|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
45.22.24.216
In Reply to: RE: Front horns: FR cone vs. comp driver posted by mnawaz3@aol.com on June 03, 2020 at 08:15:14
I found some really nice synergy between a vintage Jensen Peridynamic horn loaded with a Tang Band w8-1772.
Exactly as per Bill Fitzmaurice observations, the native response of the TB-1772 is somewhat lean. The actual, real true response of this driver is NOT what the TB spec sheet says. The resulting sound is certainly a bit "laid back" but it is anything but dull.
There exists many, many systems similar to what I do, but at an even higher esoteric level. ORIS 150 horn, Azura surfer horns, and truncated Sierra/Brooks horns all loaded with various 8 inch full range drivers, like those from Lowther, AER, Voxativ, etc. In some cases, augmented by a super tweeter mounted above, but in other cases not needed at all. To my ears, all with more body/texture/tone than a compression driver in a horn.
Follow Ups:
Very interesting to hear that the consensus seems to be that full range drivers in front horns have better nuance and texture than compression drivers.
I do have to say that I've had a number of compression driver based systems, including altec, Klipsch, and jbl and for whatever reason even though they all have lots of detail they lack texture.
That's an example of a horn that doesn't have a throat chamber, so there will be little to no bandpass effect. It will work best with a low Q driver, which at 0.27 the TB is. In a direct radiating alignment the TB will have high sensitivity in the mids and highs, but weak lows. Put it in a horn of that type and you get the lows too.
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: