I played with Hornresp a little. It will model MLTL's and BR's quite well except for one glaring exception. There is no provision to move the port up from the bottom of the box. There are some nasty harmonics that appear ~700Hz that are effectively suppressed by proper port location, but Hornresp will not allow this. Also, Hornresp does not include any end effects for the port, so the modeled port will be too long.
As far as damping (the real question), no, Hornresp has no provision for stuffing a line. This is actually irrelevant as long as you have a basic idea what stuffing does, but it makes those pretty plots you see on these forums rather difficult. What you can do is export the data from Hornresp into something like Speaker Workshop and smooth it until you get what you want.
Bob
As far as damping (the real question), no, Hornresp has no provision for stuffing a line. This is actually irrelevant as long as you have a basic idea what stuffing does, but it makes those pretty plots you see on these forums rather difficult. What you can do is export the data from Hornresp into something like Speaker Workshop and smooth it until you get what you want.
Bob
Bob Brines said:
Yeah and was told it's not likely ever to be.
True if the driver is near/at the top, but not an issue if the driver is properly offset and the vent's at the bottom. I have my own math for the offset, but MJK's constants in his CLASSIC TL ALIGNMENT calculator sim well also.
You sure?! I've only done a few BR, MLTL comparisons to MJK's, but they are spot on as best I can tell from the displacement sims. In comparing unstuffed sims, the only major difference I see are in HR's much higher amplitude peaks/nulls which makes their impulse plots somewhat different.
GM
Oh, the joy of dishonest people. I was saving up for a copy of math cad since I wanted a licensed version of the software, and then he stopped offering the sheets. I'm just glad I didn't spend the money on math cad only to have him pull the worksheets.
But I understand his frustration. I'd hate it if people were making money off my hard work, especially if I was asking for such a small amount...
Thanks to them, we all do without.
But I understand his frustration. I'd hate it if people were making money off my hard work, especially if I was asking for such a small amount...
Thanks to them, we all do without.
Although the tool per se is gone, Martin left behind all the knowledge that went into the worksheets, plus the alignment tables for classic TL's (not MLTL's but still incredibly useful).
Also, when we signed up for the worksheets, he had a certain disclaimer that we agreed to, specifically that we understood that a few other tools were also capable of calculating TL's. I think the tools he listed were AJ Horn, Akabak and Augsburger's software:
http://www.aj-systems.de/indexe.htm
http://www.randteam.de/AkAbak/Index.html
http://www.audioxpress.com/bksprods/products/sof-tlwrx.htm
So there are resources out there. Also, it's worth noting that GM came to the same destination empirically, by building and measuring, and is now able to design pretty much in his head.
I also believe that Scottmoose got to a point where he was using another technology to design his enclosures, over and above the worksheets, and I suspect that technology involved a pencil and paper (plus years of study of Olson, Nagaoka, Voigt etc.)
So Martin did not leave us without resources, he just withdrew one particular tool that made it incredibly easy. He certainly did not withdraw the knowledge.
Also, when we signed up for the worksheets, he had a certain disclaimer that we agreed to, specifically that we understood that a few other tools were also capable of calculating TL's. I think the tools he listed were AJ Horn, Akabak and Augsburger's software:
http://www.aj-systems.de/indexe.htm
http://www.randteam.de/AkAbak/Index.html
http://www.audioxpress.com/bksprods/products/sof-tlwrx.htm
So there are resources out there. Also, it's worth noting that GM came to the same destination empirically, by building and measuring, and is now able to design pretty much in his head.
I also believe that Scottmoose got to a point where he was using another technology to design his enclosures, over and above the worksheets, and I suspect that technology involved a pencil and paper (plus years of study of Olson, Nagaoka, Voigt etc.)
So Martin did not leave us without resources, he just withdrew one particular tool that made it incredibly easy. He certainly did not withdraw the knowledge.
BHD said:Oh, the joy of dishonest people. I was saving up for a copy of math cad since I wanted a licensed version of the software, and then he stopped offering the sheets. I'm just glad I didn't spend the money on math cad only to have him pull the worksheets.
But I understand his frustration. I'd hate it if people were making money off my hard work, especially if I was asking for such a small amount...
Thanks to them, we all do without.
I just want to add one thought to the dicussion. As stated above, I was having problems with commercial use of the worksheets. I always expected a few people taking advantage of my licensing scheme and I was willing to tolerate their actions.
What I had not anticipated was the lack of support from the DIY community, I had very few DIY users. There was a handful of supporters that I could count on every year, but there were many users of the older free worksheets that would not upgrade to the more advanced worksheets because they did not want to spend $25. I had many requests for U and H frame worksheets which I developed and loaded only to find there was no response from the people requesting that capability. The lack of interest from the DIY community killed the worksheets.
Last November I was close to finishing a newer version of the worksheets (corner loading, room loading, toe in, BIB, double mouthed back loaded horns) and I was faced with either spending a significant amount of my free time to document and load them to my site or just give up. When I looked at the interest level over the last year from the DIY community it was an obvious decision.
I just do not see any other method for making the tools available again, there is just not enough interest to make it worth my time. So I move forward developing new and better design tools only for my own use and personal interests.
Sorry,
vitalstates said:
It is easy, DIY is "Do It Yourself". That is what I am now doing. I have three new speaker systems built or in process since November. I no longer spend an hour a day answering e-mails to "Do It for Others". DIY is not an entitlement or expectation that it is OK to take advantage of other people's hard work.
Your tone seems to indicate I owe DIYers something, I don't owe anybody anything. Your post is typical of the attitude that killed the worksheets, I find it offensive.
Hi Martin,
If a DIY group can muster an overwhelming level of participation (with "overwhelming" to be defined by you), on new terms (to be approved by you), would you consider releasing the worksheets to that group?
My sense is that there is tremendous demand but that the community has to self-organize in order to demonstrate it, and then those interested people have to step up and follow through. (And if they don't, well then that's the end of it.)
Are you willing to allow (with no promises and no guarantees on your part) preliminary efforts for interested DIYer's to self-organize to determine the level of commitment out there? And then if the level is truly overwhelming, that group could draft a proposal for your consideration? (With no guarantees that you would approve it.)
P.S. Thank you Martin for all you have done, I have learned a tremendous amount and still read your white papers on a regular basis.
If a DIY group can muster an overwhelming level of participation (with "overwhelming" to be defined by you), on new terms (to be approved by you), would you consider releasing the worksheets to that group?
My sense is that there is tremendous demand but that the community has to self-organize in order to demonstrate it, and then those interested people have to step up and follow through. (And if they don't, well then that's the end of it.)
Are you willing to allow (with no promises and no guarantees on your part) preliminary efforts for interested DIYer's to self-organize to determine the level of commitment out there? And then if the level is truly overwhelming, that group could draft a proposal for your consideration? (With no guarantees that you would approve it.)
P.S. Thank you Martin for all you have done, I have learned a tremendous amount and still read your white papers on a regular basis.
I'd just like to add that, as a new guy, I've been sucking up as much information from every source possible as fast as possible, and I must admit that I was a bit frustrated by the disappearence of the worksheets.
I realize now, though, that the purpose of the worksheet should be to save time by streamlining calculations that are tedious to perform. The purpose is not necessarily to allow people to do things that they do not understand, though it may also serve that purpose quite well.
As a result, I'm just going to keep learning and trying things. Perhaps start with a proven design, maybe using some other tools like hornresp, and ultimately I've been reading the articles on how the MJK mathcad sheets and picking them apart slowly so that someday I can understand it fully and perhaps build some worksheets of my own.
I'm still quite appreciative of the work that's been done by MJK, as it's inspired a lot of builders to do more with this type of enclosure, and the more knowledge that's out there the better it is for all of us!
I realize now, though, that the purpose of the worksheet should be to save time by streamlining calculations that are tedious to perform. The purpose is not necessarily to allow people to do things that they do not understand, though it may also serve that purpose quite well.
As a result, I'm just going to keep learning and trying things. Perhaps start with a proven design, maybe using some other tools like hornresp, and ultimately I've been reading the articles on how the MJK mathcad sheets and picking them apart slowly so that someday I can understand it fully and perhaps build some worksheets of my own.
I'm still quite appreciative of the work that's been done by MJK, as it's inspired a lot of builders to do more with this type of enclosure, and the more knowledge that's out there the better it is for all of us!
On an objective note: The only criticism I have of the articles that describe the process used in the MathCAD worksheets is that they refer very heavily to the worksheets themselves, and thus without having the worksheets handy, the articles seem rather incomplete. This might be unavoidable, and I'm certainly not requesting a rewrite, I just thought I'd mention the omission for clarity and posperity.
Perhaps a few of us, including someone who has access to the worksheets, could get together and flesh out/revise the articles a bit so that they stand on their own a bit better (with MJK's permission, of course)?
Perhaps a few of us, including someone who has access to the worksheets, could get together and flesh out/revise the articles a bit so that they stand on their own a bit better (with MJK's permission, of course)?
Understanding the various pipe/horn harmonic structures should fill in the blanks: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/waves/opecol.html
GM
GM
I understand that there is no basis for further devellopment of new software
I understand the dissapointment of the abuse, or lack of financial support
But I do NOT understand the removal of software
Its like its a punnishment
Obviously things didnt turn out the way is was hoped to, but thats different
Hell, many amp designers could choose that
On grounds where the basis is far much worse
Other parts of the forum deals with this frequently
But luckily people keeps steady a cool headed
Impressive that things stay available
How many designs or expert knowledge is "stolen", noone knows
Probably more than we like to know
But this forum would be history very fast if all were that sensitive
But I thought it would still be possible to BUY software, but doesnt sound like it
I understand the dissapointment of the abuse, or lack of financial support
But I do NOT understand the removal of software
Its like its a punnishment
Obviously things didnt turn out the way is was hoped to, but thats different
Hell, many amp designers could choose that
On grounds where the basis is far much worse
Other parts of the forum deals with this frequently
But luckily people keeps steady a cool headed
Impressive that things stay available
How many designs or expert knowledge is "stolen", noone knows
Probably more than we like to know
But this forum would be history very fast if all were that sensitive
But I thought it would still be possible to BUY software, but doesnt sound like it
I'm not working with speakers as I was used to do before 7-8 years ;
in any case , I'm not building them even for my self in that period , as I was used to experiment .
just not enough time , even if I wish .
just lately - in last few months I tried long time ago downloaded free worksheets , due to lack of help from much more experienced (with Martin's software ) DiyAs .........
funny - when I tried , I was also helped by residents
I hesitate in last few years to pay that symbolic price for software mainly because of hassle needed to pay anything from my country ... now I regret because of my laziness ;
if Martin decide to sell worksheets for any decent amount ( which I can cover , at least ) - based on "no obligation for any support " basis , I'm in .
he deserves and already gave all needed support and knowledge .
all one needs to do is to read and learn , and try .
in any case , I'm not building them even for my self in that period , as I was used to experiment .
just not enough time , even if I wish .
just lately - in last few months I tried long time ago downloaded free worksheets , due to lack of help from much more experienced (with Martin's software ) DiyAs .........
funny - when I tried , I was also helped by residents
I hesitate in last few years to pay that symbolic price for software mainly because of hassle needed to pay anything from my country ... now I regret because of my laziness ;
if Martin decide to sell worksheets for any decent amount ( which I can cover , at least ) - based on "no obligation for any support " basis , I'm in .
he deserves and already gave all needed support and knowledge .
all one needs to do is to read and learn , and try .
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.