Simon's 3 way horn loaded mid top

rass_droid wrote: the RCF MR10n301 is good in this mid bass horn??? frequency range from 200/250hz  to 1700hz???

RCF MR10n301 will make this box play from 200Hz. Intend was to make a box play bit lower from 160Hz. Back chamber is ported to front it would be better not to use closed back type driver for lower horn that employs the 10" driver.

For this configuration would be better way to use a not closed back type 10” driver up to 500 Hz and then an 8” driver from 500 Hz up to 2,5 KHz where the HF would take over. This combination would give you a better result. You could use a 8 “ driver like the MR8N301 is especially designed for horn-loading and line array configurations.
Every detail of this speaker has been optimized to offer the best response and perfect control to the midrange frequencies.
For a fact it have it's own RCF horn flare H6000 see link's below:

http://www.toutlehautparleur.com/pavillons/rcf-h6000-p-2804.html
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/RCF-H6000-Phase-Plug-/130453914527

rass_droid wrote: I would like to use your mid bass horn for my midtop plan   the project consists of: rcf  lf15n401 from 60/80 to 200 250 rcf mr10n301 from 200/250hz  to 1700/2000hz rcf  driver 1,4  nd3020 up to 1700/2000 could you send the sim hr??

To calculate the theoretical horn response for your own specific driver please download following free program from link below.

http://www.hornresp.net.ms/

JD01 wrote: Again, I wouldn't even consider porting the lowmid section. Has anyone of you taken a look on a CSD of a ported cab tuned to 100Hz or higher? It's just mud getting out of the ports, loosely related to the original signal. If you care about sound quality you'll stay off those ideas. Also, your design, where the HF horn was mounted in the lowmid section as far to the top of it as possible was just fine. I don't think the hassle of bringing it even nearer to the center of the MF horn is worth the effort. If budget was higher I would recommend the RCF MR8N301 for the MF horn. The back is sealed, you don't need to construct a sealed volume. Maybe that even offsets the higher price for you. The soundquality is worth the price IMO.

I agree somewhat with your comment. However size is matter....
How big does a horn have to be? What happens if a horn isn’t big enough? Is there any way to compensate for a horn not being big enough?

Horn cabinet has to be big enough and long enough to support the lowest frequency you require. It’s the horn’s length that determines its cut-off, or how low it can reproduce.
In this design a 10" low mid horn tuned with 200Hz cut off,  further a phase plug it occupies space in front of a driver in front chamber has the same effect as a low-pass filter, so keeping the front chamber as close to zero as possible reduces the low-pass effect and allows the driver/horn combination to have better high-frequency performance.

If a horn is not long enough to support the frequency you are reproducing, theoretically no power will be transmitted down it, as a horn’s impedance is entirely reactive below its cutoff. In reality some sound will still be produced by the driver below the cut-off, but with no assistance from the horn, utilize a rear chamber and port it to the front will recover part of the cut off frequencies and cabinet have a response frequency below 200Hz. Level of sound quality and port noise can be argued...

Using loudspeaker design software is definitely the way to go to get maximum gain with minimum pain.

Nice 

mikey bear wrote: how efficient are the 10" and 8" horns with your drivers?

10" and 8" paper cone drivers have a smaller voice coils and will take full advantage of the flux in the pole piece gap.

In my opinion on this design will increase the efficiency of the transducers allowing the amplifier to work with greater ease. Since the amplifier has more headroom and the driver handles peaks and high outputs more efficiently, horns are able to produce much higher SPL's before they distort.

In the normal operating range, this horns will be faster, more dynamic, have a better transient response, have less distortion, and are easier for an amplifier to drive than 12" mid bass driver designs.

Since the 10" and 8" diaphragm is smaller, it is lighter and thus it accelerates and decelerates faster. This, in the real world means superb, fast snappy transients. As the excursion of the diaphragm is very small as compared to most 12" mid bass transducers, the voice coil is much smaller and again, this translates to a lower moving mass results in fast transients and increases the efficiency.

Paper cone mid-range diaphragms and comp drivers have special characteristics, I prefer a smoother sounding paper cones over the mid range compression drivers.

Paper is a material that sounds better than it measures ... this is an genuine asset, not a disadvantage.

It can be used with low slope linear-phase crossovers without much trouble, potentially excellent resolution and detail, very flat response potential.

Edited by cracker.a - 28 November 2010 at 3:48am