jwc Posted February 5, 2018 Share Posted February 5, 2018 cool project. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seti Posted February 5, 2018 Share Posted February 5, 2018 Looks like we get the same mail 8-) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris A Posted February 6, 2018 Share Posted February 6, 2018 You gonna build one? I think that this is the same guy here: http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/multi-way/292379-syns-21.html#post4921714 It's interesting that his take on the MEH, i.e., its clarity, is exactly the same as mine...if you can imagine his comments but inflated to K-402-sized directivity frequencies (about an octave lower)... Chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jwc Posted February 6, 2018 Author Share Posted February 6, 2018 2 hours ago, Chris A said: You gonna build one? No. Notta enough time for the kinda stuff lately. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris A Posted February 6, 2018 Share Posted February 6, 2018 http://projectgallery.parts-express.com/speaker-projects/synergy-horn/ http://techtalk.parts-express.com/forum/tech-talk-forum/1331723-synergy-horn-build Chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jason str Posted February 6, 2018 Share Posted February 6, 2018 Very interesting, looks like a fun project. Thanks for posting. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dude Posted February 6, 2018 Share Posted February 6, 2018 Looks like a science project for sure. I am finishing school here in about 3 weeks, maybe I need to give this a try. On second thought, it seems like a lot less work to just sit back and enjoy my Jubelles. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris A Posted April 1, 2018 Share Posted April 1, 2018 After looking at this design a bit, I'm not sure that I'd do anything like this. The choice of driver quality, their relative size (1" compression driver that beams very badly, 6 1/2" woofers, single midrange driver, etc.), its 3-way design (which makes no sense to me), its undersized box, and use of reflex ports seems odd. Passive crossovers for these type of designs should be either very, very simple (i.e., no real EQ or balancing in the crossover, using first-order filters that introduce no phase shifts), or incredibly complex--sort of like a Danley Synergy crossover--with its fractional-order filter designs. For a horn-loaded loudspeaker, the sensitivity of this particular design above seems incredibly low: 87 dB/m. To me, this is clue that something just isn't right. I think that I'd recommend a very slightly larger box and horn, a horn employing an additional mouth flare (or using a better horn like a SEOS), a two-way design using 2" compression driver, forgetting trying to use reflex ports, use at least dual 12" woofers with T/S parameters not unlike a K-22 woofer, and use a miniDSP 2x4HD to do the crossover and smooth the response. That would be a loudspeaker that would likely be much more hi-fi and likely for the builder to want to keep. IMHO. The price would not be 2x higher, and the listening results would knock your socks off--relative to what I see in this Parts Express article. I've finding that the DIY multiple entry horn design choices made by many on the diyAudio and related audio forums seem to ignore some pretty important requirements (at least requirements that are important to me). Building something because it's cheap to me isn't a very noble or useful goal. I'd rather have something that will exceed the performance of typical horn-loaded loudspeakers. YMMV. Chris 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ClaudeJ1 Posted April 4, 2018 Share Posted April 4, 2018 On 4/1/2018 at 12:20 PM, Chris A said: After looking at this design a bit, I'm not sure that I'd do anything like this. The choice of driver quality, their relative size (1" compression driver that beams very badly, 6 1/2" woofers, single midrange driver, etc.), its 3-way design (which makes no sense to me), its undersized box, and use of reflex ports seems odd. Passive crossovers for these type of designs should be either very, very simple (i.e., no real EQ or balancing in the crossover, using first-order filters that introduce no phase shifts), or incredibly complex--sort of like a Danley Synergy crossover--with its fractional-order filter designs. For a horn-loaded loudspeaker, the sensitivity of this particular design above seems incredibly low: 87 dB/m. To me, this is clue that something just isn't right. I think that I'd recommend a very slightly larger box and horn, a horn employing an additional mouth flare (or using a better horn like a SEOS), a two-way design using 2" compression driver, forgetting trying to use reflex ports, use at least dual 12" woofers with T/S parameters not unlike a K-22 woofer, and use a miniDSP 2x4HD to do the crossover and smooth the response. That would be a loudspeaker that would likely be much more hi-fi and likely for the builder to want to keep. IMHO. The price would not be 2x higher, and the listening results would knock your socks off--relative to what I see in this Parts Express article. I've finding that the DIY multiple entry horn design choices made by many on the diyAudio and related audio forums seem to ignore some pretty important requirements (at least requirements that are important to me). Building something because it's cheap to me isn't a very noble or useful goal. I'd rather have something that will exceed the performance of typical horn-loaded loudspeakers. YMMV. Chris I purchased a second pair of Danley SH-50's without networks, which I got from a dealer and installed myself, subsequently sold. Here's a picture of what it takes to "do it right." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
karlson3 Posted April 4, 2018 Share Posted April 4, 2018 that xover is enough to throw a FR-driver person into a faint. I have D's first Unity and they are wonderful. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ARX Posted July 3, 2018 Share Posted July 3, 2018 (edited) Completely agree with Chris here. I do not see much merit in building something this complicated without the advantages of true synergy horns > a point source able to play loud over a wide freq. range. It also makes me wonder if a nice coax of decent quality in a small fronthorn loaded box wouldn't be a much easier and more cost effective solution. Still, much respect for the effort. Edited July 3, 2018 by ARX 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.