Particle board cab vs solid and/or ply....your thioughts?

[Chuck H]

I said:

I was thinking of something on the order of a 2X10 cab with one speaker dedicated to the folded horn.

You responded:

I think the goals of the 2x10" that you describe could be met with a single 10" driver with the horn back loading the driver...

Then you said:

I think the only possible way to increase the efficiency of a guitar speaker using horns is to use two, one backloaded, and the other front loaded.

Ok... I think we're on the same page. Progress?

[Mike Sulzer]

I said:

Ok... I think we're on the same page. Progress?

Not sure we are on the same page. I am thinking of using one speaker, not two. To see this, begin with frugalhorn.com. The idea is to use a single small driver full range. To do this, you need to better match the bass to the air while leaving the higher frequencies unaffected. Thus you use a back loaded horn with a filter section so that the frequencies above the bass are not affected.

Now let's use this idea in two ways:

1. What I though you were proposing with your two speaker idea was to use one to produce bass with a backloaded horn and the other to do the higher frequencies without a horn, that is normal efficiency. My comment on that implied that you could use the idea on frugal horn.com to perform both those functions with a single speaker.

2. The most recent version of my idea: Use the backloaded horn not to extend the low bass, but to cover guitar frequencies to as high frequency as practical to get as high efficiency as possible over that range. This includes the use of a filter section so that the frequencies that are not matched by the horn are not affected. Then use a front loaded horn on the same driver to match the higher frequencies. Then you get higher efficiency over the whole range if you can make this work.

[Chuck H]

Ah. I pluralized the wrong one of two subject nouns in your post then.

I like the idea of using the one driver (because it's a slick move) but my concern, that you noted earlier, would be the HF. Assuming this cabinet is designed for frequency range "efficiency" and not specifically "loudness" that really isn't a problem. But in a real world environment, like a stage, we would need the volume. A two driver cabinet could use at least one speaker with it's full cone face blasting away in surface mount.

Then again, if the goal is bigger cabinet tone in a smaller (or at least lighter) package, lower volume for something like small practice or bedroom use might be advantageous. Not to mention that the cabinets you linked earlier would be much more at home in a furnished home environment than, say, a beat up old 1960 cabinet (unless it's my house ).

[Mike Sulzer]

A two driver cabinet could use at least one speaker with it's full cone face blasting away in surface mount.

The goal of the front loading horn is to do substantially better than surface mounted at the higher frequencies.

[Chuck H]

The goal of the front loading horn is to do substantially better than surface mounted at the higher frequencies.

I've seen front loaded horns used for mid drivers. And I suppose if you look at the design of actual tweeter horns they do seem to be mini front loaded horns. What I've read seems to indicate the front loaded horn produces a peak and a roll off. Usually the peak is indicated to be in the low HF/high mid area and the roll off is in the HF. This would, I suppose, be relative to the driver and horn design. But I guess I assumed that the front loaded horn was used for this application because it wasn't suitable for others.?. But if the peak/ roll off could be moved up just a little with driver choice and design specifics (compared to a PA type midrange driver) that would certainly put in a good range for useful guitar frequencies

Trying to catch up.