Gedlee, wouldn't perforated horns eliminate HOMs?

Status
This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.
From what I've read, one of the major objectives of your work is to eliminate HOMs while controlling dispersion to limit early reflections.

Years ago I worked in a power station. Very, very loud environment. Telephones in the loud environments were all mounted in partially enclosed V-shaped housings lined with perforated metal behind which was sound absorption material. Open ended as they were, it was amazing how quiet it was in those things, in spite of the 130+db environment.

Similarly, waves bouncing around at tall angles inside a horn would get quickly absorbed, while the waves moving along the hard but perforated horn surface would not be so quickly absorbed, it seems to me. You may wind up with fewer dBs at the mouth, but whatever sound that made it that far would be HOM-free. And I don't see why the horn's dispersion angle would be affected either. Finding the optimum size and distribution of the sound absorbing perforations would need to be engineered, of course. I can easily see why the Altecs and JBLs not trying this back in the day, since they were interested primarily in getting maximum sound pressure, with HOM colorations being of little concern.

But since the objective of your work has been to fight inside-the-horn HOMs and early room reflections, I thought perhaps you considered this approach.

Thoughts?
 
Might work on the outside... Anything wrapping around the front radius
needs killed off anyway. On the inside, perforation probably touches off
way more tangential modes than it could ever suppress? Got no scientific
reason for saying so, just prattling at random bout something I don't know.
 
HOM is an invention of a manufacturer to sell their product and make it "better.". HOM can not even be measured by the "inventor."

It is like an automobile manufacture that claims their car gives you "better" or the "best" gas mileage efficiency but it can only explained in an advertisement or "white paper" but can not be measured by anybody. Does it have a benefit? yes, to the manufacture that gets a way with it.

HAPPY NEW YEAR!
 
HOM is an invention of a manufacturer to sell their product and make it "better.". HOM can not even be measured by the "inventor."

It is like an automobile manufacture that claims their car gives you "better" or the "best" gas mileage efficiency but it can only explained in an advertisement or "white paper" but can not be measured by anybody. Does it have a benefit? yes, to the manufacture that gets a way with it.

HAPPY NEW YEAR!

Have you taken the time to actually read Dr. Geddes' research or do you simply enjoy spreading misinformation?
 
Have you taken the time to actually read Dr. Geddes' research or do you simply enjoy spreading misinformation?

Oh, you must have missed the entire thread the manufacture/inventor had on this subject at this website where he could not measure his HOM.

Please explain how you and the manufacture measure the HOM.

The manufacturer's advertisements or white paper does not count because it does not measure HOM.

HAPPY NEW YEAR!!
 
Oh, you must have missed the entire thread the manufacture/inventor had on this subject at this website where he could not measure his HOM.

Please explain how you and the manufacture measure the HOM.

The manufacturer's advertisements or white paper does not count because it does not measure HOM.

HAPPY NEW YEAR!!

You do not need to measure HOMs to know that they exist.

Visualize an oscillating piston located at the end of a cylindrical duct. Neglecting resistance at the boundaries (sides of the cylinder), the wave will propagate unimpeded. However, once the wave reaches the end of the cylinder (an impedance mismatch exists at this boundary), an abrupt transformation of the wavefront occurs. A secondary wavefront is created at this boundary, which propagates antiparallel to the original wavefront (ie a reflection). The secondary wavefront will propagate (anti-parallel to initial wavefront) unimpeded until it reaches the piston. An impedance mismatch between the fluid (air) and solid (piston) exists at this boundary, where the wave is once again partially reflected. This wavefront will propagate (parallel to the initial wavefront) unimpeded until, once again, it reaches the end of the cylinder, where it is partially reflected. This process will continue until all of the energy leaves the system.

I believe these secondary wavefronts are what Dr. Geddes' refers to as Higher Order Modes. They are a result of the reactance of the duct and interact with the primary wavefront.

Unless you can demonstrate that waveguides are purely resistive transformers, Higher Order Modes will exist.
 
Last edited:
I see, you can't measure them either. Reminds me of religion. I also have never seen a peer reviewed controlled double blind test to correlate the HOM advertisement and audibility. Can you point me to one?

You do not need to measure HOMs to know that they exist.

Visualize an oscillating piston located at the end of a cylindrical duct. Neglecting resistance at the boundaries (sides of the cylinder), the wave will propagate unimpeded. However, once the wave reaches the end of the cylinder (an impedance mismatch exists at this boundary), an abrupt transformation of the wavefront occurs. A secondary wavefront is created at this boundary, which propagates antiparallel to the original wavefront (ie a reflection). The secondary wavefront will propagate (anti-parallel to initial wavefront) unimpeded until it reaches the piston. An impedance mismatch between the fluid (air) and solid (piston) exists at this boundary, where the wave is once again partially reflected. This wavefront will propagate (parallel to the initial wavefront) unimpeded until, once again, it reaches the end of the cylinder, where it is partially reflected. This process will continue until all of the energy leaves the system.

I believe these secondary wavefronts are what Dr. Geddes' refers to as Higher Order Modes. They are a result of the reactance of the duct and interact with the primary wavefront.

Unless you can demonstrate that waveguides are purely resistive transformers, Higher Order Modes will exist.
 
HOM is an invention of a manufacturer to sell their product and make it "better.". HOM can not even be measured by the "inventor."

It is like an automobile manufacture that claims their car gives you "better" or the "best" gas mileage efficiency but it can only explained in an advertisement or "white paper" but can not be measured by anybody. Does it have a benefit? yes, to the manufacture that gets a way with it.

HAPPY NEW YEAR!

Oh, you must have missed the entire thread the manufacture/inventor had on this subject at this website where he could not measure his HOM.

Please explain how you and the manufacture measure the HOM.

The manufacturer's advertisements or white paper does not count because it does not measure HOM.

That my speakers sound better than "normal" horns is indisputable (see the reviews), there are a lot of things that I do to improve things. Do we know that5 HOMs are the whole story - no we don't and I have always said that. But HOM are not some "made up" concept they can be shown to exist theoretically and they can be measured on compression drivers, but to your point, no I have not actually taken the time to try and trace down an HOM from any other waveguide aberation. That in no way makes any of your statements correct however because "did not" which is true, is quite different than "could not" which is not true since that implies a trie and failed, which never happened.

So the misinformation here is clear - ignoring the vast amount of data that "something" makes my speakers sound better than everything else, and instead focusing - incorrectly - on a small aspect of their not having been measured directly. Your later point is irrelavent while the first point is the key.

There is, by the way, absolutely no evidence that HOMs do not exist and are not a problem. Makarski did in fact measure them for your information, but he concluded that they were a small effect, and they are, but then so id THD. The size of the effect and its perception are entirely different things.

Get your story straight next time.
 
From what I've read, one of the major objectives of your work is to eliminate HOMs while controlling dispersion to limit early reflections.

Years ago I worked in a power station. Very, very loud environment. Telephones in the loud environments were all mounted in partially enclosed V-shaped housings lined with perforated metal behind which was sound absorption material. Open ended as they were, it was amazing how quiet it was in those things, in spite of the 130+db environment.

Similarly, waves bouncing around at tall angles inside a horn would get quickly absorbed, while the waves moving along the hard but perforated horn surface would not be so quickly absorbed, it seems to me. You may wind up with fewer dBs at the mouth, but whatever sound that made it that far would be HOM-free. And I don't see why the horn's dispersion angle would be affected either. Finding the optimum size and distribution of the sound absorbing perforations would need to be engineered, of course. I can easily see why the Altecs and JBLs not trying this back in the day, since they were interested primarily in getting maximum sound pressure, with HOM colorations being of little concern.

But since the objective of your work has been to fight inside-the-horn HOMs and early room reflections, I thought perhaps you considered this approach.

Thoughts?

I've dabled with the idea and there is a Japanese patent on this precise concept (its referenced in my patent). It seems workable albeit somewhat difficult to envision how to do it in practice.
 
That my speakers sound better than "normal" horns is indisputable (see the reviews), there are a lot of things that I do to improve things. Do we know that5 HOMs are the whole story - no we don't and I have always said that. But HOM are not some "made up" concept they can be shown to exist theoretically and they can be measured on compression drivers, but to your point, no I have not actually taken the time to try and trace down an HOM from any other waveguide aberation. That in no way makes any of your statements correct however because "did not" which is true, is quite different than "could not" which is not true since that implies a trie and failed, which never happened.

So the misinformation here is clear - ignoring the vast amount of data that "something" makes my speakers sound better than everything else, and instead focusing - incorrectly - on a small aspect of their not having been measured directly. Your later point is irrelavent while the first point is the key.

There is, by the way, absolutely no evidence that HOMs do not exist and are not a problem. Makarski did in fact measure them for your information, but he concluded that they were a small effect, and they are, but then so id THD. The size of the effect and its perception are entirely different things.

Get your story straight next time.



Your reviews are not valid. There are no controls what-so-ever where your speakers are compared to any horn loudspeakers what-so-ever. If you have any real evidence to your claim the speakers you sell sound better than "normal horns" then please post the URL. When you can present to the community a valid double blind peer review comparing your loudspeaker to a horn loudspeaker that statistically proves they "sound better" then you have the right to make such claims. For example the Edgar Titan, the CAR T-1, even a Klipshorn. Until then you are just using the reviews as advertising and it proves nothing to your claim.

Please post the URL for the Markasi measurement methodology and test for HOM since you have never measured your invention and never proved the audibility of it. As you know "no claim they do not exist" is a laugh - you cannot prove a negative.
 
Years ago I worked in a power station. Very, very loud environment. Telephones in the loud environments were all mounted in partially enclosed V-shaped housings lined with perforated metal behind which was sound absorption material. Open ended as they were, it was amazing how quiet it was in those things, in spite of the 130+db environment.

We have some of these at my work. I pulled a patent number off it:

DOORLESS TELEPHONE BOOTH - Google Patent Search
 
'Truesound' is taking a completely objectivist position regarding Dr. Geddes' horn designs. To fully maintain scientific credence, Dr. Geddes ideally should be able to provide objective measurements demonstrating the specific advantages of his horn flare that he claims for it.

I'm more subjectivist than most (but not to the exclusion of objectivity), and I tend to agree (not even having listened to date to his designs) with what Dr. Geddes claims, but providing some real world validation rigor is probably a good idea in validating his claims as witness the global warming alarmist hoax as perpetrated by the UEA CRU, NASA's Dr. Hansen and Penn State's Dr. Mann.
 
Last edited:
'Truesound' is taking a completely objectivist position regarding Dr. Geddes' horn designs. To fully maintain scientific credence, Dr. Geddes ideally should be able to provide objective measurements demonstrating the specific advantages of his horn flare that he claims for it.

I'm more subjectivist than most (but not to the exclusion of objectivity), and I tend to agree (not even having listened to date to his designs) with what Dr. Geddes claims, but providing some real world validation rigor is probably a good idea in validating his claims as witness the global warming alarmist hoax as perpetrated by the UEA CRU, NASA's Dr. Hansen and Penn State's Dr. Mann.

To Truesound: if you eliminate subjective perceptions as "data" then no other loudspeakers provides any "data". Your position is simply ** and I am not going to respond to it any further.

Thoriated: I concur completely, but there is reality to face. In a world where few loudspeakers are ever shown with sufficient objective data, what I provide is light-years ahead of the norm. That I do not have valid scientific data on HOMs is indeed unfortunate, but at least I provide some data. I would love to have more data, but none exists. To have such data would truely be "a good idea", but to provide nothing, as is the norm in this business, is surely "a bad idea".

Let's put things in perspective here. I provide more valid data than virtually any other loudspeaker designer that I know. That I don't have data to the infititesimal degree that anyone could ask for is certainly not a failing, but more a practical limitation. I am not trying to hide anything. Indeed, that is what the other manufacturers are so good at.
 
actually looking at the off axis response of those geddes' horns, the response where you sit, or 10' away from the speaker, you will have less highs...........

What you hear at the listening spot usually closely resembles the off axis response of a loudspeaker.

If I was crossing to a 15", especially near 1khz, I'd want a 1.4" throat compression driver, especially if it is not 24db slope. There are some beyma 1.4" drivers (mylar I think) that are only 4-5db down at 20khz, easy to passively eq the highs back in. Then again, due to the less off axis, I'd assume the geddes OS horn does pinch a bit above 6-8khz, so that would be free boosting there without any components needed.

I'd go for a wider dispersion horn, assuming you can keep it reflection (echo) free.

Here is a winning combination, the mylar beyma 1.4" drivers, the 18sound xt1464 horn, and a 15" or 2. Crossed at 1khz steep, and time aligned.

Norman
 
Status
This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.