|
Posted by noviygera on
07-21-2012
|
|
fiogf49gjkf0d
I am NOT talking about single wideband drivers or any back loaded type horns. I am talking about properly made front loaded horns.
For example, the Danley Synergy horns, that use single horn with multiple drivers to cover a wide bandwidth. Driver selection, crossover freq, even horn shape aside, is there something inherently wrong with this concept, of using ONE horn for all drivers rather than one horn for each driver?
Example: coaxial driver driver with front horn.
Thank you.
|
|
|
|
Posted by Paul S on
07-22-2012
|
|
fiogf49gjkf0d Gera, isn't the basic idea of the [front loaded] horn to provide shaped, increasing gain as the frequency drops? So, is the idea here to use several wide-range drivers that all need similar boost, or ???
If to reverse engineer such a thing, what are the goals that are not met by existing designs? Do you simply insist on a horn, but you want to conserve space, or DIY a Synergy-type "horn", or ??? I have not heard the Synergy. What in your experience qualifies the Synergy as a properly made front loaded horn, and how else to take advantage of these qualities? FWIW, I think I have seen DIY discussions of the Synergy-type horns that included some drawings and photos, if that's where you're heading.
As for your last question, "serious" problems do inhere with the concept, on the face of it. However, if you are down with the Synergy speaker, then wouldn't this be an example of a successful gambit in just the direction you favor? We need only one example of something to demonstrate the possibility.
Best regards,
Paul S
|
|
|
|
Posted by noviygera on
07-22-2012
|
|
fiogf49gjkf0d Paul,
I have not heard the synergy horn or any speaker with that design.
Here is what I am talking about:http://www.yorkville.com/images/products/u15_cut_sm.jpg
In this particular case there are 3 mids and 1 tweeter driver sharing the same horn.
This solution seems very elegant (theoretically) at least because it eliminates the problem of larger midrange and midbass/upperbass horns physically shadowing the high horns.
Also, less cost and more efficient placement possibilities.
I am trying to understand if there is a flaw (acoustical) in this single horn concept. If this is a valid concept then I do not understand why more people are not experimenting with this configuration. In the case of Romy's speakers, he would be able to combine both S2 midrange horns into one horn.
|
|
|
|
Posted by decoud on
07-22-2012
|
|
fiogf49gjkf0d This is a synergy horn, a topology that Danley has a patent on, I believe, and certainly the most expertise. There have been extensive discussions on this site about it, including Romy's theoretical objections to the idea. In a synergy configuration the drivers (at least the ones that are not coaxial) do not work as they do in a conventional horn, so one could not simply collapse Romy's stack into one horn. I have the SH-50, driven by a full range melquiades, and the combination is remarkable, but if I could incorporate the special texture of the S2 into it I would.
|
|
|
|
Posted by Paul S on
07-23-2012
|
|
fiogf49gjkf0d Just looked at the linked picture. Obvious "problems" are varying/variable driver loading and interaction in the "acoustic environment" inside the box and inside the "horn". Like the bumble bee, this "should not fly", for many "fundamental" reasons. OTOH, I'm sure someone could come up with some variant of HornResp that "prooves" it does work.
Certainly looks do-able. Why not try one?
If it actually works, I want 3.
Best regards,
Paul
|
|
|
|
Posted by noviygera on
07-23-2012
|
|
fiogf49gjkf0d  decoud wrote: | | This is a synergy horn, a topology that Danley has a patent on, I believe, and certainly the most expertise. There have been extensive discussions on this site about it, including Romy's theoretical objections to the idea. In a synergy configuration the drivers (at least the ones that are not coaxial) do not work as they do in a conventional horn, so one could not simply collapse Romy's stack into one horn. I have the SH-50, driven by a full range melquiades, and the combination is remarkable, but if I could incorporate the special texture of the S2 into it I would. |
|
Decoud,
Are you using the stock Danley SH-50 with passive crossover (24db/octave)? Have you had experience with other traditional horns and compared to the synergy horn? Also, could you please share your melquiades amplifier builder's contact with me, I am interested in a good tube amp? noviygera (at symbol) gmail.com
Thanks
|
|
|
|
Posted by Romy the Cat on
07-24-2012
|
|
fiogf49gjkf0d | noviygera wrote: | I am NOT talking about single wideband drivers or any back loaded type horns. I am talking about properly made front loaded horns.
For example, the Danley Synergy horns, that use single horn with multiple drivers to cover a wide bandwidth. Driver selection, crossover freq, even horn shape aside, is there something inherently wrong with this concept, of using ONE horn for all drivers rather than one horn for each driver?
Example: coaxial driver driver with front horn.
Thank you. |
|
Noviygera, when you mention a coaxial loaded into front horn it is very much not the same as what Synergy horns are. Yes, the wideband horns (coaxial and etc) are inherently wrong, the whole concept of horn loading contradicts it. People still do them and the marketing pimps still sing odes to them, but it does not mean that that wideband horns attempt are worthy from a perspective of “what might be done”.
The Synergy horns are different animal all together and they could not be approached as wideband horns. I do not feel all warm and fussy about Synergy idea but I admit that I do not “get” the idea. Danley is extremely capable person and in today world he is one of the most prominent horn authorities, not fake BS authorities as most of them are but truly potent person. I understand what he is doing but I have absolutely no point of reference how it materializes itself in sound, at least in sound that I understand and value. This is why I feel that I do not “get” the Synergy horns despites that I do understand how they work in theory. Danley operates in slightly different environment and I have no idea how his successes and failures are applied to context of home installations.
The Cat
|
|
|
|
Posted by decoud on
07-24-2012
|
|
fiogf49gjkf0d Yes, it is a standard SH-50 run as Danley suggests. I have little experience of traditional horns beyond a macondoesque 3-way tractrix stack I created so as to get a feel for horn sound. I'll drop you a line about the melq builder.
|
|
|
|
Posted by el`Ol on
07-27-2012
|
|
fiogf49gjkf0d One might think that the BMS coaxial compression drivers might be especially coherent and superior to the dedicated mid-high solution, but I find there is something wrong with them (and I don't belong to those who dislike the character of BMS drivers in general).
|
|
|
|
Posted by noviygera on
07-28-2012
|
|
fiogf49gjkf0d Alright then synergy horns aside, what is inherently wrong with wideband horns? I can understand that there is bs implementations and explanations/marketing, but if we put to side CURRENT wideband driver limitations and only look at horn. If horn is an impedance matching device, a big horn cannot be made to cover lows mids and highs? Does it inherently work for only a narrow range? Or is it that we don't have a proper driver to make the wideband horn work?
Thank you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted by Jorge on
07-28-2012
|
|
fiogf49gjkf0d Well the thing about horns and wide band is that for them to go lower the horns needs to be longer, if the horn is longer the highs get lost inside it.
The most famous and longer range horn is the WE 15A, but even that one doesnt do magic, some claim it goes down to 80 hz, other 100 hz: very different number down here: on the other end, some claim it goes up to 6 khz others up to 2 khz, again very different numbers and not a flat response:
Now 100 hz to 2khz is very doable, 80 hz to 6 khz is almost imposible! The only thing I would say is listen and see!
|
|
|
|
Posted by Paul S on
07-28-2012
|
|
fiogf49gjkf0d Gera, the horn itself provides far more problems than solutions in this equation, and "wideband horn", while not strictly an oxymoron is, practicaly speaking, a matter of octaves covered rather than anything approaching "full range". You're simply not going to get good musical fideliity from a large, coventional horn with a seriously wide-range driver stuck in it. Even a serious attempt would require a totally new, designed-from-scratch driver, such as the world has never known to date, along with a "dedicated" horn to go with it. How much time and money do you have for this?
On the other hand, you could simply stick the "wide-range" driver of your choice into a horn and call it Good... People do it all the time... And in that case, you could simply pick up a pair of Duos, or better yet, buy Romy's Cetlas!
Best regards,
Paul
|
|
|
|
Posted by rowuk on
10-02-2012
|
|
fiogf49gjkf0d Novigera,
let's ignore any issues of sound quality first. A horn loads its drivers and increases efficiency only at certain frequencies. The frequencies that are more efficient are based on length, taper and size of the mouth. That means that it doesn't matter if a 12", 6" or compression driver feeds the horn, the band with increased output does not really go up or down. This means if a Synergy horn has the rough dimensions of a 300Hz conical horn, we get appreciable gain from 450 to 2400Hz and pattern control from 600 to wherever the HF driver runs out. To get flat frequency response, we have to heavily equalize the band where we have gain DOWNWARD to match bass and treble reponse that do not have this gain.
Let's introduce sound quality. Proper horns are the opposite of transmission lines. Their length is so short that standing wave resonances are not a factor for the desired pass band. If I run a big horn well above the "decade", standing waves at frequencies that are a multiple of the length of the horn in fact color the sound. The horn becomes a transmission line. Below the passband, the attached drivers become direct radiators with a funnel in front of them - typically horn "honk" is the result.
I have heard the Synergy horn in a nice home setting and think that this is basically not a match for a proper horn system. It still sounds very good. The improvements over conventional speakers are in clarity in the midrange - where the horn has gain. I did not consider the HF to be close to other fine solutions. Other wide band horn solutions are the "econowave"/PI and many other 2-way systems where the horn gain is equalized down in the pass band to a dynamic woofer. This approach sounds to me very similar to the synergy horn. I have experimented with this concept and ended up taking the EQ off allowing the horn to roll off naturally at HF and then adding a tweeter. Taking the EQ off of the horn improved the SQ dramatically.
As Romy has often stated, horns have a personality of their own. If you treat them as the decade devices that they physically are, you get the best results. Extension comes only through comprimise. Danley provides intelligibility, pattern control and efficiency - the premium factors for PA. He does this without "castrating" the sound. At lower levels, the playback can be far superior to conventional drivers due to the much lower distortion where the horn has gain. I find violin, piano and other upper octave melody instruments to not sound natural on any equalized horn. With jazz and rock recordings all bets are off as the "immediacy" of this type of speaker becomes an artistic "coloration" that is not bad.....
|
|