Rerurn to Romy the Cat's Site

jessie.dazzle wrote:

I do my best to remain ignorant of the price for which I sell off the hours of my life. (Btw, I'm not a software engineer; I design cars). Yes I could pay someone to do the work, but I'd rather put the cash toward the purchase of a good room. There's more to it... It will sound backwards, but the truth is that I am just too lazy to have anyone else do it.

Well, I have to admit that there a sinister subtext in what I say. Should you outsource the constriction of midbass-horns for a third part I might consider to go for my own midbass-horns. I do not have space to use them and I do not have any particular strong itch for pursue them but I too much like what you are trying to do and I would make them and store them for now. Who, know, perhaps building 4 horns would be cheaper then 4 horn…

jessie.dazzle wrote:

65% is also the ratio of throat to cone (minus the suspension) in the case of the Fane driver when installed in the 115 Hz horn (4-inch throat); this horn works well.

Well, there are no evidences (or any data) that if the Fane were loaded into 3” throat and the horn were slightly longer then the result was better or worse. I am not saying the it would be I just said the I do not know. We use the MF horn principles as the neat reference for throat/mouth ration but no one says the LF horn work at the same best ration as HF horns. In the end they might just the arbitrarily numbers that we just convince ourselves that they are correct.

Regarding the rest. Your midbass horn looks perfect for me, in fact it is exactly that I would like to have myself when I ripe for it. However, I do not agree with the way how you intend to use it. First: you shell not put a LF source between the MF channels – very bad for imaging. Second, I have an alternative idea for you. This is what I will be trying to do if I will be trying...

Rerurn to Romy the Cat's Site