D-MAN Posted October 13, 2006 Author Share Posted October 13, 2006 I would not be happy copying someone else's design. I have to do it all myself. I have to walk the full path or not take the journey at all. But that's just me. It's not reinventing the wheel - it's making a NEW wheel that's never existed before! JC, page 1, first post. DM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duke Spinner Posted October 13, 2006 Share Posted October 13, 2006 I read throught this. Maybe I missed it. Dana, which one is your rear loaded design? Dukester. What is the external dimensions of the 18" scoop? You say it dies in the 40-50Hz? my upscaled copies of the 4530 are roughly 22 wide X 30 deep X 40 high yea, J.C. they drop off at 40-50hz .... but .... it's about the ...Punch ... if your within 35' .... they'll make you sick ......[] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D-MAN Posted October 13, 2006 Author Share Posted October 13, 2006 Duke, your upscale version uses a single 18"? Sick is good, seems to me! DM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duke Spinner Posted October 13, 2006 Share Posted October 13, 2006 Yes, a single 2240, Vs. the 2-15" ... the 2240 has decent upper mid extension, and great efficiency they can shake the room, and REALLY vibrate your chest cavity at 150 hz you oughta tinker w/ somma this ...P.A.. stuff, ya know ....[] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duke Spinner Posted October 13, 2006 Share Posted October 13, 2006 actually ... they are K-151's .. reconed as 2240's .... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freddyi Posted October 13, 2006 Share Posted October 13, 2006 here's another challenge to make play smooth with kick - tough in this pic to see how small this coupler loaded with 8" is at ~21.5" tall. It probably could be a bit taller in hopes to lower the front chamber's coupled-cavity peak. kick on Billy Martin's drum holds pretty well vs the one on the left... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BiggerIsBetter Posted October 14, 2006 Share Posted October 14, 2006 For horn scoops, what is the criteria for a good woofer (18" and xover of up to 700hz if it matters)? My understanding is low Qts and high Fs (preferably Fs/Qts> 120) and low diaphram mass. Is that right, is there more? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freddyi Posted October 15, 2006 Share Posted October 15, 2006 (Duke probably knows stuff about scoops - I've not had the pleasure) Sieler's stubby horn-vent plans look good and Fig. 5 of his patent 2971598 is a single mouth about like RCA-Fan's little "hit-horn" Sieler mentioned the subjective source effect which is interesting. http://gallery.audioasylum.com/cgi/gi.mpl?u=21168&f=HIT-HORN1.gif http://gallery.audioasylum.com/cgi/gi.mpl?u=21168&f=CON-15.gif Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duke Spinner Posted October 15, 2006 Share Posted October 15, 2006 For horn scoops, what is the criteria for a good woofer (18" and xover of up to 700hz if it matters)? My understanding is low Qts and high Fs (preferably Fs/Qts> 120) and low diaphram mass. Is that right, is there more? I run the 2240's up to 800 hz ... it's pushin it ..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BiggerIsBetter Posted October 16, 2006 Share Posted October 16, 2006 Thanks Duke. After looking at all the options, looks like I am going with the P.audio C18-650LF. I was hoping to get 2240's, but got screwed on that deal and the 2240s are not that easy (or cheap) to come by. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D-MAN Posted October 16, 2006 Author Share Posted October 16, 2006 For horn scoops, what is the criteria for a good woofer (18" and xover of up to 700hz if it matters)? My understanding is low Qts and high Fs (preferably Fs/Qts> 120) and low diaphram mass. Is that right, is there more? For a rear-loaded application, a driver with an FS above the horns Fc, adding moving mass can be used to effectively raise the driver's Fs, and a rising response curve is recommended in direct contrast to the general driver requirements of a front-loaded horn. Moving mass would naturally be embodied in a heavier cone than might be desirable in a front-loaded application. It is conceivable that the Qts of a rear-loaded heavy cone driver would be higher in light of the above differences, so I expect a lessening of the low Qts recommendation, however, it seems to me that good magnet control over the cone as represented by a low Qts (below .30) is always a good thing. I would go with a low Qts for that reason. See this from Daniel Plach (of Jensen Manufacturing) attached... DM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D-MAN Posted October 16, 2006 Author Share Posted October 16, 2006 I would guess that one would get better transient response from dual 15's vs a single 18. Higher crossover point is possible in such a case, too. However, typical Fs of an 18 is generally lower, too. Hmmmmmm... so much to think about. DM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrWho Posted October 16, 2006 Share Posted October 16, 2006 Just curious....what about dual/quad 12's? But using an ummm, 'more exciting' 12" driver? I know you're just talking about the bass bin for now, but what about taking an approach like this: http://www.eaw.com/products/AX/AX396/index.html ...and hornloading the rear instead of porting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrWho Posted October 16, 2006 Share Posted October 16, 2006 Or the Danley approach like this: http://www.danleysoundlabs.com/pdf/danley_tapped.pdf Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duke Spinner Posted October 16, 2006 Share Posted October 16, 2006 I would guess that one would get better transient response from dual 15's vs a single 18. Higher crossover point is possible in such a case, too. However, typical Fs of an 18 is generally lower, too. Hmmmmmm... so much to think about. DM the 18"er kicks A$$ on the 2-15 scoop the driver is the key ....2240 perhaps DJK can list some others ..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DizRotus Posted October 16, 2006 Share Posted October 16, 2006 They arent truly horns but the rear loaded enclosures designed for Fostex FE103s that I built to house Radio Shack 40-1197 drivers surprised me beyond all expectation. <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /> The single driver concept produces amazing imaging, while the rear horn enclosure produces useable bass at reasonable levels. Theyre perfect for listening to jazz ensembles, not so great for DSOTM or the like at live music levels. As good as they are they wont stop me from using the BEC CW1526 s, CT125s and wooden trachorns Im building to build CornScalas or Khorn clones for that live music dynamic range that only true horns can provide. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DizRotus Posted October 16, 2006 Share Posted October 16, 2006 Here's a photo of the insides. The link below might not still work. Single Driver Rear Horn Experiments<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /> http://forums.klipsch.com/forums/thread/548426.aspx Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D-MAN Posted October 26, 2006 Author Share Posted October 26, 2006 PWK's first patent (which he did entirely by himself from the looks of it) was a rear-loader. Aside from the EV licensed versions, PWK did 2 rear-loade designs, this one (which predates the Khorn) and the Shorthorn/Rebel. DM 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.