Tweeter Horn Magic - What does a Phase Cap do?

[@IBuildIt]

Kind of a show and tell on the speaker to begin with. I made these in 2009 and used them in my old workshop for 4 years. It's a three way active and I made the amps / crossovers plus the power supply. Each amp board has lowpass and highpass Sallen-Key filters and an LM3886 as the amplifier. The crossover points are 400hz and 3000hz, set by the values used for the filters on the amp boards. I consider this to be some practical exploration on what a horn and phase cap can do to the response and I'll use this knowledge to mess around with the horn flare on my new open baffle speakers. The measurements clearly show the horn bumping up efficiency making it possible to get rid of that natural peak in the response the tweeter has. The phase cap helps as well to produce a more even response with a smooth roll-off. In the last word on diffraction, I think it's one of the more obvious ironies in audio today that the same guys that think diffraction is a big problem, advocate listening in an untreated room. In fact they emphasize the importance of the off-axis response of a speaker so that it's more complete when it bounces off the wall beside it! If there was ever an audible effect, the kind of comb filtering those reflections produce would be at the top of the list. That raw response (from jus 24" from the speaker) is what your ears are receiving. Not the smoothed response where you can examine minor ripples - that full 20db deep grass. And from your listening position that grass starts to look like hay that's late for harvest.

[@johndough8115]

Talk through a large cone shape, and it will amplify the output of your voice. But does your voice sound the same on the other end? Does it sound better... or worse? Or is it merely just "Louder" ? The horn colors the sound, and distorts the natural image of the sounds that its trying to represent. There is a good reason why those old record players with the large metal horns, didnt stay a standard... and its beyond the issues with the record-media itself.

[@IBuildIt]

@@johndough8115 Your mouth itself is a horn, actually. The sound is produced by your vocal cords down in your throat. Your ears are horns as well.

[@johndough8115]

@@IBuildIt Our Voices, are meant to sound the way there are, as they are. Adding an additional Horn AFTER our mouths.. causes Distortion to the INTENDED sound of your NORMAL voices. Similarly, adding a huge cone on our ears, would also distort the intended sounds, as they were meant to be heard. Your argument, is childishly bad. Like something a 7yr old would say.

[@IBuildIt]

@@johndough8115 Horns generally don't distort. They boost a range of frequencies, much like I show in this video. And that boosted range of frequencies actually have less distortion (at the same volume)than the original sound. They certainly have their uses, as shown in this video.

[@johndough8115]

@@IBuildIt Yes, they Do distort. You dont get something, for Nothing. As Ive said, Put a huge cone in front of your mouth, and record or have someone see if they can tell the difference. They will. The sound changes. The amount of change, is much smaller, on a much small scale. Its far more notable, when you scale that horn up in size. Yet that scaling shows that there is in fact, changes. ONE of those changes, has to do with timing and 3d image positioning. When you alter these things... you alter the intended effect and positioning, of the instruments / soundfield. While the frequencies might be similar... the sounds "IMAGE" is NOT the same as the recorded sounds image. The only way to know this... is to hear it with your own ears. Such as a direct A to B comparison, of two identical pairs of speakers, side by side. AND... these speakers have to be of a high enough caliber, to actually be able to project an accurate 3D Image in the first place. (Though, at high enough volume levels, the image still might come through enough to be detected) You yourself, have stated that Room treatment drastically changes the way things sound. Why? Because the sounds bounce around the room, and change... depending on the types of surfaces hit, the angles they hit at.. and how they interact with the other soundwaves in the room. Its the same type of thing, on a smaller scale. The original soundwaves are being Altered by the shape of the horn. A specific shape, could cause... for example.. the soundwaves to "Invert" from the original projected image. (Think of the game QIX, where the lines bounce and change directions) Again... its just like the previous example, of holding a large cone in front of your mouth. If you realize that can change the way your voice sounds, and is positioned in 3d space... then you SHOULD be able to recognize this LOGIC, on a smaller scale. Some time ago, I thought about making a tweeter that fires upwards, at a stone that was carved in an arc shape... to spread the sound in 360 degrees. I later realized, that the act of bouncing the sounds off of the curved arc itself... would distort the intended image. (Also, I later heard a 360 degree di-pole ribbon tweeter. And the 3d image was massively distorted, because the sounds that were intended to come from the front face of the speaker... were also coming from the rear.. bouncing off the walls, and returning slightly later... almost making an echo like effect... that ruined the music / image. At most, for a novelty effect.. you would want a 180 degree throw. Never a 360 degree throw... unless maybe your entire room was lined with sound absorbent material)

[@bryede]

Awesome work. It really gives you a sense of the kind of engineering that goes into making drivers, even inexpensive ones.

[@johndough8115]

If they made the driver correctly in the first place, they would not have needed to modify anything. They chose to use the cheapest available tweeters, and mod them to get "Acceptable" sound.. to make as much profit as possible. This is an awful practice, that should Not be Praised (especially when the cost between a good tweeter, and a Sh*T tweeter, is likely less than 3$).

[@bryede]

@@johndough8115 I disagree. Everyone is free to choose whatever tweeter suits their needs and price point. These microdomes typically outperform piezos and paper cone tweeters and fit in a lot of places a regular tweeter does not. Would I use one in a speaker build? Probably not, but a good hi-fi tweeter always costs a lot more money.

[@johndough8115]

@@bryede You clearly do not understand what Im saying. Im saying, that the company that made these... was likely a Chinese MFG, that made mistakes (or simply, just made sub-par garbage). If they had designed and properly made these things correctly from the start... they would not have needed these extra plastic parts. Rather than use a decently made tweeter... Some company likely purchased them in bulk for dirt cheap, and engineered a way to slightly Improve their poor performance. The consumer is then essentially getting ripped off... being sold sub-par drivers, in an Over-Priced speaker set. As I guarantee that the savings of these Modded Tweeters, are Not being passed on to the consumer. (possible exceptions, are some savings when purchasing an entire boom-box) The best tweeters Ive every heard, come from the EPI 100v speakers (The updated tweeter version, that has the plastic bezels). There is a guy that used to work for the company, that Hand Makes brand new versions of them... for $60. (humanspeakers) If these were made in China on a mass scale, they would probably cost like $3 each to make, and probably would sell for $8, to the speaker Mfgs, in bulk. Yes, they are much larger in size, due to a massive powerful magnet. But they are meant to go into bookshelf or full sized cabinets. Not in tiny boom-box or PC Speakers.

[@xanderguldie]

This stuff has been around forever. It shouldn't be too hard to make decent tweeters by now

[@Aswaguespack]

Very Interesting Process to watch the responses to the tweeter “modifications”. Looking forward to your new speaker project in progress.

[@charlesmorris574]

Love your videos John. I am a electronics hobbyist that is now retired and I love this stuff.

[@Epic501]

People who nitpick over tiny electronic or speaker design intricacies without caring nearly as much for room treatment absolutely do my head in haha well said

[@Patraquashe]

Fun experiment and good observations. I really like horn speakers so it was interesting to see the before and after measurements of your "mod". Would be fun to see a few experiments on some phase plugs for the horns on the speakers you're building right now to see how different shapes affect the sound. Found the channel by chance last week and really enjoy the content John. Keep up the good work.

[@zeljkodzunja]

You really know a lot, both about electronics and about speakers and about woodworking ... kudos to you ...

[@RootAwakening]

This has fast become my favorite upload notification. Don't get me wrong, I came for the woodworking and shop projects, but I'm in it for the long haul for audio projects (and debunking audiophile mythology)

[@jonesaleroy]

I love these videos. I make my own eveything. Thisnis exactly the kinda stuff i do all the time. Modifing speakers to see what happens. Phase cap stopped the cone from breaking up basically. 17k is a common spot for tweeter breakup. Good domes usually mitigated this with design and dome material. Still always love silk. But some of those good planar tweeters sound amazing especially in the ambiance high frequencies. Im lucky i can here tweeter polarity issues and refraction super well it almost a curse! I spent 2 yrs in my truck getting 3 way passive setup and all the polarity correct with the mounting locations. Multiple driver changes. Now for top end I have Peerless by Tymphany NE25VTS-04 1" Silk Dome Tweeters and Dayton signature series 4s mount almost on top of each other all wired with a custom passive crossovers and custom made cables. Even for my sub. But only spent 1200 and it sounds better than anything ive ever heard. It is full tunes with a calibrated mic. Well multiple. But its flat 1 to 2db from 30hz to past 20k.

[@G3rain1]

There's a massive difference between edge diffraction and a room reflection that you're not taking in to consideration. That is the time it takes to arrive at your ear. A diffraction caused cabinet geometry arrives very close to in time with the direct signal, as where a room reflection comes much later. Our ears perceive these 2 things very differently.

[@mysock351C]

Interesting experiment. What is not shown, of course, is the off-axis response. Taking those measurements would be far too tedious, but it would show that the tweeter's response would be a good bit narrower and more controlled with the "flare and cap" in place across the tweeter's useable frequency range. The narrowing of the load angle is what helps improve its efficiency. Without it, the tweeter's response will pretty much be out to the edges of the baffle at low frequencies, while it starts beaming when the wavelength approaches the diameter of the dome. Pretty much the treble climb disappears because the bare dome has such a wide dispersion pattern and a larger load angle. More energy is being directed off-axis. Very neat and interesting physics involved.

[@fredygump5578]

Anyone who is complaining about hearing or not hearing dips and peaks just needs to play a constant tone and move their head around a little. Start at 1000hz. You will hear dramatic peaks and nulls just by moving your head a few inches. That is what the measurement mic is picking up. This is just how sound waves work. The best thing about our hearing is that our brains take this chopped up response and turn it into something that makes sense to us.

[@JoeJ-8282]

Cool video, and it's interesting how you can see the difference and improvement that the flare and plastic phase cap makes to the tweeter's response... When I first saw the title to this video I was thinking about the usual crossover cap(acitor) that is attached to many tweeters on the input to them to reduce the lows going to them, but now that I watch this video in full I now know that the "cap" that you are referring to here is the actual, physical, plastic "phase" cap directly in front of the dome on some tweeters. I have another question though; what happened to the (other?) video that you had posted earlier today that was titled something like, ("I blew my tweeters while doing this..."), because I wanted to watch that one and see what exactly happened! (I was just at work when I got that notification and I didn't have time to view that other video until now, but now I don't see any notification about it anymore... Why not? Did you delete that video?)

[@siarez]

The effect of edge diffraction on perceived sound is one of those myths that people keep regurgitating. The acoustics of the room, speaker placement, and listening position have a much much more drastic effect on sound, and yet most people are oblivious to those.

[@NakeanWickliff]

Love your channel man! Keep ‘em coming. Great real world examples. I would also be curious how these parts (waveguide, and phase plug) affect the off axis response. It may play a larger role in the I room response if it affects the first reflection frequencies that you agree are more important than the little wiggles.

[@IBuildIt]

Thanks :) If you are treating (absorbing) the first reflections, then the off-axis response has very little impact on the in room response. The idea is to stop those reflections so that they won't corrupt the sound coming directly from the speaker.

[@NakeanWickliff]

@@IBuildIt I have no treatment

[@vinylcabasse]

awesome video! i've always wondered what kind of effect those phase caps would have on a dome like that. (even moreso the ubiquitous mylar "dome"' tweeter style popular in the 80s, similar to the goldwood gt-302 which almost resembles a tiny cone tweeter)

[@realjaxon]

Hi John. I'm rebuilding a 3 way speaker system. The tweeters have capacitor x-overs. I have 3 way x-overs that I want to use Instead. Should I remove the caps from the tweeters first?

[@impuls60]

On some tweeters the center of a tweeter can lagg behind the rest of the dome. I think a shield like this dampens this 180degrees out of phase sound from the center of the dome. Very cool to see experiment like this :) I have a SB acoustic 6" with a breakup peak in the 7-9kHz range. I wonder if a shield would lower that peak the same way. Could be a smart solution on drivers with high freq brakeup.

[@JukeboxAlley]

That's a real eye opener, and reminds me of ADS products, they used no waveguide or anything, just a protruding sticky dome tweeter and they sounded great, especially their larger midrange drivers, they must have built the tweeters really well to have quality of sound they had without any need for any add ons or waveguides to rework the sound to their liking, would be interested to see you review one of those from the famous L710/L810 etc. My favorite was the L630 and L730.

[@westelaudio943]

I had a Braun speaker system from the 70s. I was not impressed. The mid domes were actually touching the metal grill. And it's not only a problem mine had, you find countless of pictures online of pulled drivers with the pattern of the grill imprinted on them. What kind of "engineering" is that? The woofer edges fell apart and the cabinets ended up as firewood. I had to throw away one of the mids too, when I measured it it distorted horribly, because the grill squashed the dome out of alignment. Never understood the hype around that brand, there are much better vintage speakers out there.

[@JukeboxAlley]

@@westelaudio943 the part about certain drivers is true, some frames on certain ones did corrode and rust and the surround would come undone and had to be redone, but if you listen to the the 630 or 730, they were very good, maybe not by today's standards, but if you listen to those there's no denying they got those right and they sound really nice all around.

[@westelaudio943]

@@JukeboxAlley The drivers weren't the problem, the woofer succumbed to foam rot which is not uncommon for many drivers and it's fixable. Mid and tweeter seemed of very reasonable quality. The real problem is they released a product to the public with a design flaw (grills touching dome) that not even an amateur speaker designer with half a brain would have made - and that tells me all I need to know about that company, and their so-called star designer Dieter Rams. With the grill removed the speakers sounded alright - at least the one where the grill didn't manage to damage the mid - but nothing to write home about. There were much better speakers back in the 70s, however I prefer 60s and 80s/90s speakers and also my own designs and I never looked back after getting rid of the Browns. I don't remember the model because I tossed them may years ago I'm sure they had better models but still it tells me what I need to know about the quality control and design competence of that manufacturer.

[@JukeboxAlley]

@@westelaudio943 maybe true about the old versions, all the later versions didn't have foam surrounds they used rubber in the later models.

[@sgsax]

It would be interesting to see if the shape of the horn is something that can be calculated for peak efficiency with the driver itself. I'm sure there are math and sound nerds who could show me formulas. But I'm just wondering how much of determining the shape is scientific and how much is experience and feel. Or is it just "generally parabolic and hope for the best"? Thanks for sharing!

[@joshua43214]

There is math, and it is used in horn design. You are kinda putting the cart before the horse in your thinking though. There is no "optimal" horn shape. Horn shape it dictated by the intended purpose, and the shape has a huge impact on what it sounds like and how it performs. As an example, if yo are designing a speaker to have uniform directivity (same amplitude over a wide angle) across all the drivers, you might consider using a conical horn on the lows (narrows the dispersion), and a parabolic horn on the tweeter (widens the dispersion). Klipshorns do exactly this. There are trade offs, parabolic horns add distortion in the lower part of their bandwidth, and conical horns have diffraction and combing issues near the top of their bandwidth. The math is straightforward to people who can do math, and scary to those who can't. Numerical solutions are very easy to generate with a bit of coding skills.

[@keantoken6433]

It might sound better without the faceplate, if you cover the hole around the tweeter to stop leakage, just looking at the response. In a workshop with a lot of reverberations the faceplate's boosted treble may be desirable so it doesn't get drowned out by the mid reverberations. BTW with a large baffle like that you don't get so much diffraction. Where diffraction starts to matter is when the speaker is good enough you can almost believe the instrument is there in your room (IE you hear a bird outside and a bird from your speaker and you struggle to determine which one came from the speaker), diffraction can detract from that illusion.

[@iamsometimes6712]

Indeed. Diffraction tends to smear the perceived clarity / accuracy in the mids / highs. In general humans are most perceptive of the accuracy or lack of in what human brains are natively tuned to. I.e, in decreasing order of detectability: (1) human voices speaking (2) natural sounds (3) acoustic instrument if you are a skilled player (say if you have played acoustic guitars for years then any departure from a live like sound will be perceivable). Pretty much anything else is difficult to judge, for lack of reference for our brains. In my personal experience (going to audio stores & shows) about 70% of the speakers in the $2K - 20K range fail (1) and/or (2) and/or (3). However, in about half of these cases I would have been hard pressed to detect these issues by just listening to 'music' (lot of caveats here, it all depends on the type of music. Some music can be very discriminating I mean music where a lot of stuff is going on which distracts the brain, or when it comes to synthesized sounds for which our brain generally has no reference / expectation to compare to.). He keeps comparing the importance of diffraction to 1st reflections on a wall, which is a completely different effect. Diffraction also sometimes shows up in 1/3 octave smoothed FR plots (depends on baffle / driver design), so his _'wiggles already exist so it does not matter'_ point is off.

[@IBuildIt]

What you both are mistaking for diffraction is almost certainly early reflection or imagination. If diffraction was such important factor, there would be a study proving the audibility of the effect. If you know of such a study, link to it here. Otherwise, you are no different from the guys that go on and on about how great the new pair of speaker cables they just bought sound.

[@keantoken6433]

​@@IBuildIt If there is a 3db hump in the frequency response, it is almost certainly audible whether that hump comes from a resonance, diffraction or the baffle step. Distinctly audible as a hump in the response to most people, probably not, but perceptually enough to alter the illusion of realism. Question, do you also dispute whether baffle step correction is audible? Would you say that baffle step correction is audible but diffraction isn't? After all, the baffle step is the result of diffraction to begin with?

[@IBuildIt]

No, baffle step is an audible effect - measurable and well established as something that has been proven to be audible. Proven to be, unlike diffraction. If, like I sad, it's that easy to discern diffraction, why is it that there have been nothing that has done that. I asked for the study and you came back with more "because..." proof. Notably, Siegfried Linkwitz didn't believe diffraction is audible. Are you saying you understand the subject better than he did?

[@keantoken6433]

@@IBuildIt I'm not trying disagree with Linkwitz. I think you see diffraction as something independent from the frequency response which isn't really true unless you deliberately EQ out the SPL differences so only the time domain effects are left. But the baffle step is an effect of diffraction and that is mainly where I have dealt with it. I think the focus on diffraction of the treble may be a bit misguided. But if you looked up studies on baffle step correction, you would certainly find studies on that, which likely discuss diffraction as you can't really discuss the baffle step without diffraction. And if I can get rid of a 3db hump at 3KHz by rounding over some edges on my speaker I think that is likely to be audible just from an SPL point of view, no differently than baffle step correction.

[@psyphonyxaudio]

LOVE your content.. Thank you!

[@VioletGiraffe]

When you say that you can hear reflections off of untreated walls, do you mean literally that you hear the sound and you understand that reflections need to be tamed, or do you simply mean that you hear the difference before and after reflection treatment?

[@IBuildIt]

I mean I can hear the difference between a room that has no treatment for reflections and one that has. I think everyone can.

[@iamsometimes6712]

@@IBuildIt Indeed. That's one of the main differences btwn a headphone and a speaker klistening experience. The sense of space and 3D image w speakers mostly comes from the 1st wall reflections.

[@tee-jaythestereo-bargainph2120]

Nice job , Thanks for the video .

[@robwalker6575]

Great video John. What software program do you use on your laptop in this video to analyze the response?

[@MrBonger88]

It looks like he’s using REW

[@jonesaleroy]

Thats soo freaking cool.

[@Thor777AHT]

can i add a horn and a facecap on my AMT 4 pro to get more on the high end after 10K ?

[@abdo-dr1tu]

How can I comprehend what you’re saying right now in the video when the room is drowning your voice with reflections? The way our ears work is that we’re constantly time gating everything that we’re hearing just like you’re doing with your measurements. That’s how we register the source of sounds and things like Echo. Everything below that time gate (it’s frequency dependent, usually it’s around 30 ms) is polluting the direct sound (I’m going to let you guess how late baffle diffraction is) and everything above it is registered as echo. Diffraction is audible, you’re free to make your own opinion about whether it’s a big deal and whether it’s not but it’s definitely audible.

[@IBuildIt]

Please show the scientific study that proves the audibility of diffraction. I haven't found one. And my workshop is set up for recording video, so it has a lot more treatment than the average audiophile's listening room.

[@zeljkodzunja]

Greetings ... Do you have any schematics for an active crossover from 16Hz to 30 Hz for a woofer ???

[@LikeDotAudio]

I like this audio stuff

[@Andrewatnanz]

Some knuckle heads truly believe they can hear the difference between "high end" power cables vs normal ones. This hobby has alot of placebo effect when cost of equipment is considered.

[@fabricegrard1001]

Super, merci

[@indopleaser]

My understanding of what the plastic 'phase plates does is: a tweeter is not efficient at pushing the air, coupling to the air. The tweeter is moving so fast or the air pressure or something that : the air in front of the tweeter just kind of moves out of the way instead of being hit by the tweeter. So the phase plate holds a cushion of air there like high pressure long enough for the tweeter to couple. Sorry for the non-expert answer, I tried

[@georgegeorge899]

Is that a Stepcraft cnc on the wall ?

[@MrROTD]

A speaker baffle should be as narrow as the largest component allows and as deep as practical, otherwise you get wierd filtering and phase problems.

[@rhalfik]

I would argue it's not a horn, but just a waveguide. It's shallow, expansion is negligible because of the phase plug. What you described as efficiency increase might as well be just gain from focusing the sound pressure forward, like waveguides do. To increase efficiency, you need to affect total energy radiated by the dome, which includes off axis. So technically you can argue that it may have increased efficiency, but it's much safer to just talk about gain. From numbers perspective it's important because a tweeter in a flat waveguide is maybe 1% efficient, but in a horn it's more like 50%. I think people need to know that if they want efficiency, they need an exponential horn, that will really efficiently match the impedance.

[@IBuildIt]

We can consult the guy that first used the name "waveguide" to describe a horn, Earl Geddes: "...all waveguides are horns..." Whether it gets the efficiency boost from directivity or from impedance matching, it's still a horn.

[@GreyDog0620]

Did you use a speaker q?

[@crossoverchef]

phase plug creates splash at the top end for those that like that.

[@KipdoesStuff]

I'm in the camp where if it sounds good to me, its good.

[@Marleyismydog420]

you can measure things you cant hear and you can hear things you cant measure, for a good result you need to use both.. and about gating and smoothing, try setting right window to 4.5 and left window to 1 and see how it smooths out.

[@IBuildIt]

Technically, every sound can be measured. What can't be measured is how our brains process and interpret the sound that is picked up by our ears. A huge number of things affect how we hear and what we think we hear.

[@Marleyismydog420]

@@IBuildIt technically yes but its not always that easy to hear a dip in the response, dont think its just your ears. i just finished up a set of small bookshelf speakers with a 3. order passive x-over they measured just right but still the tweeters sounded a bit sharp on some recordings. i then replaced the aircore inductor going parallel in the tweeter x-over with another one (same value) that had less resistance, the difference was under 0.5 db drop in amplitude in the region where the coil was working and the change was huge, they became very pleasant with absolutely no sharpness to it without changing the overall tone. i dont think many would look at the measurements of the two configurations and think there would be a very big difference in soundquality. and thats my point, some things are difficult to hear other things are easy.

[@slimjim1104]

It's funny how people knock plastic and paper materials in speaker builds and such but there is a reason these lightweight "cheap" materials are used.

[@mmenjic]

I think that point is not in only some strange little refraction or here and there wiggle on the chart. Instead point is in doing 100 of those little measurable but not hearable improvements in hope to get one "big" difference in the end when you add all those little things together. You could argue that you can not hear neither one nor 100 of so small differences but I think you would be wrong. If you have time and money it would be interesting project to hear and see the difference between one speaker built with all those 100 small things we can not hear incorporated like horn loaded tweeter in the same plane with other drivers and rounded corners and inside reinforced speaker box and spike speaker box legs and weighted box with concrete pour on the bottom and 1mm pressure equalizing hole in the back of the enclosure if it is not ported and tapered design so the tweeters has less surface of the front panel and .... and ...... Compared to real square fat flat box sitting flat on the bench or floor without leggs with no magic details added. I think you would for sure see the difference in recorded chart and also hear the difference with your ears. It would not be much but you would definitely hear it. Would it be worth doing ? Probably not. Would it be fun ? Definitely yes and that is what is all about in the end :)

[@IBuildIt]

One of those 100 things might be the shape of your outer ear. You could have plastic surgery done to make it the optimal shape for detecting the other 99 inaudible issues to tweak.

[@mmenjic]

@@IBuildIt 😂😂 No that is 101st thing that comes later when you exhaust all other hahah

[@toolthoughts]

it's the most sensitive part on your tweeter

[@ronennenga9471]

John, when you do these HF measurements in room, your gate time should be more like 5 milliseconds, not 500 milliseconds. Try it and be amazed.

[@IBuildIt]

Might want to watch a bit more closely. The default starting point is 500, then I changed it to 5.

[@chrisjack9318]

aways wonder why people have great gear in echo chamber [minimalist] rooms

[@T_Burd_75]

And I thought that cap was there to keep poky fingers away...👉👉

[@basukisugito8929]

I never buy a speaker with tweeter with cap. Because I know they try correct something faulty

[@thatellipsisguy8984]

Really disappointed with the lack of dick jokes in the comments. I’ve been playing with the shape of my horn for years but the response is pretty much the same. Also love a good active threeway…

[@slimjim1104]

Little hat lol

[@sc0or]

Ha-ha!// They sell such devices as a 'space laboratory product', but in a reality this all is about a fixing of a cheap askew tweeter. well-well-well..

[@johndough8115]

So, they took a cheap and poorly made tweeter, and modified it, to try to balance their badly made speakers. A good tweeter, would not need all of this modification. Making a weak tweeter louder (without using amplification and or crossover means), by use of an Image-Destroying horn... is weaksauce.