In Reply to: 100Hz Vs. 140Hz horn posted by j_s on September 3, 2009 at 01:23:01:
When considering the nominal cutoff frequency best for integrating woofers or subs into a system without degradation of mids and highs one is only working with half the equation. The other equally important consideration is the slope of the crossover.
I use a DEQX HDP-3 preamp-processor to digitally handle crossovers, time phase and room correction and EQ. A pair of Bill Fitzaurice designed HT-Tuba subwoofers (18 cubic Ft. folded corner horns with 15" drivers) up to a nominal 160Hz crossed over to Oris 150 horns driven by AER MD-3s crossed over to Fostex T500a horn tweeters at 7,000 Hz.
Normally the 160 Hz crossover would be unacceptable for the HT Tuba subs because of degradation to the midrange. I avoid this problem by making the slope of the 160 Hz crossover 96 dB/octave. The level of the subs at 320 Hz is substantially lower (about 24dB lower) with the 160Hz 96dB/octave crossover than would be the case with a more typical 40Hz 24dB/octave crossover.
The combination of horns, drivers and DEQX presents a very seamless, coherent and extended, fully horn loaded sound. They sound great. After nearly forty years of buying designing and building various soeakers I am at a point where I don’t know how I could do better.
I dream of an America where a chicken can cross the road without having it's motives questioned.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- RE: 100Hz Vs. 140Hz horn - Don Reid 09/6/0909:53:42 09/6/09 (5)
- RE: 100Hz Vs. 140Hz horn - Vince S 15:36:38 09/7/09 (0)
- So, you're not really concerned about analog source material... - eso 22:47:30 09/6/09 (3)
- RE: So, you're not really concerned about analog source material... - Vince S 03:49:45 09/8/09 (2)
- Digital hash between clocks... - eso 06:54:32 09/8/09 (1)
- RE: Digital hash between clocks... - Vince S 13:13:37 09/8/09 (0)