Hello,
A friend indicated me that freeware:
FAWAVE
according to the website:
"FAWAVE is free software for performing digital signal processing on digital audio and images. It also can be used to teach the fundamentals of Fourier and wavelet analysis. "
Best regards from Paris, France
Jean-Michel Le Cléac'h
A friend indicated me that freeware:
FAWAVE
according to the website:
"FAWAVE is free software for performing digital signal processing on digital audio and images. It also can be used to teach the fundamentals of Fourier and wavelet analysis. "
Best regards from Paris, France
Jean-Michel Le Cléac'h
Yes indeed. This is the point. If musical and truck horns honk, and playback horns mostly don't - can we learn why? (This would be easier to write in French, as they have different names - cor, klaxon, pavilion)
But if we do get a sound we identify as "honk" in our playback horns, is it happening for the same reason that it happens in a musical horn? To my ears, the deeper horns seem to honk more than the shallow ones. But I doubt that is the only reason.
Going to a shallow, open waveguide seems to lessen the honk, but in other ways does not "sound right". Is there a compromise between horn depth and driver loading?
Hello Panomaniac,
It seems to me that you (and for sure you are not the only one...) are under the influence of Keith Holland and Richard Newell.
Loudspeakers: for music recording ... - Google Livres
Since their famous paper in JAES :
"The Sound of Midrange Horns for Studio Monitors."
JAES Volume 44 Issue 1/2 pp. 23-36; February 1996
many people (even Lynn Olson...) think that only shorts horns can possess low honkiness.
According to my experience this is not true for large horns having low reflection from mouth to throat.
But you are right when it comes to commercial horns: better to limit their length to 1 foot or so...(300-340mm).
In their Jaes paper it is no surprise for me that very few tested commercial horns possess a shape designed in order to generate the lowest reflection at their mouth...
Best regards from Paris, France
Jean-Michel Le Cléac'h
It seems to me that you (and for sure you are not the only one...) are under the influence of Keith Holland and Richard Newell.
Loudspeakers: for music recording ... - Google Livres
Since their famous paper in JAES :
"The Sound of Midrange Horns for Studio Monitors."
JAES Volume 44 Issue 1/2 pp. 23-36; February 1996
many people (even Lynn Olson...) think that only shorts horns can possess low honkiness.
According to my experience this is not true for large horns having low reflection from mouth to throat.
But you are right when it comes to commercial horns: better to limit their length to 1 foot or so...(300-340mm).
In their Jaes paper it is no surprise for me that very few tested commercial horns possess a shape designed in order to generate the lowest reflection at their mouth...
Best regards from Paris, France
Jean-Michel Le Cléac'h
Last edited:
I may be, but I didn't know it!
For me it was just listening that formed my opinion.But I was too brief in my posts. I did not mean to imply that all long horns honk. Certainly they don't. The Iwata, WE 15A, old Vitaphone 11', many of the multi-cell, etc, don't honk. (at least if used within a proper bandwidth) Is this simply due to mouth reflections, or are there other important reasons?
Discontinuities in the throat flare are often sited as a problem.
How can all the measurement we have been doing be used to show the problem and find its cause.
Summarizing my own finding s so far I would second Jean-Michel that its the contour that counts, not the length.
In addition to that I'd say that – besides the contour (the alignment of diffraction) - there must be an influence of the opening angle of the horn as well – meaning the "mouth" area with respect to contour length. The "mouth" here meant as an area where the contour has a strong enough bending to create a – more or less – discrete plain of half mirroring (reflection). This IMO must be that way, because - if you look at my honkers which all have the same contour length - the narrow angle horn has a higher ration of perimeter / mouth area .
We have to recall that the reflection occurs at the point of diffraction – hence right at the contour (and not somewhere within the mouth area).
So the "second source" created by diffraction has its origin *at the contour* – we have to be aware that there simply is higher energy right at the contour perimeter for a narrow angle horn with higher ration of perimeter / area.
Hence there also is increase in reflected energy with respect to total energy transmitted.
A little complicated as I put it – hope the meaning hasn't got lost completely...
For a given contour length - the point I wanted to make regarding reflection is that there is contour that counts (obviously), and there is mouth area that counts (if you have something like a "mouth" at all) – that's it
Regarding "contour" - the lesser you create a "mouth area" the better (see LeCleach contour)
Regarding "Mouth area" – the bigger for a given contour length the better (because already lower energy at point of reflection)
Horn or contour length is not in the equation IMO (it would only shift resonant frequency but not reflection strength)
Michael
In addition to that I'd say that – besides the contour (the alignment of diffraction) - there must be an influence of the opening angle of the horn as well – meaning the "mouth" area with respect to contour length. The "mouth" here meant as an area where the contour has a strong enough bending to create a – more or less – discrete plain of half mirroring (reflection). This IMO must be that way, because - if you look at my honkers which all have the same contour length - the narrow angle horn has a higher ration of perimeter / mouth area .
We have to recall that the reflection occurs at the point of diffraction – hence right at the contour (and not somewhere within the mouth area).
So the "second source" created by diffraction has its origin *at the contour* – we have to be aware that there simply is higher energy right at the contour perimeter for a narrow angle horn with higher ration of perimeter / area.
Hence there also is increase in reflected energy with respect to total energy transmitted.
A little complicated as I put it – hope the meaning hasn't got lost completely...
For a given contour length - the point I wanted to make regarding reflection is that there is contour that counts (obviously), and there is mouth area that counts (if you have something like a "mouth" at all) – that's it
Regarding "contour" - the lesser you create a "mouth area" the better (see LeCleach contour)
Regarding "Mouth area" – the bigger for a given contour length the better (because already lower energy at point of reflection)
Horn or contour length is not in the equation IMO (it would only shift resonant frequency but not reflection strength)
Michael
Last edited:
Did you get anything meaningful - regarding our topic - out of this software ?
Seems this one has more strength at picture processing - havn't made it towards something interesting - but maybe I have overlooked ??
Michael
It will certainly shift the frequency. But in musical horns at least, contour does change the timbre. A cornet is said to be more "mellow" than a trumpet because it has a conical bore, as opposed to the straight bore of the trumpet. Same for other brass and even woodwind instruments.
I do not know if this applies to our replay horns. But it might.
Hello Michael,
I gave a look yesterday evening and find this freeware totally unsatisfactory for our purposes (analysis of pulse responses). Better to forget it...
Best regards from Paris, France
Jean-Michel Le Cléac'h
I gave a look yesterday evening and find this freeware totally unsatisfactory for our purposes (analysis of pulse responses). Better to forget it...
Best regards from Paris, France
Jean-Michel Le Cléac'h
Ha! you ain't kidding. But if it were easy, we would have had perfect horns for decades.
That fact that we are here discussing this does tell us something.At work we were looking at the new Meyer Sound "Mina" small array boxes. It's a horn flanked by 2 small cone drivers. Word has it that Meyer spent many $1000s on the development of this horn. Indeed, not easy!!
Ha! you ain't kidding. But if it were easy, we would have had perfect horns for decades.
At work we were looking at the new Meyer Sound "Mina" small array boxes. It's a horn flanked by 2 small cone drivers. Word has it that Meyer spent many $1000s on the development of this horn. Indeed, not easy!!
Sounds like something similar to Danley's new SM series Synergy Horns?
Perhaps already known but I found this while looking for something else:
Factors Affecting Sonic Quality of Mid & HF Horns & Waveguides - Lansing Heritage Forums
"Horn distortion due to internal reflections: “Horn-Honk”
Factors Affecting Sonic Quality of Mid & HF Horns & Waveguides - Lansing Heritage Forums
"Horn distortion due to internal reflections: “Horn-Honk”
Thanks, all this stuff leads us back to HOMs (we have several threads on that topic).
You are seeing stored energy in Compression drivers and horns?? Any real data or just simulations??
Rob
What does stored energy look like in the CSD?
Intuition says a longer decay rate but I am not sure that is entirely correct. Easier to see in an ETC graph.
Rob
Thanks, Next noob question and Im sure you know this is coming....
How do we do an ETC graph?
Only if you don't ask it
It's generated from the impulse response. Here's one as an example. It's an overlay of 2 cone drivers. Ones a 4" Filled Polypropylene midrange the other is an 8" Polymer damped paper cone midrange. It's essentially the same as CSD without a 3rd axis for frequency. You only see time and relative SPL. Zero being your peak level somewhere in the mix.
Rob
Attachments
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.