B&C ME464

Chris Burns

Freshman
Nov 13, 2016
25
3
3
Connecticut
No idea about the RCF drivers, but don´t think these wave guides are critical.
I would use 15NW76, because one can build pretty small enclosure, something like 90-100l for two drivers.
Regarding US company making horns.
DDS horns have a single 15" horn which looks like the perfect fit: DVB 15N.

But you guys realize, that we are talking about american fridge sized speakers Meyer Sound would be proud of :)

Has anyone had any luck contacting DDS? Ive tried several times over the last year and got no answer, windering if they went under with the pandemic?


Sent from my iPhone
 
Jan 19, 2011
948
46
28
40
Oslo, Norway, Norway
drbentsen.no
Has anyone had any luck contacting DDS? Ive tried several times over the last year and got no answer, windering if they went under with the pandemic?


Sent from my iPhone
I remember reading a couple of years ago that people on the other forum had similar problems.
I think they have been out of business for some time based on this, but I have no direct knowledge.
 

Robert Lawson

Freshman
Apr 26, 2017
15
4
3
San Diego, CA
Here's some CAD doodling from this weekend. This is 4x 12" drivers stuffed around a me464 and dcx464. The cost of the me464 along with the size of this thing is a deterrent. This is more box than I'd ever want to lug around. This is 44in tall, 25.5in wide and 23in deep. Or if you work in sensible units, that's 1.12m x 0.65m x 0.58m. Weight estimate is 140 lbs or 64 kg.

 
Last edited:

Uwe Riemer

Freshman
Mar 3, 2011
117
3
18
Germany
They will fit into a smaller, lighter cabinet.
I see some different routes to go:

- the hornloaded mid range with two 12" like Peters box but expanded.
Problem for me is, that I would like to see the last horn section expand horizontally, which will complicate building.
For the horn part there is no benefit going with larger drivers IMO, but for the vented part there might, because the back chamber can easily become to big for 12" drivers

- 2x 2x 12" angled in, vented design, I think there is already a similar commercial design on the market with the BMS driver,
easy to sim and build
Problem: Higher driver costs and how to drive it ( 4x 8Ohm parallel, 2x 2x8Ohm parallel or 4x 16Ohm parallel )

- blow up sorry expand the Q design from d&B, either with 2x 15" or 2x 18"
I have some 18ND9300, so I might eventually try, how high these can be used

- another inspiration could be the Meyersound Leo or X40, like the Q design one has to deal with band pass effects and cavity resonances
 

Peter Morris

Senior
May 8, 2011
1,031
133
63
Australia
I have been looking to see what I can do with this horn - it looks great but its BIG (22.64" x 19.88" mouth). The best i can do is a trap box about 45" high 23 -24" wide and 30" deep.; but its output will be quite a bit less than something like a Danley J7 ( 36" x 24" x 24") ... however it will be about 1/2 the weight.

Here is a plot with 2 x RCF MB15N405 with a simple conical horn at the diver's continuous RMS rating, + 3dB for program power.

Note - this is the power response, not the SPL response. That should be mostly around 140 dB.
 

Attachments

  • 15 inch 464.jpg
    15 inch 464.jpg
    54.6 KB · Views: 19
Last edited:

Robert Lawson

Freshman
Apr 26, 2017
15
4
3
San Diego, CA
Here's an update with 4x10 config. This looks better than the previous 4x12 config I showed previously. Black curve is for 4x Beyma 10MC700ND at 700W each, grey cure is with 4x B&C 10NW76 at 400W each (RMS ratings for those drivers). This is 40in tall x 22in deep x 23.5in wide at the front, 11in wide at the back. Weight estimate is 112 lbs or 51kg if using 15mm BB. Using Lite Ply and/or sandwich panels, this could possibly come down another 30 lbs or so.

 
  • Like
Reactions: Carl Klinkenborg

Peter Morris

Senior
May 8, 2011
1,031
133
63
Australia
Carl, the problem with 2 x PM60 a side is that like all standard point source boxes, they do not array perfectly and sonically one box will be better. In this case it will also have better pattern control.

The problem I see with what has been proposed so far is that the box does not go low enough. There is also a limit to what one HF driver can do. How much SPL you can push through one 1.4” throat without distortion could also be an issue.

By using a bigger HF horn it can go lower but the driver will have to do more work. Trying to keep up with 4 horn loaded 12” drivers may be asking a bit much – but I don’t know … I have not tried it.

One of the compromises with the PM90/60 is that it only went low enough (about 80Hz) to allow a 100Hz crossover to the sub, which I think is OK given what it was designed to do.

With the bigger 464 horn and therefore bigger box size, I expect PA applications will really be looking for more like an 80 Hz crossover to the sub. This is where it gets hard, trying to get good low frequency performance to allow an 80Hz crossover.

If you keep the box size reasonable, the mouth size for the LF section ends up being about the same size as the HF horn … that does not really add up to a good design.

The horn size is fine for big home theatre applications where you could use (for example) 2 x 15” drivers in a nice reflex enclosure for the low section. In this case it does not matter if you are not using the full capacities for the HF Horn / driver; size and weight are not that important.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Carl Klinkenborg

Peter Morris

Senior
May 8, 2011
1,031
133
63
Australia
If you need to separate the tops from the subs when you flying the system, generally its consider that 100Hz is a bit high and most manufactures try for a 80Hz crossover.

In this case it’s a DIY forum so many people will just be ground stacking; the problem here is getting the horn up high especially if the box is large and heavy. If we used an MTM design like the PM90/60 it gets even harder to get the horn up high enough.

Perhaps the answer is separate horn and low mid enclosures like Renkus Heinz did with their ST range https://www.renkus-heinz.com/st7m https://www.renkus-heinz.com/st5l

If we aim for a 100 or even 120Hz cross to the subs you may not need 4 x 12’ or 2 to 4 x 15” low frequency drivers to keep up to one dual compression driver operating from 400 – 20KHz.

Also you may not need the horn to go as low 400Hz, using the 12” driver up to 650 – 800Hz … then you can use a smaller HF horn, and we are more or less back to the PM90 ... which BTW would be nice if there was an option for a slightly large horn than the RCF HF950.

Still not sure what to do with this horn for PA applications where size and weight are often an issue :unsure:
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Helge A. Bentsen

Uwe Riemer

Freshman
Mar 3, 2011
117
3
18
Germany
Peter: I think we should try to aim for a solution with less power to weight ratio. Your PM60/90 have a very high ratio, lowering this ratio and allowing more weight and truckspace is the key for unlocking performance around this horn in my opinion.
Another thing to consider, which Peter mentioned somewhat, but want to emphasize:
An 80x60 dispersion will have lower SPL max than a 60x40 dispersion with the same driver.
Lowering the crossover will also put more power on the midrange section. Since I´m using a passive crossover, I have no idea about the power distribution Mid to HF with my below 900Hz crossover.
 

Stef Smits

Freshman
Apr 4, 2017
74
14
8
Regarding the multiple driver arrangement, I am currently busy with a new project that houses 4 hornloaded Oberton 10MB300's.
HF driver will be either the DCX464 or the 4594HE on the RCF HF950. Eventual goal is a D&B C7 kind of system with some modern drivers.
 

Peter Morris

Senior
May 8, 2011
1,031
133
63
Australia
Peter: I think we should try to aim for a solution with less power to weight ratio. Your PM60/90 have a very high ratio, lowering this ratio and allowing more weight and truckspace is the key for unlocking performance around this horn in my opinion.
I don't disagree ... but what is the practical solution?

The question I keep asking is - would this work as part of my hire inventory, or would I be saying ... it sounds fantast but ... and use another box because it easier, less truck space, less weight, less labour, etc. etc.

Its 22.64" wide, allow another 1.5" for the box walls = 24" ... not a good dimension for a truck pack which are normally based around a 90" truck (4 x 22.5")

Still not sure what the answer is - BUT - I still want some :)
 
Last edited: