1:1 throat area [message #19107] |
Tue, 20 February 2007 15:20 |
DMoore
Messages: 58 Registered: May 2009 Location: Seattle
|
Baron |
|
|
I think one consideration is the size of the diaphragm being employed in a 1:1 throat area. It is conceivable that a relatively small cone in a low Fc horn with a proper mouth size would provide enough pathway length to achieve a considerable amount of acoustic resistance applied to the cone. As the cone diameter and the corresponding throat size increase, the horn pathway would shorten for a given Fc and mouthsize, and the acoustic resistance would be reduced as a matter of course. The resulting response due to increased impedance/reaactance caused by a too-short-horn would be more "peaky" in such a case. The typical design response is to raise the Fc of the horn in question. The matter seems to be related to overall pathway length, mouth size, and Fc, and the diaphragm/throat size is subjective in relation to that consideration. DM
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: 1:1 throat area [message #19111 is a reply to message #19110] |
Wed, 21 February 2007 14:26 |
DMoore
Messages: 58 Registered: May 2009 Location: Seattle
|
Baron |
|
|
The front chamber MIGHT be a moot point in a 1:1 throat ratio, seems to me. Although I suppose one could add one to limit the higher frequency bandpass as needed. An appropriately targeted crossover point would accomplish the same thing, but then there are numerous other considerations that come into play. If employed in a less-than 1:1 diaphragm-to-throat ratio, the front chamber would act as a low-pass filter by attenuating higher frequencies. In essence, the front chamber is an acoustic filter by its physical dimensions and could give a -6db rolloff on the upper frequency bandpass. A horn that lacks a front-chamber (1:1) PER SE would be limited in its upper band pass as a result of foldings (if any), and the mass rolloff, electrical impedance, etc., of the driver, amongst other considerations. DM
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: 1:1 throat area [message #19117 is a reply to message #19115] |
Thu, 22 February 2007 11:28 |
DMoore
Messages: 58 Registered: May 2009 Location: Seattle
|
Baron |
|
|
That example would be a multiple-flare horn or a "rubber throat". Not typical of a "straight" horn, though. Better used in a longer folded type bass horn to reduce throat impedance. On the other hand, though, the 1978 EV midrange horn (Keele) US patent # 4,071,112 has 3 separate flare rates for purposes of bandwidth and coverage pattern. So there is no real limitation as to what you can do if you can achieve a balance of all the variables involved to arrive at your particular goals. DM
|
|
|
|