of the HF noise/ringing in the impulse plots that's a bit annoying and pretty up the impulse plots.

 

I guess that I'll just start referring to the horn straight section as "the megaphone", and credit Roy with yet another winner.  ;)

 

Chris

Edited by Chris A
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looks a heck of a lot smoother with the Lab 12 to me.

 

"Heck of a lot" - care to quantify that in numbers so we can all relate? I'm seeing 1 to 2 dB of difference between the two after accounting for the extra 5dB of output on a system that is already +/-15dB over the passband. The systems already require EQ. In my world, 2dB is "tiny" relative to the 30dB of correction that is already required by the original design. Ironically, that 2dB of difference is sometimes in the better direction. I'd say more identical that not.

 

Keep in mind you're the one claiming that Ricci and an entire website full of data "loses all credibility" because he compared a horn design with different drivers in it. I'm not going to speak any further on the topic because it totally doesn't matter. If you want to use a different driver, then nobody is stopping you.

 

Pictures do speak a thousand words though.

post-8246-0-94300000-1453335684_thumb.pn

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What's mesmerizing is the midrange and mid-bass performance.   I think you all would really enjoy hearing it. 
 

 

Btw, did you spend any time listening to the original 8" driver on the K402 horn? I'm curious about your impressions as it relates to the other two systems. You did start with a KPT-305 right?

 

I'm not surprised that better lower midrange performance would be perceived here....from day one I've complained about some unidentified artifact in the folded bassbins. I imagine that would be completely gone here? I feel like I'm the only one that notices that midrange thing on the Jub LF, but maybe you're hearing it now that you have something on par with so many other aspects of the design? Or am I still crazy? haha.

 

 

Btw, thanks for letting us live vicariously through you. I'm seriously interested in picking up a few horns to experiment with on my end. I have a few experiments I'd like to run on the woofer ports too. Isn't part of the port design that a circular'ish wavefront doesn't fill into the corners of the horn? Isn't that why they're always in corners instead of the middle of the horn wall?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For starters the high roll surround would not be a good candidate in pressure situations such as a horn plus compare the T/S parameters from one to the other, big difference.

 

I think if they would have used the Eminence LAB 12 woofer for comparison the testing would have not favored the direct radiating subwoofer models nearly as much as it did in their testing.

 

Fair is fair and i think the table should be leveled and retested for a real comparison from one to the other.

 

The Lab 12 will work in many different style cabinets, why not use it then.

 

Maybe they did not have one on hand for testing i don't know.

I don't want to hijack this thread but I just want to point out that even with 6 db higher output, the TH trounces the others in distortion and low end power. The only compromise is size, which you know very well since you build horn subs. Over and out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

What's mesmerizing is the midrange and mid-bass performance.   I think you all would really enjoy hearing it. 
 

 

Btw, did you spend any time listening to the original 8" driver on the K402 horn? I'm curious about your impressions as it relates to the other two systems. You did start with a KPT-305 right?

 

I'm not surprised that better lower midrange performance would be perceived here....from day one I've complained about some unidentified artifact in the folded bassbins. I imagine that would be completely gone here? I feel like I'm the only one that notices that midrange thing on the Jub LF, but maybe you're hearing it now that you have something on par with so many other aspects of the design? Or am I still crazy? haha.

 

 

Btw, thanks for letting us live vicariously through you. I'm seriously interested in picking up a few horns to experiment with on my end. I have a few experiments I'd like to run on the woofer ports too. Isn't part of the port design that a circular'ish wavefront doesn't fill into the corners of the horn? Isn't that why they're always in corners instead of the middle of the horn wall?

 

Vicarious for most, and strengthening of conviction for others, I have been hooked on this sound for over a year and a half now. Even if they were bigger, I would still want them because of the coherence and micro detail experience. I will be trying to cut holes in my 402 clones when they a Rosewood veneer interior and bent Maple framework. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Btw, did you spend any time listening to the original 8" driver on the K402 horn? I'm curious about your impressions as it relates to the other two systems. You did start with a KPT-305 right?

Yes,  I listened to it as my replacement for my Belle bass bin (tri-amped JuBelle) for a couple of weeks in June.  It rolls off significantly below 200 Hz so I had a hole in the center's FR between 200 and 60 Hz, but it was actually performing well enough there for my listening impressions.  I could tell that it was covering the midrange much better, but the loss of the lower midbass made the listening differences vs. the JuBelle much less.  The trace of the KPT-305 and the unchanged JuBelle crossover settings (with TH subs) and the final integrated FR plotted below:

 

post-26262-0-04140000-1453339543_thumb.p

 

post-26262-0-82300000-1453339698_thumb.p

Edited by Chris A
Link to comment
Share on other sites

...from day one I've complained about some unidentified artifact in the folded bass bins. I imagine that would be completely gone here? I feel like I'm the only one that notices that midrange thing on the Jub LF, but maybe you're hearing it now that you have something on par with so many other aspects of the design? Or am I still crazy?

 

No, you're not crazy.  It was your persistent comments about the lower midrange/midbass  performance of the Jub Bass bin crossed at ~425 Hz that caused me to investigate the KPT-305 as an alternative to a conventional straight midbass horn (i.e., not modified tractrix), which I knew that I could never accommodate in my room.  So I sprung for a KPT-305 after doing some initial trades in Hornresp and realizing that Danley was using all his Synergy designs below Fc (1/4 wavelength frequency horn length).  I figured that if Danley could do that, the K-402 horn is a better horn for that sort of thing.  I wasn't wrong, as it turns out--it works.  And the performance is truly spectacular in listening.

 

 

 

I'm seriously interested in picking up a few horns to experiment with on my end. I have a few experiments I'd like to run on the woofer ports too. Isn't part of the port design that a circular'ish wavefront doesn't fill into the corners of the horn? Isn't that why they're always in corners instead of the middle of the horn wall?

 

That's something that I've yet to investigate--I followed the port designs that Danley has done in order to reduce my risk for this trial.  When I have an extra horn to carve up, I can find those answers experimentally.  Otherwise, I believe those answers could be had with a boundary element model (BEM), but that entails some serious time and modeling to create a 3-D mesh that simulates the horn geometry with its ports.

 

Chris

Edited by Chris A
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Looks a heck of a lot smoother with the Lab 12 to me.

 

"Heck of a lot" - care to quantify that in numbers so we can all relate? I'm seeing 1 to 2 dB of difference between the two after accounting for the extra 5dB of output on a system that is already +/-15dB over the passband. The systems already require EQ. In my world, 2dB is "tiny" relative to the 30dB of correction that is already required by the original design. Ironically, that 2dB of difference is sometimes in the better direction. I'd say more identical that not.

 

Keep in mind you're the one claiming that Ricci and an entire website full of data "loses all credibility" because he compared a horn design with different drivers in it. I'm not going to speak any further on the topic because it totally doesn't matter. If you want to use a different driver, then nobody is stopping you.

 

Pictures do speak a thousand words though.

 

 

That hump just under 30 Hz would be much worse with room gain but if you were using EQ i guess it would not matter anyways.

 

My credibility comment was based on a driver with an abundance of X-max obviously best suited for DR models thus giving it an advantage is what i was getting at.

 

I had not seen that the cabinet was measured with both sets of drivers.

 

How do you overlay the graphs anyways ?

 

Thank you Chris for not getting upset over some distractions on the thread, i do like your modifications. Keep up the great work. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

For starters the high roll surround would not be a good candidate in pressure situations such as a horn plus compare the T/S parameters from one to the other, big difference.

 

I think if they would have used the Eminence LAB 12 woofer for comparison the testing would have not favored the direct radiating subwoofer models nearly as much as it did in their testing.

 

Fair is fair and i think the table should be leveled and retested for a real comparison from one to the other.

 

The Lab 12 will work in many different style cabinets, why not use it then.

 

Maybe they did not have one on hand for testing i don't know.

I don't want to hijack this thread but I just want to point out that even with 6 db higher output, the TH trounces the others in distortion and low end power. The only compromise is size, which you know very well since you build horn subs. Over and out.

 

 

Those TH models look interesting.

 

Expensive too i would guess.

Edited by jason str
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

For starters the high roll surround would not be a good candidate in pressure situations such as a horn plus compare the T/S parameters from one to the other, big difference.

 

I think if they would have used the Eminence LAB 12 woofer for comparison the testing would have not favored the direct radiating subwoofer models nearly as much as it did in their testing.

 

Fair is fair and i think the table should be leveled and retested for a real comparison from one to the other.

 

The Lab 12 will work in many different style cabinets, why not use it then.

 

Maybe they did not have one on hand for testing i don't know.

I don't want to hijack this thread but I just want to point out that even with 6 db higher output, the TH trounces the others in distortion and low end power. The only compromise is size, which you know very well since you build horn subs. Over and out.

 

post-25539-0-36260000-1453345514_thumb.p

Edited by kg4guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chris, what were the filter slopes were/are you employing with the K402 and Jub bin?

 

I ask, because I also believe a large part of what you might be experiencing is the change not necessarily from physically lining up the drivers in the horn assembly, but rather the change to 1st order filters too...which is rather significant consideration, performance-wise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LR48 dB/octave, 425 Hz on the Jubs. 

 

LR24 dB/octave, 475 Hz on the center.  I've also used 6dB/oct, etc. I still haven't decided what crossover type, order, and center frequencies should be for the center.

 

Delay is applied to the HF channels in both cases to compensate for the filter phase lags and the physical delay/lead of the LF.
 

Like I said earlier, the phase in the center seems to be coupled because of the common horn loading.  It's relatively insensitive to changes in slope and HF delay in the crossover region, unlike the Jubilees.

 

Chris

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.

Guest
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...