Apparently, the improvement in intelligibility was impressive.įirst of all, I am interested in this topic because I will begin to try out some front horns for my Lowthers. The person who demonstrated this spoke into the conical horn with an abrupt termination, and then wrapped some sort of cloth material at the mouth of horn. The classic example of this is speaking into a conical horn. Perhaps another thing to think about or try is to use a hard material for the baffle nearest to the speaker and then a softer material closer to the mouth of your horn/baffle. So, while the wool baffle experiment worked well for a flat baffle, it may not work so well for a horn-style baffle where the pressures are higher. One concern I would have is that horns improve the dynamics of speakers, and the foam will dampen the dynamics, so you might gain some benefits at the baffle edge, but loose midbass dynamics (this is why back horn or tapped speakers have little adsorbent material in them). This will do a lot more to reduce cancellation, and it will load the back of the driver the same as the front of the driver. One way to fix this is to create a horn like baffle for the rear of the driver. I agree with what someone else has said, which is that the rear wave is more important than the front wave and that you will still have dipole rolloff probably at a higher frequency than what you think. This style of baffle will avoid resonances caused by parallel wings. However, if all you are trying to do is create a different style baffle which lowers the cancellation frequency, then this could work. My first comment is that the horn that you are proposing will not load the driver to 100 hz.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |