gmilitano said:
I left that behind with the thumbnail (http://www.frugal-horn.com/FH-history.html)
Red (FR) & black (Imp) are the mod B-Horn sim, purple (FR) & green (Imp) the Stereophile measures
dave
Re: ron
That is why Martin's software is so useful. It ignores theoretical expansions and just models the box. Given that all these "horns" of this size are really TL/Horn hybrids and not true horns (including all yours) it is a much more sensible approach.
The Frugel-Horn is what it is, there are many people thoroughly enjoying them (including Chris & i) but that won't stop us from trying to make them better -- and that will happen with feedback from the community.
dave
hm said:
That is why Martin's software is so useful. It ignores theoretical expansions and just models the box. Given that all these "horns" of this size are really TL/Horn hybrids and not true horns (including all yours) it is a much more sensible approach.
The Frugel-Horn is what it is, there are many people thoroughly enjoying them (including Chris & i) but that won't stop us from trying to make them better -- and that will happen with feedback from the community.
dave
If it expands towards the mouth, it's a horn. Period. A horn does not require a flare constant, nor does it need to fit the stipulations of one formula in order to be considered as such. It simply needs to expand sufficiently for it to become a 1/2 wavelength resonator with a 1/4 wavelength fundamental (this latter providing the TL / QW action that supports the LF until the acoustic impedence match at the mouth improves and horn loading takes over). The application of a final rapid end correction and curve to help shape the wavefront to a horn is neither here nor there. By that anaology, if I added a wing to my Pug 106, it would somehow no longer be a Pug 106. What utter nonsense.
without k the funnel constante you can´t construct horns
ln (AM/AH)/l = k
The FH has a k on the last 25 cm of 6,9 ~182 Hz
thats why it´s a wave guide not a part of a bass horn.
Really!Geee, maybe everybody who has build my designs (with newer programming) should trash them on your advice.
Actually i do not use conventional math for design. I use actual wave simulation. The actual math was incorporated many moons ago. However i do have a some of Martins equations folded in the programming because it made the most sense to me and it worked. The initial program was based on simulations of surges in petro chemical applications.
Again i have no idea what a funnel constante is, are you attempting to say" constant"? And if so are you attempting to say "flare rate" or "m" factor?
I dont use set values for flare rate as i did not find the standard math to work. I found that different rates worked the best as in convetional designs its sections of a constant rate and not a contionous flare.
ron
Again if the F horn was nothing more than a waveguide there would be no amplification of LF signals, 1/4 action not included.
ln (AM/AH)/l = k
The FH has a k on the last 25 cm of 6,9 ~182 Hz
thats why it´s a wave guide not a part of a bass horn.
Really!Geee, maybe everybody who has build my designs (with newer programming) should trash them on your advice.
Actually i do not use conventional math for design. I use actual wave simulation. The actual math was incorporated many moons ago. However i do have a some of Martins equations folded in the programming because it made the most sense to me and it worked. The initial program was based on simulations of surges in petro chemical applications.
Again i have no idea what a funnel constante is, are you attempting to say" constant"? And if so are you attempting to say "flare rate" or "m" factor?
I dont use set values for flare rate as i did not find the standard math to work. I found that different rates worked the best as in convetional designs its sections of a constant rate and not a contionous flare.
ron
Again if the F horn was nothing more than a waveguide there would be no amplification of LF signals, 1/4 action not included.
I think (though I could be wrong) that Horst is trying to say that because the final stage of the Frugalhorn has a rapid end-correction (irrespective of the shaping of the wavefront by the curved mouth), and this doesn't fit a mathematical formula he happens to use, then this means the cabinet is no longer a horn. Which is completely incorrect (there's no easy way of saying it unfortunately).
I wondered if it was just me who hadn't the faintest idea about what this 'funnal constante' business is. Glad I'm not alone after all. I've certainly never heard of it in all my dealings with horns. I can confirm that there's nothing about it in Rayleigh, Voigt, Olson, Cohen, Badmaieff, Briggs, Klipsch, Disdale, Leach, Dr Edgar or anything else I've seen thus far. Sounds like it could be lifted from musical instruments, or perhaps it's lost in the translation and it does indeed refer to the M value and the flare constant. If it's not that, then I haven't the foggiest.
Not having your wavefront knowledge, I've taken GM's advice & found that the ~optimal expansion for horns (or at least those I'm able to design) hovers around the hyperbolic / hypex, with an M value of 0.5, with some rapid end-correction applied to kill any potential peaking at Fc. I imagine this is related to what we discussed a while back Ron, when you noted that you like to use a conical flare for the final expansion stage IIRC.
Cheers
Scott
I wondered if it was just me who hadn't the faintest idea about what this 'funnal constante' business is. Glad I'm not alone after all. I've certainly never heard of it in all my dealings with horns. I can confirm that there's nothing about it in Rayleigh, Voigt, Olson, Cohen, Badmaieff, Briggs, Klipsch, Disdale, Leach, Dr Edgar or anything else I've seen thus far. Sounds like it could be lifted from musical instruments, or perhaps it's lost in the translation and it does indeed refer to the M value and the flare constant. If it's not that, then I haven't the foggiest.
Not having your wavefront knowledge, I've taken GM's advice & found that the ~optimal expansion for horns (or at least those I'm able to design) hovers around the hyperbolic / hypex, with an M value of 0.5, with some rapid end-correction applied to kill any potential peaking at Fc. I imagine this is related to what we discussed a while back Ron, when you noted that you like to use a conical flare for the final expansion stage IIRC.
Cheers
Scott
ron, scottmoose, planet 10
Ok guys,
i see you won´t understand me and screw the words in my mouth,
That you don´t know elementar physical knowledge to
construct horns makes me wonder.
If you have a pocket calculator you can redevelope your
constructions,
Planet 10, I understand you like this:
someone develop something, no proof, no knowledge
to do it right, than push it into forums;
and by the disapointed user feedback you modified it,
Whow, what kind of experts you are.
Here the easiest way to use math for expo bass horn
construction, but you must find the right keyboard key!
Berechnung von Expo Hörnern
Wenn man AH, AM, l, hat
fehlt noch k das Öffnungsmaß:
ln (AM/AH)/l = k
damit kannst du die Fläche an
jeden Punkt ausrechnen (Al):
INV ln (l*k)*AH=Al
l in m, AH+AM in qm, Al in qm
Al durch z.B. die Breite in m teilen und
du hast den Abstand in m.
AH = Hornhals
AM = Hornmund
k = Trichterkonstante
l = Länge
Längen und Trichterkonstanten WERTE
K WERTE:
0,37 ~ 10 Hz
0,55 ~ 15 Hz
0,7 ~ 19 Hz
0,9 ~ 25 Hz
1,1 ~ 30 Hz
1,3 ~ 35 Hz
1,48 ~ 40 Hz
Etwa eine Oktave über k spielt das Horn,
wenn die Länge dazu passt. Bei BL Hornlängen
über ca. 3,4 m sinkt der
erste Kammfiltereffekt in den Übertragungsbereich.
unter 100 Hz.
Längen WERTE 4/lamda
3,4 m ~ 25 Hz
2,8 m ~ 30 Hz
2,4 m ~ 35 Hz
2,1 m ~ 40 Hz
1,7 m ~ 50 Hz
1,4 m ~ 60 Hz
BTW:
test the TROMBONE, smaller, cheaper and bass down to 35 Hz
with a max. SPL ~90 dB, free plan
proofed and measured before publishing.
Ok guys,
i see you won´t understand me and screw the words in my mouth,
That you don´t know elementar physical knowledge to
construct horns makes me wonder.
If you have a pocket calculator you can redevelope your
constructions,
Planet 10, I understand you like this:
someone develop something, no proof, no knowledge
to do it right, than push it into forums;
and by the disapointed user feedback you modified it,
Whow, what kind of experts you are.
Here the easiest way to use math for expo bass horn
construction, but you must find the right keyboard key!
Berechnung von Expo Hörnern
Wenn man AH, AM, l, hat
fehlt noch k das Öffnungsmaß:
ln (AM/AH)/l = k
damit kannst du die Fläche an
jeden Punkt ausrechnen (Al):
INV ln (l*k)*AH=Al
l in m, AH+AM in qm, Al in qm
Al durch z.B. die Breite in m teilen und
du hast den Abstand in m.
AH = Hornhals
AM = Hornmund
k = Trichterkonstante
l = Länge
Längen und Trichterkonstanten WERTE
K WERTE:
0,37 ~ 10 Hz
0,55 ~ 15 Hz
0,7 ~ 19 Hz
0,9 ~ 25 Hz
1,1 ~ 30 Hz
1,3 ~ 35 Hz
1,48 ~ 40 Hz
Etwa eine Oktave über k spielt das Horn,
wenn die Länge dazu passt. Bei BL Hornlängen
über ca. 3,4 m sinkt der
erste Kammfiltereffekt in den Übertragungsbereich.
unter 100 Hz.
Längen WERTE 4/lamda
3,4 m ~ 25 Hz
2,8 m ~ 30 Hz
2,4 m ~ 35 Hz
2,1 m ~ 40 Hz
1,7 m ~ 50 Hz
1,4 m ~ 60 Hz
BTW:
test the TROMBONE, smaller, cheaper and bass down to 35 Hz
with a max. SPL ~90 dB, free plan
proofed and measured before publishing.
OK I've tried to be polite in all my dealings over the past few months, but now I've had enough. Blow being polite; I'm going to say what I've wanted to for a while.
Horst, I don't know how you can dare to tell other people they don't know what they are doing when you clearly don't have an especially good knowledge of physical principles yourself. As you have been told several times: A horn does not require a flare constant. If you haven't grasped that basic principle of physics and mathematics, you certainly have no right to be telling other people they don't know what they are talking about.
Assuming a standard mathematical profile is chosen for a particular design, then, in response to your last post, I might point out that exponential is not invariably used, nor is it always the optimal choice. (We do know how do size them by the way, thanks awfully). I assume you're aware of the many different mathematical profiles, such as catenoid, hyperbolic, hypex, tractrix, parabolic, conical etc., are thoroughly familiar with their effects, what they do, and how they can be used? These have mostly been known since Ancient Greek times and all offer different things.
You do not appear to be familiar of the principles behind, and the application of, end-correction to a horn or a vent, and seem to be under the impression that if this is used, then (for example) the horn cabinet it has been applied to suddenly for some reason is no longer a horn. For your information, as you clearly haven't run across it before, end correction is a rapid final flare, often applied to a very efficient horn, such as a hyperbolic, and it is used to create a rapid decrease in pressure at Fc, preventing a peak in the frequency response, amongst other reasons.
As such, I think you might find that a large number of us know the 'elemental physical knowledge' (as you put it) of horn design rather well, and on current form, considerably better than you do, despite your unfortunate habit of coming on forums, and rubbishing other people's designs because they don't fit your own goals or method of design.
Anyway, I've wasted enough of my time. I'm tired of be patronised by someone who hasn't bothered to get his own facts right, and watching him have the brass face to patronise other people, many of them my friends, who have contributed a great deal to this hobby, and have far wider knowledge of design than you have so far shown yourself to posess. I'm sure the language barrier is hard to cope with, and I respect anyone who makes an attempt at communication in a foreign language, but this isn't a language problem as we can work around that. What we'd all be obliged at is if you'd stop attacking other people's cabinets (I don't remember anyone ever insulting yours), and promoting your own, until you a) understand their operational and design principles and the objectives & sonic behaviour of these designs, which might not be the same as yours, and / or b) have heard them.
I'm out of here. Dave, Al, (and any other Moderators reading this) I am quite willing to accept any sentence you decide is appropriate.
Horst, I don't know how you can dare to tell other people they don't know what they are doing when you clearly don't have an especially good knowledge of physical principles yourself. As you have been told several times: A horn does not require a flare constant. If you haven't grasped that basic principle of physics and mathematics, you certainly have no right to be telling other people they don't know what they are talking about.
Assuming a standard mathematical profile is chosen for a particular design, then, in response to your last post, I might point out that exponential is not invariably used, nor is it always the optimal choice. (We do know how do size them by the way, thanks awfully). I assume you're aware of the many different mathematical profiles, such as catenoid, hyperbolic, hypex, tractrix, parabolic, conical etc., are thoroughly familiar with their effects, what they do, and how they can be used? These have mostly been known since Ancient Greek times and all offer different things.
You do not appear to be familiar of the principles behind, and the application of, end-correction to a horn or a vent, and seem to be under the impression that if this is used, then (for example) the horn cabinet it has been applied to suddenly for some reason is no longer a horn. For your information, as you clearly haven't run across it before, end correction is a rapid final flare, often applied to a very efficient horn, such as a hyperbolic, and it is used to create a rapid decrease in pressure at Fc, preventing a peak in the frequency response, amongst other reasons.
As such, I think you might find that a large number of us know the 'elemental physical knowledge' (as you put it) of horn design rather well, and on current form, considerably better than you do, despite your unfortunate habit of coming on forums, and rubbishing other people's designs because they don't fit your own goals or method of design.
Anyway, I've wasted enough of my time. I'm tired of be patronised by someone who hasn't bothered to get his own facts right, and watching him have the brass face to patronise other people, many of them my friends, who have contributed a great deal to this hobby, and have far wider knowledge of design than you have so far shown yourself to posess. I'm sure the language barrier is hard to cope with, and I respect anyone who makes an attempt at communication in a foreign language, but this isn't a language problem as we can work around that. What we'd all be obliged at is if you'd stop attacking other people's cabinets (I don't remember anyone ever insulting yours), and promoting your own, until you a) understand their operational and design principles and the objectives & sonic behaviour of these designs, which might not be the same as yours, and / or b) have heard them.
I'm out of here. Dave, Al, (and any other Moderators reading this) I am quite willing to accept any sentence you decide is appropriate.
scottmoose
whow what a text,
may you remember the starting thread text:
"First impression was not very good...male vocals sounded very "boxy," or hollow...as if singing through cupped hands. I pulled the baffles out and put a handful of Dacron polyfill in just behind the driver, in the compression chamber but not in the throat. OK...MUCH better now, but still sounds "boxy" compared to my FE-103s in a BR cabinets. Still, the horns sound promising...there is something"magical" about them."
Thats why I construct my horns different, because I listen the same effect on serveral horns during the last 30 Years
like diogenio describes, and was disapointed like him.
Planet 10 wrote:
"The Frugel-Horn is what it is, there are many people thoroughly enjoying them (including Chris & i) but that won't stop us from trying to make them better -- and that will happen with feedback from the community."
I feel it like:
" I understand you like this:
someone develop something, no proof, no knowledge
to do it right, than push it into forums;
and by the disapointed user feedback you modified it,
Whow, what kind of experts you are."
I wrote about funnels because I know there are differrent
funnel forms, but you know and can read everywhere
the exponential horn (funnel) is the best compromis.
If you look on my horns you see I take differrent flare rates
in one horn, best to see inside the ALPHORN.
Why I can´t find trustful measurement and impedanz of
ron´s horns, BIB etc.
For my horns I done my best, the last years a company takes the
measurements, not taken by myself, I think it is more trustable.
If this Forum didn´t want opinions, based by experience
and knowledge, why don´t you write: shut up!!
This would be not misunderstandable for all readers.
whow what a text,
may you remember the starting thread text:
"First impression was not very good...male vocals sounded very "boxy," or hollow...as if singing through cupped hands. I pulled the baffles out and put a handful of Dacron polyfill in just behind the driver, in the compression chamber but not in the throat. OK...MUCH better now, but still sounds "boxy" compared to my FE-103s in a BR cabinets. Still, the horns sound promising...there is something"magical" about them."
Thats why I construct my horns different, because I listen the same effect on serveral horns during the last 30 Years
like diogenio describes, and was disapointed like him.
Planet 10 wrote:
"The Frugel-Horn is what it is, there are many people thoroughly enjoying them (including Chris & i) but that won't stop us from trying to make them better -- and that will happen with feedback from the community."
I feel it like:
" I understand you like this:
someone develop something, no proof, no knowledge
to do it right, than push it into forums;
and by the disapointed user feedback you modified it,
Whow, what kind of experts you are."
I wrote about funnels because I know there are differrent
funnel forms, but you know and can read everywhere
the exponential horn (funnel) is the best compromis.
If you look on my horns you see I take differrent flare rates
in one horn, best to see inside the ALPHORN.
Why I can´t find trustful measurement and impedanz of
ron´s horns, BIB etc.
For my horns I done my best, the last years a company takes the
measurements, not taken by myself, I think it is more trustable.
If this Forum didn´t want opinions, based by experience
and knowledge, why don´t you write: shut up!!
This would be not misunderstandable for all readers.
Because we're too polite to use those particular words. We welcome you and your ideas Horst. But not when you rubbish other people's designs without fully understanding them, or when you make sweeping generalisations that your way is the only valid one, and claiming that none of us know what we are doing. Oddly enough, as I've indicated, you're not the only person with 'experience and knowledge', which with respect does not appear to be especially comprehensive, given that you haven't heard of the application of end correction, and were not aware that a horn does not require a flare constant.
Anyway, a boxy / cuppy characteristic on vocals is a known trait on the bare Frugel-horn, and the Buschorns too, which can be tweaked out to taste in the manner described by Dave, Chris & myself. It's inevitable actually, because the Frugel-Horn was intended from the outset to accept a range of units, and requires detail tweaking to dial them in for each of these. They are a flexible enclosure intended for people to dial in to their own taste. This, and the ways of doing it, has been described previously and discussed on the numerous threads dedicated to these cabinets on this forum and elsewhere. But you'll know all about that of course, having read them.
Re the measurements, if someone measures them, then I dare say they'll be posted (though in the case of the BIBs & Frugel-Horns, they'd need to be in corners to be representative, as in an anechoic or 1/2 space environment, a large portion of the cabinet isn't there). As it happens, I'd love to be able either to take some measurements myself, or sent somewhere for it but I've already indicated why I can't. Not all of us are in the happy position of being able to afford to do so, unlike yourself. Lucky you.
Anyway, a boxy / cuppy characteristic on vocals is a known trait on the bare Frugel-horn, and the Buschorns too, which can be tweaked out to taste in the manner described by Dave, Chris & myself. It's inevitable actually, because the Frugel-Horn was intended from the outset to accept a range of units, and requires detail tweaking to dial them in for each of these. They are a flexible enclosure intended for people to dial in to their own taste. This, and the ways of doing it, has been described previously and discussed on the numerous threads dedicated to these cabinets on this forum and elsewhere. But you'll know all about that of course, having read them.
Re the measurements, if someone measures them, then I dare say they'll be posted (though in the case of the BIBs & Frugel-Horns, they'd need to be in corners to be representative, as in an anechoic or 1/2 space environment, a large portion of the cabinet isn't there). As it happens, I'd love to be able either to take some measurements myself, or sent somewhere for it but I've already indicated why I can't. Not all of us are in the happy position of being able to afford to do so, unlike yourself. Lucky you.
Well put Scott.
If this Forum didn´t want opinions
I try to never let opinions enter into anything. The first action ,at my work, was to eliminate subjective opinion.
If a pipeline blows up or a bridge collapses i do not want it to be based on an inspectors "opinion" that a given condition was acceptable. I would rather have it based on "objective" criteria judgement to a given code or results from extensive,reported testing.
I know this has nothing to do with horn design, but the same principals apply.
ron
If this Forum didn´t want opinions
I try to never let opinions enter into anything. The first action ,at my work, was to eliminate subjective opinion.
If a pipeline blows up or a bridge collapses i do not want it to be based on an inspectors "opinion" that a given condition was acceptable. I would rather have it based on "objective" criteria judgement to a given code or results from extensive,reported testing.
I know this has nothing to do with horn design, but the same principals apply.
ron
Ok,
my proposal for the FH would be:
take a driver like TB W4 1320
http://www.tb-speaker.com/detail/1230_04/w4-1320sd.htm
Press chamber only max. 1 L,
first m and the press chamber cover complet with softfibre
to reduce all, begining at 100 Hz.
throat ~30 qcm
mouth reduce from 1262 qcm to ~600 qcm, three times more than at 2 m by using a flare rate ~ 20 Hz.
Use for the first 2 m a flare rate near ~20 Hz, may be you can than realise 40 Hz.
never take a symetrical extra baffle to reduce a baffle step,
never put the driver in the middle.
for design and soundstage try to handle the baffle step by
a filter "Sperrkreis".
listen to it in comparision to my small Posaune,
(last plan) http://www.hm-moreart.de/91.htm
with the same front driver and an invers Monacor SPH68x
I will spend the partlist for you.
make measurement and Imp.
my proposal for the FH would be:
take a driver like TB W4 1320
http://www.tb-speaker.com/detail/1230_04/w4-1320sd.htm
Press chamber only max. 1 L,
first m and the press chamber cover complet with softfibre
to reduce all, begining at 100 Hz.
throat ~30 qcm
mouth reduce from 1262 qcm to ~600 qcm, three times more than at 2 m by using a flare rate ~ 20 Hz.
Use for the first 2 m a flare rate near ~20 Hz, may be you can than realise 40 Hz.
never take a symetrical extra baffle to reduce a baffle step,
never put the driver in the middle.
for design and soundstage try to handle the baffle step by
a filter "Sperrkreis".
listen to it in comparision to my small Posaune,
(last plan) http://www.hm-moreart.de/91.htm
with the same front driver and an invers Monacor SPH68x
I will spend the partlist for you.
make measurement and Imp.
Cheers Ron.
Now that's more like it Horst. An interesting take on the concept of a compact horn. I'll be equally interested to see the results. It's not how I'd do it: I much prefer mechanical to electrical compensation of baffle-step in horns (via baffles etc) for example. But we all have different preferences and ways of addressing design issues. That's why design is fun; there are so many different approaches.
Now that's more like it Horst. An interesting take on the concept of a compact horn. I'll be equally interested to see the results. It's not how I'd do it: I much prefer mechanical to electrical compensation of baffle-step in horns (via baffles etc) for example. But we all have different preferences and ways of addressing design issues. That's why design is fun; there are so many different approaches.
ronc said:
Well Ron, this is what Horst asking about! He has the measurments. What about you, you are claiming that you have to have reported tests in your work. Then if you mention it here, why can't you show it? Lot of screaming, no noise, eh!
And Horst, Try to look at it from a another side as mentioned by Scott, this is DIY and not optimal horns for one driver as you have done with your Saxophon for example.
This is just looking from the outside of the technical knowledge, but from a human side. Lot of talking, but not listening.
See know that Horst have made an alternative Frugal horn example. That's how it should be done, not some yipidiyap of who/what is better!
It is strange if moderators not reacting to this exchange, that maybe would be better to handle by mail than on the forum.
Cheers
Peter
Then if you mention it here, why can't you show it? Lot of screaming, no noise, eh!
My work speaks for itself. It can take me up to 10 hours of effort to arrive at an answer for a given set of parameters.
As i have stated, my programming is not a punch in parameters and get results like Martins.Its a time consuming effort. And time is a value that i dont have a great deal of.
Martin is working on some of the aspects that my program addresses, the difference is his will allow a great deal more flexibility and ease of answers. I believe that the end result between the two will be very much alike.
Thank you for your screaming, no noise comment. I will take that under consideration.
ron
My work speaks for itself. It can take me up to 10 hours of effort to arrive at an answer for a given set of parameters.
As i have stated, my programming is not a punch in parameters and get results like Martins.Its a time consuming effort. And time is a value that i dont have a great deal of.
Martin is working on some of the aspects that my program addresses, the difference is his will allow a great deal more flexibility and ease of answers. I believe that the end result between the two will be very much alike.
Thank you for your screaming, no noise comment. I will take that under consideration.
ron
Ron
I don't doubt that you are good at what you are doing and it's time consuming, but what you are saying IS contradictive, PERIOD!
Regarding the quote above, either it is serious or ironic. I'm not screaming, just some remarks between grown people!!
Horst
I'm not taking side here, as with Ron I'm sure that you are good at what you are doing but the comments between you leave much
to wish for as adult people!
Cheers
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.