W speaker box design??

[cliffhanger]

Hello I was telling a friend of mine about all of these great designs and he was wondering if anybody knew about plans for speaker boxes with a W design. I'm not sure if any of the BFM plans use that type of design or if it is an old antiquated design but figured I would throw it out there...

[Bill Fitzmaurice]

The DRs are W horns.

[cliffhanger]

Ok. Thank you, I will let him know.

[Rick Lee]

When most people talk about W horns they're talking about bass bins- let your friend know that the DR's are (fairly) compact speakers that cover low/mids on up. W boxes aren't the best choice for low horns, but they work well for low midrange like the DR's.

[Larry Acklin]

I would disagree a little. A good Martin W bin THAT HAS THE CORRECT DRIVERS will do a higher fidelity job than most double 18 front loaded boxes. Lower distortion, only a little less extension

I have a pair of Fane design horn subs with 2 15"s in each, each driver into a horn, looking a lot like a w bin. Not a whole lot below 45 or 50 hz, but from there to 110-120 they absolutley kick ass.

Find the fane speaker design book somewhere and look for the big ones. I built these from 3/4 ply, delta 15s, and they are the heaviest boxes I haul around. At about 275 lbs each.

Larry Acklin

[Bill Fitzmaurice]

I would disagree a little. A good Martin W bin THAT HAS THE CORRECT DRIVERS will do a higher fidelity job than most double 18 front loaded boxes. Lower distortion, only a little less extension

True, but beating a direct radiator doesn't set the bar all that high. W horns have a higher mouth area to path length ratio, which is good for sensitivity, not so good for extension. I find that they work well to 80 Hz or so, but below that the advantage shifts to single pathway horns that allow a longer path in the same box size. It's no mere coincidence that W bin woofers were very popular when systems that only went to 50 Hz were the norm, disappearing from the scene with the advent of the modern subwoofer.

[Larry Acklin]

completely agree, which is why I don't own any direct radiating subs, and run Tubas and Titans for the vast majority of jobs.

I also agree the W configuration only worked best in massive designs.(RCA?)

And the Fane boxes I use are single pathway (short- 6ft or so), but are almost indestructable.
I have used a pair stage center with a drum synth to fix crappy kick sounds, and never been able to get them to fart.

My preference right now is Tubas for the bar gigs and Titans for everything bigger.

And the Fanes when we are outdoors, bigger crowds, and 80 hz kick and a little below is plenty.

Larry

[Bill Fitzmaurice]

completely agree, which is why I don't own any direct radiating subs, and run Tubas and Titans for the vast majority of jobs.

I also agree the W configuration only worked best in massive designs.(RCA?)

Ws have the advantage of smaller pathway cross-sections, which allows them to go higher than single path horns of the same length and mouth area. That was an advantage when they were used in 2 way theatrical systems crossed at 500 Hz, and is why I refined the concept in the DRs to allow going to as high as 2kHz. You can get low with a W, but they end up too large for other than permanent installs.

[bgavin]

Ws have the advantage of smaller pathway cross-sections

That is the real advantage.
Splitting at the primary throat segment reduces the cross section area by half.
This reduces the bend radius a like amount, which pushes the notch attenuation much higher in the band.