My Live tone FRFR vs Cabs

Plug in the CLR horn’s mouth dimension of 17 inches to the equation shown in the following webpage, and you’ll get 90 degree coverage at 650 Hz. It’s also evident in the CLR manual’s off-axis response graph.
https://www.prosoundtraining.com/2010/05/24/understanding-horn-directivity-control/

This has been bugging me.

If this is 700 hz then the total length of the wave in this chart is 19.35"

sin_wavetable.png


The CLR measures 17.63" square. For that size/weight box I'm guessing at least a 5/8" wall thickness.
That would leave the baffle at 16.38" square.

19.35" sound wave across an angled 16.38" baffle. See the problem here in regard to trying to 'direct' a 700 Hz signal with the CLR cabinet? Physics.

HF horns are a complete science unto themselves. Fred Klipsch was the pioneer of using horns
with high fidelity speakers. Did a lot of work for Klipsch through the years including having to
design the 3D solid model of this for tooling. What a B*TCH!!!

Marketing name: "Tractrix Horn"

s-l640.jpg
 
Last edited:
I tried putting in links, but the forum software thinks they're spam. Google "CLF Group" and visit their download page. Download and install the free file viewer. Now navigate to the "CLF Files" page, select this file: Frazier_CAT40.CF2. Download and open it in the CLF viewer. Scroll the tabular data ("Electro-acoustical (EA) data") over to the 630 and 800Hz 1/3 octave fields. Note that the average values for vertical and horiontal -6dB angles are ca. 100 degrees at 630 Hz and ca. 78 degrees at 800Hz. Ergo, a characterization of this speaker's directivity as 90 x 90 at ca. 700Hz is accurate to a smaller tolerance than is typically achieved in controlled directivity loudspeakers. It is quite common for "constant directivity" devices to have their nominal directivity (e.g., "90 x 40") specified with a tolerance of +40/-20 degrees over a limited bandwidth that lies entirely above the directivity break frequency.

FYI, the CAT 40 represented in the above data file has exactly the same MF waveguide size and shape as the CLR, with identical acoustic treatment. The data was taken by an independent lab on a production speaker and provided directly to the CLF Group. Ergo, the manufacturer was unable to manipulate the data in any way. Its credibility is unassailable.

Donnie B., your understanding of the physics is incomplete and has led you to make significant errors in this thread. Rather than expound on the underlying physical models, we decided just to cut to the chase. Experimental data always trumps poorly-informed speculation. Don't you agree?
 
Last edited:
I did the same experiment the OP several times over the years to get my CLR to sound like my 4x12, and did an A/B test a couple of months ago to compare/dial in an IR I'm generating and refresh my reference for how a cab sounds like.

I've always went with the premise that if the 4x12 and CLR transducers are producing a similar sound/frequency content they will excite the room the same, more or less, getting the elusive "amp-in-the-room" tone, and, most importantly for me, a proper feel. There will be differences to be sure, but the overall effect is quite similar.

Here is the link I posted about this in 2016:

https://forum.fractalaudio.com/threads/amp-in-the-room-here-is-how-i-did-it.116534/

I never slaved for hours trying to get a perfect match; just the overall tonal coloring and feel.

Ultimately, I've always come to the conclusion that I could generate/mix an IR that sounded better then the 4x12 and went with that. And, volume and direct coupling acoustically with your guitar is a big factor here.

Also, over the years when using a tube amp/conventional rig a few times I've preferred the miked up sound coming back thru the monitors vs the cabinet; the tone was richer and fatter, particularly in the mids and had a better controlled low end. Always made me think....

My original post probably wasn’t the most clear, but your response nails what I was thinking.

Maybe I should have called this topic “MY Live tone FRFR vs Cabs“.

Yes, there are a lot of physics at play as people mention for the multidimensional “3D” sound/feel of an amp in a room. When setting an amp I am generally standing in one spot and set the tone from there. The sweet spot. To me, frfr makes almost everywhere that sweet spot (tone wise) so I couldn’t care less about reflections off a back wall that may or may not be there depending on what room I am playing in or where I’m standing. If I had such a sensitivity to these reflections I‘d probably go insane before every gig to the point where I would bring my own wall.
Say you are on a stage that is 3’ - 3.5’ off the ground. Your 4x12 is basically pointed at the audiences’ face. That’s the reference for me. Now, with the better dispersion, that tone covers far more area and is a better experience for me, the band and the four people in the audience (when I’m not throwing clams).
And, as a bonus it sounds more like my real amp (to me) when coming through FOH than my real amp does when mic’d.
 
Your understanding of the physics is incomplete. Don't you agree?

ABSOLUTELY! I know just enough to get me in trouble, obviously.
I am also extremely eager to learn anything you are willing to toss my way.

That being said:

Scroll the tabular data ("Electro-acoustical (EA) data") over to the 630 and 800Hz 1/3 octave fields. Note that the average values for vertical and horiontal -6dB angles are ca. 100 degrees at 630 Hz and ca. 78 degrees at 800Hz. Ergo, a characterization of this speaker's directivity as 90 x 90 at ca. 700Hz is accurate to a smaller tolerance than is typically achieved in controlled directivity loudspeakers. It is quite common for "constant directivity" devices to have their nominal directivity (e.g., "90 x 40") specified with a tolerance of +40/-20 degrees over a limited bandwidth that lies entirely above the directivity break frequency.

Can you summarize the above in way that an above average layman could understand?
And/or, can you answer these in a similar layman manner?

[for the record, I'm a mechanical designer/engineer who worked with acoustic engineers for 30 years. So I definitely
learned quite a few acoustic design details along the way - but I have no formal education on the subject.]

1.) With the CLR system, and the way the ~17x17" baffle over the LF transducer is done -- slight horn angle, foam on top, square instead of round opening for the woofer -- what is it doing differently than what a flat baffle/round opening would do - each around 700 Hz?

2.) Can you quantify how much the differences would be between the two?

Thanks!

a better experience for me, the band and the four people in the audience

:laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing:
 
Last edited:
Follow the instructions in my post above. Open the file. Surf around in the program and look at the various data presentations. If you can't manage to understand them - it's really pretty simple, and the help function works wonderfully - then you have no business discussing loudspeaker performance and development. The speaker will do what it does - and what it is definitely documented to do - whether or not you understand how it does so.
 
Did you examine the data on the speaker I referenced? I'd be interested in your observations on its directional performance.

Do you not believe the data to be accurate? If not, why not?

Do you know how directivity angles are specified (how far below the on-axis level)?

Ad hominen attacks will never support your assertions. I only jumped in here because what you are asserting about the directional performance of a specific speaker is demonstrated to be false with publicly available, credible data. I've provided directions for anyone who's interested to enable them to access the data and a very easy-to-use free tool for viewing it.
 
Not so long ago you were new here. Also, you’re very active on this board yourself without owning a FAS product.

Joined July 6, 2016.
Owned an AX8 for 2 years.
Currently trying to trade for an FM3 on this forum.

Member's been here 7 years and their 1st EVER posts are directed at me.
Not on any of the other's posting here who also are not fully versed on the subject.
I called them out on it.

Did I break a rule Yek?

If you have a problem with me being on this forum just pull out your mod bat and be done with it.
Otherwise, what is the problem?
 
Last edited:
Some people forget we don’t know they’ve been on this forum before with other names.
 
One thing that seems to get overlooked - What are the other players using? As a gigging musician (and FOH tech), mixing analog-generated and digital generated tones is a bitch. Pre-produced vs. Raw. It takes a lot of work to make them play nice with each other. The end result being a great sounding mix, with a stage full of musicians who are unhappy with 'their' sound.

My tone affects Your perception of Your tone
Your tone affects My perception of My tone
Our affected perception of Our tones really irritate the Tech.

All of these things affect our tonal perceptions. For me, I just use what works. Gotta wall full of Boogies, most of which are impractical for the gigs I find myself playing, these days. My GT-10 is...ok. But 4cm to my Mk5-25 and 2x12 sounds damn good, if I am the only guitarist. If I am sharing guitar duties, I substitute a Stiletto Deuce in place of the Mark
Sure would be nice to have my FM3 right now (late to the party), as NO ONE round here needs audio techs or guitarists atm.
:)
 
Back
Top Bottom