| David McBean |
Hi Everyone,
Just letting you know that Hornresp Version 18.00 has now been released.
The Tapped Horn Wizard tool has been significantly enhanced. For a given overall horn length, flare rate and driver specification, the optimum driver position can be determined more easily than before.
Note that there are three ‘Interaction’ options. The operation of the first two should be pretty obvious from the titles. The third ‘L12 & L34 Linked’ setting enables the user to “slide” the driver along the mounting baffle / separating panel towards or away from the 180 degree bend (similar to changing the acoustic path length of a slide trombone).
Hopefully the Tapped Horn Wizard is now a far more useful tool. Enjoy :-).
Kind regards,
David |
|
|
| cowanaudio |
WOW, that's great David, thanks again for your continuing efforts!
PS I only just noticed that a large L1-2 can give a very big improvement in response shape. It causes a big notch that removes the first peak, leaving a response that is very easy to crossover. An L1-2 of 70cm works brilliantly on a 35Hz tapped horn I'm playing with. It uses up very little space because the area at that end of the horn is so small (even tapering to zero if you want.) I never noticed this effect before.
Cheers
William Cowan |
|
|
| David McBean |
| quote: | Originally posted by cowanaudio
WOW, that's great David, thanks again for your continuing efforts! |
Thanks William - the new wizard certainly makes it a lot easier to “tune” a tapped horn, and it is also great fun to use :-).
Incidentally, I found an error in the code controlling the L12 and L34 scroll bars - please use Product Number 1800-080323 or higher.
Kind regards,
David |
|
|
| kstrain |
David,
the latest version is great!
My TH, finished yesterday, was designed using v17 (and a little AkAbaK). Thank you. Measurements to follow elsewhere, when I convince myself that I have something reliable to show.
The TH wizard would certainly have accelerated the process. This is particularly the case as - knowing that what I built would be an approximation - I looked for low sensitivity to L12 and L34 which are probably the most difficult parameters to hit spot on, given they are about the same order as the driver dimensions and transverse directions in the horn. Sliding the sliders and seeing minimal changes to the response was something of a relief.
Ken |
|
|
| MaVo |
| A very nice idea, i like it alot. With growing CPU power, programs where you change a variable and instantly see the frequency response change, instead of clicking on "compute it", seem to be the logical next step. |
|
|
| David McBean |
Thanks Ken, thanks MaVo.
Hornresp Version 18.10 has just been released - tapped horns can now have a throat chamber. The TH schematic diagram has been modified to show the throat chamber, and the two sides of the driver diaphragm are now more clearly displayed.
Kind regards,
David |
|
|
| David McBean |
Hi Everyone,
Hornresp Version 18.20 has just been released - tapped horns can now have two segments between the driver entry points if required. See Note 7 on page 15 of the Help file for details.
Kind regards,
David |
|
|
| iand |
| quote: | Originally posted by David McBean
Hi Everyone,
Hornresp Version 18.20 has just been released - tapped horns can now have two segments between the driver entry points if required. See Note 7 on page 15 of the Help file for details.
Kind regards,
David |
Hi David
Excellent news, it's often possible to get better response with a slow flare section followed by a faster one between the tap points -- see Tom's patent, first in the list at http://tinyurl.com/2xkxav
Is there a reason the tapped horn wizard doesn't work with 4 sections? It doesn't change the horn shape, only slides the tap points along the predefined shape, so I don't see the reason.
Cheers
Ian |
|
|
| tb46 |
Another very useful and fun addition to a great program.
Thanks David.:) |
|
|
| David McBean |
| quote: | Originally posted by iand
Is there a reason the tapped horn wizard doesn't work with 4 sections? It doesn't change the horn shape, only slides the tap points along the predefined shape, so I don't see the reason. |
Hi Ian,
In a four-segment horn the tap points are defined by the values of L12 and L45. Shifting the tap points in a horn having a fixed overall length will alter the lengths of segments 1 and 4, and therefore the overall profile of the horn.
In a three-segment horn the tap points are defined by the values of L12 and L34. The Wizard automatically re-sets the profile to that of a single flare using the expansion rate of the middle segment (either Con or Exp) with the throat area being S1, the mouth area being S4 and the overall length being L12 + L23 + L34.
If this is done with a four-segment horn, it defeats the purpose of initially specifying two different-profile segments between the tap points.
The way that the input screen and simulation model are structured, the tap points cannot be defined independently - they need to be specified using segment length values.
Hope this makes sense :-).
Kind regards,
David |
|
|
| David McBean |
| quote: | Originally posted by tb46
Another very useful and fun addition to a great program.
Thanks David.:) |
Thanks Oliver :-)
Kind regards,
David |
|
|
| David McBean |
| quote: | Originally posted by iand
Is there a reason the tapped horn wizard doesn't work with 4 sections? It doesn't change the horn shape, only slides the tap points along the predefined shape, so I don't see the reason. |
Hi Ian,
After posting my last message I thought some more about how the tapped horn wizard could be made to work with a four segment system, and have already started work on implementing the necessary changes :-).
The four segment input form will be as shown in the attached screenprint. Note that only those parameter values that are changed by the operation of the wizard are now displayed (S1, S3 and S5 values are not shown).
I will let everyone know once Hornresp Version 18.30 is released. It may take me a week or so to arrange, as I am a bit short on time at the moment.
Kind regards,
David |
|
|
| Thawach |
David Please quickly. i'm waiting for as the same.
Thanks.... Thanks...Thanks:) |
|
|
| iand |
| quote: | Originally posted by David McBean
Hi Ian,
After posting my last message I thought some more about how the tapped horn wizard could be made to work with a four segment system, and have already started work on implementing the necessary changes :-).
The four segment input form will be as shown in the attached screenprint. Note that only those parameter values that are changed by the operation of the wizard are now displayed (S1, S3 and S5 values are not shown).
I will let everyone know once Hornresp Version 18.30 is released. It may take me a week or so to arrange, as I am a bit short on time at the moment.
Kind regards,
David |
David, you deserve a medal :-)
Cheers
Ian |
|
|
| David McBean |
Hi Thawach and Ian,
Just letting you know that Hornresp Version 18.30 has been released. The tapped horn wizard now works with both three and four segment systems.
Kind regards,
David |
|
|
| Thawach |
McBean u are good...good...good...good...and good and good=very good. i'm waiting for...waiting for...waiting for.....=a long time
O..O..che i love u rarely.
Thanks
:D |
|
|
| iand |
| quote: | Originally posted by David McBean
Hi Thawach and Ian,
Just letting you know that Hornresp Version 18.30 has been released. The tapped horn wizard now works with both three and four segment systems.
Kind regards,
David |
That was a *very* short week... :-)
Thanks for all the work, it's rare indeed to get such a rapid response (or sometimes, any response) to requests for software enhancements.
Ian |
|
|
| tb46 |
Hi David,
After installing V18.30 I got an
"Invalid result. Change input data." error
on all tapped horn simulations.
I'm attaching an input parameter sheet for you to see. Maybe you can help. V18.20 works just great.
If you would be so kind as to take a look at this and let me know what I'm missing, I would appreciate it.
Thanks again for all the fine work, Regards |
|
|
| Sabbelbacke |
Same here. "normal" horns seem to work fine, though. Switching to the tapped horn wizard shows calculated results.
Adding a 4th segment seems to get it working again.
One other thing I just encountered:
When using the max-SPL feature, a given limitation due to excursion is labeled as "power limited". It´s late already, am I thinking right, shouldn´t it be "xmax limited"?
I missed 18.20, does anybody have a copy?
David, once again. Thank you!!! |
|
|
| 454Casull |
| It says "given no xmax limit". How can it be xmax limited? |
|
|
| Ivo |
I just had the same problem with the tapped horn feature. Just make it 4 segments instead of 3 and it works again. I like the slide feature. It took me a few tries to get agile, but then it speeded up the process of alignment tremendously.
David, you are updating at an alarming rate! :D
What more can we expect? I would be interested in a tapped horn alignment wizard (enter length and driver and the wizard sorts out optimal driver position, that sort of thing). But, to be honest, I'm getting pretty good results without it. :) |
|
|
| tb46 |
Thanks Ivo, that work around works.
:) |
|
|
| Thawach |
Hi everyone who like the same...same.
David tell me that now he is working hard for a new version. he can not answer everyone because he is busy because me. i think the next version will coming soon. the name may be change that the Hornresp thawach Version. David are u o..che?lol:D :D :smash: |
|
|
| Ivo |
| No rush, plenty to do myself... :( |
|
|
| Thawach |
| Ivo! don't too old . still young....still young will be happy.:whazzat: |
|
|
| Sabbelbacke |
| quote: | Originally posted by 454Casull
It says "given no xmax limit". How can it be xmax limited? |
It was late, I should have elaboratet more :)
Excursion of a 2x15" TH looks like this:
So at 60Hz there is a max.
Now using max-SPL feature with 1,8kW and 9,6mm xmax gives:
As far as I understand it, the xmax-feature gives a response curve depending on whether xmax or max power is reached. Input Power here was 1800 Watt, xmax was defindes as 9,6mm.
So if theoratical excursion would be 27mm when driven with 1800 watts, its more than xmax. Therefore xmax should be the limiting factor at 60 Hz. hornresp claims "power limited" though.
Looking at a simulation of a closed design with a different speaker (18") looks like this:
with xmax at 9,8mm and 1250 Watts. The Limitation in the low end is obvious.
Here the sample-feature gives a correct "excursion limited"
 |
|
|
| GM |
| quote: | Originally posted by tb46
After installing V18.30 I got an
"Invalid result. Change input data." error
on all tapped horn simulations. |
FWIW I'm not having this problem, it works with all the old three segment TPs, THs I tried, as well as a couple of new four segment ones, but it doesn't always import the correct 'S2' data in both three or four segment ones, instead some value between 'S1' and 'S2', so of course the response plot is all wrong.
GM |
|
|
| GM |
Well, I downloaded it again and re-installed it to see if it would cure my problem, but now I can't view any of my previous three segment TPs, THs, without first adding a 4th section, plus none of the wizard's fields are working right. :(
GM |
|
|
| David McBean |
| quote: | Originally posted by iand
That was a *very* short week... :-) |
Hi Ian,
I should have spent more time on pre-release testing - two obvious errors slipped through :-). The problems have now been rectified. A subtle bug that I discovered recently in the Wavefront Simulator has also been fixed.
Kind regards,
David |
|
|
| David McBean |
| quote: | Originally posted by tb46
If you would be so kind as to take a look at this and let me know what I'm missing, I would appreciate it. |
Hi Oliver,
You are not missing anything :-).
Thanks for bringing the error to my attention - it has now been fixed.
Product Number 1830-080408 refers.
Kind regards,
David |
|
|
| David McBean |
| quote: | Originally posted by Sabbelbacke
When using the max-SPL feature, a given limitation due to excursion is labeled as "power limited". It´s late already, am I thinking right, shouldn´t it be "xmax limited"? |
Hi Sabbelbacke,
Your thinking is exactly right :-).
Thanks for bringing the error to my attention - it has now been fixed.
Product Number 1830-080408 refers.
Kind regards,
David |
|
|
| David McBean |
| quote: | Originally posted by Ivo
What more can we expect? I would be interested in a tapped horn alignment wizard (enter length and driver and the wizard sorts out optimal driver position, that sort of thing). |
Hi Ivo,
I suspect that it could be very difficult to develop an automated tapped horn alignment wizard along the lines that you have suggested. The latest "scroll bar" version is probably the best that I can come up with :-).
I am currently working on developing an offset driver model. Because of the magnitude of the changes required to Hornresp, it will be released as Version 19.00.
Kind regards,
David |
|
|
| Sabbelbacke |
Thanx again David!!! I just tried it, old data works again and "excursion limited" is back, too :)
Just noticed one minor thing, which might be "on purpose" after all:
If I use the "tapped horn slider wizard", leave the dialog via "save" button and don´t calculate again, there is no safety "save data" pop up like usual. Leaving the current design via "next/previous" or quitting hornresp results in loss of the new values from the wizard.
Best regards :)
|
|
|
| tb46 |
Hi David,
Thanks for the quick follow up. I second Sabbelbacke's remark on the "save data" issue. Otherwise everything seems to work just fine.
Wish I could say the same about my old simulations, as old fumble fingers managed to loose two month worth of playing. Note to self: moving a file is not the same as copying a file.
Oh well, thanks again, Regards:) |
|
|
| Ivo |
| quote: | Originally posted by David McBean
The latest "scroll bar" version is probably the best that I can come up with :-). |
It's great already, I was just pushing it a little, since you are open to such things.
| quote: | Originally posted by David McBean
I am currently working on developing an offset driver model. Because of the magnitude of the changes required to Hornresp, it will be released as Version 19.00. |
Did I spark that after all? ;) |
|
|
| David McBean |
| quote: | Originally posted by Sabbelbacke
Just noticed one minor thing, which might be "on purpose" after all:
If I use the "tapped horn slider wizard", leave the dialog via "save" button and don´t calculate again, there is no safety "save data" pop up like usual. |
Hi Sabbelbacke,
It is definitely not on purpose :-).
Thanks again for the great feedback, the error has now been fixed - Product Number 1830-080411 refers.
This will teach me not to work on the program when I should really be sleeping :-).
Kind regards,
David |
|
|
| David McBean |
| quote: | Originally posted by Ivo
Did I spark that after all? ;) |
Hi Ivo,
You certainly did :-).
Kind regards,
David |
|
|
| David McBean |
| quote: | Originally posted by tb46
Thanks for the quick follow up. I second Sabbelbacke's remark on the "save data" issue. Otherwise everything seems to work just fine. |
Thanks Oliver.
| quote: | Originally posted by tb46
Wish I could say the same about my old simulations, as old fumble fingers managed to loose two month worth of playing. |
Your comment has reminded me of something - my next posting refers :-).
Kind regards,
David |
|
|
| David McBean |
Hi Everyone,
A few users have reported problems with corrupted Hornresp.dat data files. When investigated, the corruption is invariably found to be due to switching back to an earlier version of Hornresp after having opened the data file with a more recent version of the program.
Please note that the program automatically updates an existing data file as necessary with each new release. Once a data file has been opened using a particular version of Hornresp, under no circumstances should that file then again be used with an earlier version of the program. The safest course of action is to delete any earlier version of the program that you may be using, each time you download a new release.
An earlier version of the program has no way of knowing how to interpret a data file that has been modified by a later release of Hornresp.
Kind regards,
David |
|
|
| Sabbelbacke |
Hy David.
Thanx for the helpfull reminder and the quick fixup :) |
|
|
| David McBean |
| quote: | Originally posted by Sabbelbacke
Hy David.
Thanx for the helpfull reminder and the quick fixup :) |
Hi Sabbelbacke,
No problem :-). If you find any more bugs, please let me know.
Kind regards,
David |
|
|
| Paul W |
Hi David,
First, thanks for a great tool!
Question...
With a conical or OS, I am seeing directivity dramatically narrow just above LF cutoff. Is this because there is no baffle or mouth treatment? If not, what does cause it?
Thanks,
Paul |
|
|
| MaVo |
| That seems to be characteristical for conical horns. I remember Tom Danley posting about this, but not where, maybe the audio asylum. In the unity and synergy horns this is countered with a short horn segment at the end of the horn which has a slightly wider angle than most of the horn. But it seems that hornresp cant simulate the radiation pattern for multi segment horns, so i cannot check if this is true. |
|
|
| David McBean |
| quote: | Originally posted by Paul W
Hi David,
First, thanks for a great tool!
Question...
With a conical or OS, I am seeing directivity dramatically narrow just above LF cutoff. Is this because there is no baffle or mouth treatment? If not, what does cause it?
Thanks,
Paul |
Hi Paul,
It gets a bit complicated, but essentially the effect is due to the shape and size of the wavefronts in a conical horn relative to wavelength. Note that the directivity narrowing actually occurs in practice - it is not just in the simulation results that you will see it.
Kind regards,
David |
|
|
| David McBean |
Hi Everyone,
Hornresp Version 19.00 has just been released. Changes are:
1. Offset driver horns can be modelled. See Note 7 on page 15 of the Help file for details.
2. The tapped horn option is selected differently. See Note 8 on page 15 of the Help file for details.
3. The Multiple Drivers tool is now the Driver Arrangement tool. The number and position of drivers can be specified.
4. The profile information for the left and right side walls of a rectangular cross-section horn is now also exported, where the data can be directly calculated. See Note 14 on page 17 of the Help file for details.
5. A bug in the Tapped Horn Wizard which “froze” the program under some circumstances, has been fixed.
Kind regards,
David |
|
|
| Brett |
| Thank you David. Us hornies owe you a large debt of gratitude. |
|
|
| MaVo |
| Yay for the offset driver option! Building my unity/synergy horn would have been alot easier this way. But now i can use it in my first revision :) Thanks! |
|
|
| Sabbelbacke |
| Once again: THANK YOU!!!! |
|
|
| Paul W |
| quote: | | It gets a bit complicated, but essentially the effect is due to the shape and size of the wavefronts in a conical horn relative to wavelength. |
David,
Would you say a bit more about this? I'd like to understand the root cause a little better.
Thanks,
Paul |
|
|
| MikeHunt79 |
I only started using this program last week, and it's excellent.
I just want to say thanks and keep up the good work. :) |
|
|
| David McBean |
| quote: | Originally posted by Paul W
David,
Would you say a bit more about this? I'd like to understand the root cause a little better.
Thanks,
Paul |
Hi Paul,
The following references may be of some help - they cover in reasonable detail the key factors that influence the directional properties of horns.
* 'Acoustical Engineering' by Harry F Olson
* 'Acoustics' by Leo L Beranek
Kind regards,
David |
|
|
| David McBean |
Thanks Brett, MaVo, Sabbelbacke and MikeHunt79 :-).
Kind regards,
David |
|
|
| revintage |
Hi David,
How do I simulate a horn with a compression driver, in my case JBL 2441 ? Have checked your help and googled but haven´t found anything. |
|
|
| David McBean |
| quote: | Originally posted by revintage
Hi David,
How do I simulate a horn with a compression driver, in my case JBL 2441? |
Hi Lars,
Just the same as for any other driver :-). One problem could be finding the driver parameter values, as they are not normally released by the manufacturer. It will also be necessary to determine the throat chamber size, which is in the compression driver itself.
Contrary to popular belief, Hornresp models the power response of compression-driven midrange horns quite accurately, provided that the input parameter values are correct.
Kind regards,
David |
|
|
| revintage |
| Thought it would be so. Just found an AES-paper with hopefully complete data for a JBL 375. But as you say, the parameters seems hard to find. |
|
|
| tb46 |
Hi David,
I had a problem in Version 19.00-08041: after adding a speaker the program created an additional entry "002" that gave a "Subscript out of range" error everytime I tried to open it, and when clicking OK in the error window Hornresp shut down.
I could not remove this entry in version 19, but was able to get rid of it by going back to version 18.30 which opened the empty entry, and allowed me to delete it. After reinstalling version 19.00 all seems fine.
Just thought you should know, thanks for Version 19.
Regards, |
|
|
| David McBean |
| quote: | Originally posted by tb46
Hi David,
I had a problem in Version 19.00-080414: after adding a speaker the program created an additional entry "002" that gave a "Subscript out of range" error everytime I tried to open it, and when clicking OK in the error window Hornresp shut down.
I could not remove this entry in version 19, but was able to get rid of it by going back to version 18.30 which opened the empty entry, and allowed me to delete it. After reinstalling version 19.00 all seems fine.
Just thought you should know, thanks for Version 19.
Regards, |
Hi Oliver,
Many thanks for the feedback. I suspect that you may have had two copies of Hornresp running at the same time, at some stage :-). Editing, adding or deleting records using one copy of Hornresp while another one is also open, will generate the problem you have experienced. Could you please let me know if you had two copies of Hornresp running, sharing a common data file.
In any event, it is strongly recommended that only one copy of Hornresp be run at a time, and as mentioned in a previous post, under no circumstances should an earlier version of the program be used after the data file has been opened by a more recent version.
Incidentally I have just released a minor upgrade which fixes two subtle user interface bugs that I found yesterday. Product Number 1900-080418 refers.
Thanks again for the excellent feedback.
Kind regards,
David |
|
|
| tb46 |
Hi David,
You are correct, I have had two copies of Hornresp running at the same time before. It is interesting, that I have not experienced any problems like this earlier. I quite frequently have had one window open to see e.g.: the input parameters or the SPL curve while working in another. Well, got to stop doing that, it's easy enough to work around.
I have been amazed how forgiving your software is in comparison to many others out there. Thanks for the steady stream of updates.
Regards, |
|
|
| David McBean |
| quote: | Originally posted by tb46
Hi David,
You are correct, I have had two copies of Hornresp running at the same time before. |
Hi Oliver,
Many thanks for the confirmation. I have now included a cautionary note in the Readme.txt file supplied as part of the download package, warning users not to edit, add or delete records while running multiple copies of Hornresp.
Please note that it is quite okay to run multiple copies, provided that they all have the same version number. The important thing is not to edit, add or delete any records while the multiple copies are running.
Thanks again for the very useful feedback.
Kind regards,
David |
|
|
| tb46 |
| quote: | | ...The important thing is not to edit, add or delete any records while the multiple copies are running. |
Got it.
Thanks David.:) |
|
|
| David McBean |
| quote: | Originally posted by David McBean
Please note that it is quite okay to run multiple copies, provided that they all have the same version number. The important thing is not to edit, add or delete any records while the multiple copies are running. |
Hi Oliver,
I have done some further testing and found, contrary to my earlier comment above, that it is really too risky to allow multiple copies of Hornresp to run, under any circumstances. Adding or deleting records in the first copy before the second copy is opened, can lead to all sorts of unpredictable outcomes. If the two copies happen to have different version numbers, then the potential problems are even worse.
Hornresp Version 19.10 safeguards against any inadvertent corruption of the data file in this fashion by allowing only one copy of Hornresp to run at a time.
Also, from Version 19.10 onwards it will no longer be possible to open the Hornresp.dat data file if it has previously been opened by a more recent release of the program. This should also assist in preventing inadvertent corruption of the data file, going forward.
Thanks for raising the issue - you have helped to make Hornresp a better product :-).
Kind regards,
David |
|
|
| Jmmlc |
Hello Lars,
As an example of compression driver simulation under HornResp you'll find in that link, my simulation using the TAD TD2001:
http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/h.../12/128658.html
Best regards from Paris, France
Jean-Michel Le Cléac'h
| quote: | Originally posted by revintage
Hi David,
How do I simulate a horn with a compression driver, in my case JBL 2441 ? Have checked your help and googled but haven´t found anything. |
|
|
|
| revintage |
Hello Jean Michel,
Thanks for the link, very interesting. Funny, I had your or the kugelwellen horn in mind. Wanted to do a 180Hz horn as this seems to be the flare of the short horn in the driver. My intention was to try it from 300Hz.
I have used your spreadsheet and another KW-spreadsheet for calculations. Was interested in a simulation just to verify.
As I mentioned in another post I have found data for the 375 in an AES-paper by Geddes but the area and volume figures do not make sense.
Brgds |
|
|
| revintage |
| These are the of the JBL 375. Anyone who cares to translate to metric? |
|
|
| David McBean |
Hi Jean-Michel,
No, I was not aware of this new software - many thanks for bringing it to my attention.
It looks very interesting, although it does not seem to be available for download just yet - at least it wasn't when I tried.
Kind regards,
David |
|
|
| David McBean |
Hi Everyone,
Just letting you know that I have released yet another minor update to Hornresp. The change does not justify a new version number, but the product number is now 1910-080515.
Change Details: Typically when developing a loudspeaker system, Hornresp users tend to start with a base design and then iterate and refine from there. In the past, when a record was edited and a new record then added, any changes made to the old record could either be saved to both the old and new records, or not saved to either record.
With the new release, when a record is edited and a new record then added, any changes made to the old record can either be saved to both the old and new records, or just to the new record only.
This means that it is now much easier to generate and preserve a series of iterations leading from the base starting design to the final system specification. In other words, it comes in handy if you wish to maintain an “audit trail”, documenting the evolution of a particular design project over a number of records.
On another issue, a number of users have asked me to explain the significance of the Hornresp product number. It simply represents the version number with the point separator removed, followed by the software release date in year / month / day order. For example, the current release of Version 19.10 was uploaded on 15 April 2008. This means that the product number for this release is 1910-080515 (format is vvvv-yymmdd).
At the moment the product number can change quite frequently, sometimes almost on a daily basis. I am continually tinkering with the code looking for ways to further refine and improve the program. Sometimes the change may not be apparent to the user, but in other cases it will be quite obvious. Please note that most of the changes are now related to the operation of the context-sensitive user interface, and the elimination of very subtle bugs and logic errors that I still manage to find from time to time. Very few changes are being made to the actual simulation models used in the program.
Incidentally, if anyone does come across a bug or “unexpected outcome” while using Hornresp, please do not hesitate to let me know, as I greatly value such feedback.
Also, I would be very interested to learn if Hornresp works with the new Vista operating systems (32-bit and/or 64-bit). Unfortunately I only have access to Windows XP myself.
Thanks in anticipation for any information.
Kind regards,
David |
|
|
| Sabbelbacke |
| Once again, thank you for your great effort and this nice peace of software! |
|
|
| David McBean |
Thanks Sabbelbacke :-).
Kind regards,
David |
|
|
| Jmmlc |
Dear David,
After I send with the message
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/show...648#post1520648
a graph with simulations performed under Hornresp that allow to compare the response of different type of 160Hz horns (exponential, hypex, tractrix, Le Cléac'h, ...) to the response of the waveguide having the same length and mouth diameter than the exponential, Earl Geddes wrote in that message:
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/show...813#post1520813
that the simulations given by Hornresp for the oblate spheroidal waveguide "are wrong".
Well, I would just let pass the information...
Best regards from Paris, France
Jean-Michel Le Cléac'h |
|
|
| David McBean |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jmmlc
Dear David,
After I send with the message
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/show...648#post1520648
a graph with simulations performed under Hornresp that allow to compare the response of different type of 160Hz horns (exponential, hypex, tractrix, Le Cléac'h, ...) to the response of the waveguide having the same length and mouth diameter than the exponential, Earl Geddes wrote in that message:
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/show...813#post1520813
that the simulations given by Hornresp for the oblate spheroidal waveguide "are wrong".
Well, I would just let pass the information...
Best regards from Paris, France
Jean-Michel Le Cléac'h |
Hi Jean-Michel,
Many thanks for the above information.
Hornresp uses the same isophase wavefront model for all horn flare types (including the OS waveguide).
Not having any measured results to compare the OS W/G predictions against, there is probably little that I can do at this stage to improve the generalised model.
It is interesting to note that it appears to be only with OS waveguides that the predicted versus actual results are significantly different (reportedly). I see that you have assumed corner loading in your calculations. Perhaps the results might have been closer if 2 Pi had been used?
Kind regards,
David |
|
|
| Jmmlc |
Hello David,
Thanks for your reply which confirms my thoughts.
You'll find as attached file 2 simulations performed under Hornresp using the 2 Pi solid angle as you recommanded.
Please note that I choose the same dimensions for the horn (Fc = 160Hz as in the Azura 160 horn and the waveguide.
Here is a picture of the Azura 160 horn
http://www.azurahorn.com/images/Yam...1B_on_AH160.jpg
and its measured response is here:
http://www.azurahorn.com/6681_on_160.pdf
The simulations performed with Hornresp confirm what I know since my reading of H. Olson (e.g. fig 5.5 p.105 in Acoustical Engineering, Ed. Prof. Audio. Journ. 1991):
throat impedance for a conical horn (and an OS waveguide behaves very much the same regarding throat impedance) is very low in the low frequency domain compared to the throat impedance of an exponential horn or an hypex horn. From this lesser loading at LF of the diaphragm there is with the conical horn or the waveguide a lost in efficiency in the conversion by the driver from electrical energy to acoustical energy (at frequencies at which exponential or hypex horns still have a high efficiency).
I was puzzled the first time when Earl Geddes wrote on AudioAsylum that the LF part of the reponse of different horns and waveguide (... of comparable dimensions) is not related to the profile between the throat horns and waveguide :
see: http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/show...956#post1521956
"Any device placed on a compression driver loads the same above some LF point. They will all approach the characteristic impedance of air divided by the throat area. So everything "loads" the same. Thats why I ignore "loading" as irrelavent. Loading and cutoff are both concepts that are not relavent factors in a device whose primary intent is to control directivity."
As he possess a recognized authority even I thought that I was minsinterpreting his thought and pass over.
What do you think of Earl Geddes formulation? (I'll undesrtand if you don't reply...)
Best regards from Paris, France
Jean-Michel Le Cléac'h
| quote: | Originally posted by David McBean
Hi Jean-Michel,
Many thanks for the above information.
Hornresp uses the same isophase wavefront model for all horn flare types (including the OS waveguide).
Not having any measured results to compare the OS W/G predictions against, there is probably little that I can do at this stage to improve the generalised model.
It is interesting to note that it appears to be only with OS waveguides that the predicted versus actual results are significantly different (reportedly). I see that you have assumed corner loading in your calculations. Perhaps the results might have been closer if 2 Pi had been used?
Kind regards,
David |
Earl Geddes: Any device placed on a compression driver loads the same above some LF point. They will all approach the characteristic impedance of air divided by the throat area. So everything "loads" the same. Thats why I ignore "loading" as irrelavent. Loading and cutoff are both concepts that are not relavent factors in a device whose primary intent is to control directivity. |
|
|
| David McBean |
Hi Jean-Michel,
Many thanks for the additional information. The comparison of predicted vs measured results for the Azura 160 horn is very interesting. The low frequency roll-off point seems to have been reasonably accurately predicted. Are your simulation results showing the constant directivity power response, or the on-axis pressure response?
"Any device placed on a compression driver loads the same above some LF point."
The above statement can be readily verified using Hornresp, by checking the acoustical impedance charts for different horn types having identical throat areas. At 20000 hertz the throat acoustical impedances are effectively the same for all types (normalised resistance ~ 1, normalised reactance ~0).
With regard to the OS waveguide itself, strictly speaking the device is actually a horn and not a waveguide (by definition, a waveguide is a non-radiating transmission line with the propagated energy being "guided" from one point to another). Also, from a physics and geometry viewpoint there is nothing really special or unique about the 'OS waveguide'. It is simply yet another horn flare, asymptotic to a conical horn, but with a transition at the throat which facilitates the wavefront shape changing from plane to curved as the sound propagates down the horn.
Kind regards,
David |
|
|
| Jmmlc |
Hello David,
In both examples, the curves are related to constant directivity response.
Thanks for your remark about Earl's sentence.
As in the discussion it came when we disussed comparison of the efficiency at low LF between horns and waveguides, I was thinking (probably wrongly) that this not well defined "some LF point" was situated by example in the frequency domain for which the resistive part of the acoustical impedance was a fraction ( e.g. "half") of the resistive part of the acoustical impedance at highest frequency.
Also I did a parallel with what Earl Geddes wrote in his reply to the AudioXpress editor"
http://www.gedlee.com/downloads/Hor...ory%20reply.pdf
B. Kolbrek wrote: "Well at least the horn equation is good for predicting the shapes that one needs in order to achieve good impedance loading – at least at low frequencies!”
E. Geddes: "Sure, except that it turns out that virtually any shape connecting a given throat and mouth area will yield approximately the same impedance – within a dB or so. In the long wavelength region where the Horn Equation is valid, shape is simply not a significant factor, the waves don’t see shape. Basically they only see the inlet and the outlet areas and the distance between them and everything else is of secondary importance."
I interpreted this, and I am not the only one (it was even translated by someone on a French audio forum), as if Earl Gedddes was saying that whatever is the flare shape the throat impedance was the same at low frequency for horns and waveguides having comparable dimensions...
But this is probably due to my poor knowledge of the arcanes of the English language.
Best regards from Paris, France
Jean-Michel Le CLéac'h
| quote: | Originally posted by David McBean
Hi Jean-Michel,
Many thanks for the additional information. The comparison of predicted vs measured results for the Azura 160 horn is very interesting. The low frequency roll-off point seems to have been reasonably accurately predicted. Are your simulation results showing the constant directivity power response, or the on-axis pressure response?
"Any device placed on a compression driver loads the same above some LF point."
The above statement can be readily verified using Hornresp, by checking the acoustical impedance charts for different horn types having identical throat areas. At 20000 hertz the throat acoustical impedances are effectively the same for all types (normalised resistance ~ 1, normalised reactance ~0).
With regard to the OS waveguide itself, strictly speaking the device is actually a horn and not a waveguide (by definition, a waveguide is a non-radiating transmission line with the propagated energy being "guided" from one point to another). Also, from a physics and geometry viewpoint there is nothing really special or unique about the 'OS waveguide'. It is simply yet another horn flare, asymptotic to a conical horn, but with a transition at the throat which facilitates the wavefront shape changing from plane to curved as the sound propagates down the horn.
Kind regards,
David |
|
|
|
| David McBean |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jmmlc
"Sure, except that it turns out that virtually any shape connecting a given throat and mouth area will yield approximately the same impedance – within a dB or so. In the long wavelength region where the Horn Equation is valid, shape is simply not a significant factor, the waves don’t see shape. Basically they only see the inlet and the outlet areas and the distance between them and everything else is of secondary importance." |
Hi Jean-Michel,
Thanks for the extra background information - I can now see why there could be some confusion out there :-).
The above statement is certainly true for very short horns and for long slow-flaring horns where the mouth area is not much larger than the throat area. Following are the measured throat impedances for an exponential horn and a tractrix horn having similar throat areas, mouth areas and axial lengths. Based on this data, I leave it to you to decide whether the comment can be applied generally to all horns :-). It would be really interesting to be able to compare the measured exponential and tractrix throat impedance results against those for either a parabolic or conical horn having identical dimensions.
To complete the picture, I have also included Hornresp-predicted results for the above exponential and tractrix horns (Ang = 2.0 x Pi, S1 = 20.27, S2 = 2307.22 and L12 (Exp and Tra) = 55.90). The Hornresp data was exported to Excel and converted to show values of ka (2 x Pi x f / 34400 x 27.1) rather than frequency along the x-axis, to make it easier to directly compare the predicted and measured results.
You can see that the predicted resistance and reactance curves for the exponential horn have the same overall characteristic shapes as the measured results for the exponential horn. Also, the predictions for the tractrix horn compare reasonably well to their respective measured results. The comparisons are certainly close enough for the purposes of calculating theoretical power responses (to an acceptable degree of accuracy).
If the Hornresp predictions for an equivalently-dimensioned conical horn are anything to go by, then the above statement could probably be justifiably questioned :-).
Kind regards,
David |
|
|
| David McBean |
| Exponential - Measured |
|
|
| David McBean |
| Tractrix - Measured |
|
|
| David McBean |
| Exponential - Predicted |
|
|
| David McBean |
| Tractrix - Predicted |
|
|
| Jmmlc |
Hello David,
Thanks for the reply. I can see that we agree on a possible questionning about Earl's sentence ;-)
Thanks also for the impedance measurements (is it possible for you to indicate where did the measured curves of the acoustical impedance were published).
Too bad I gave my conference about "axisymetrical horns" last saturday, my introduction to Hornresp would have been improved with those data.
Best regards from Paris, France
Jean-Michel Le Cléac'h
| quote: | Originally posted by David McBean
Hi Jean-Michel,
Thanks for the extra background information - I can now see why there could be some confusion out there :-).
The above statement is certainly true for very short horns and for long slow-flaring horns where the mouth area is not much larger than the throat area. Following are the measured throat impedances for an exponential horn and a tractrix horn having similar throat areas, mouth areas and axial lengths. Based on this data, I leave it to you to decide whether the comment can be applied generally to all horns :-). It would be really interesting to be able to compare the measured exponential and tractrix throat impedance results against those for either a parabolic or conical horn having identical dimensions.
To complete the picture, I have also included Hornresp-predicted results for the above exponential and tractrix horns (Ang = 2.0 x Pi, S1 = 20.27, S2 = 2307.22 and L12 (Exp and Tra) = 55.90). The Hornresp data was exported to Excel and converted to show values of ka (2 x Pi x f / 34400 x 27.1) rather than frequency along the x-axis, to make it easier to directly compare the predicted and measured results.
You can see that the predicted resistance and reactance curves for the exponential horn have the same overall characteristic shapes as the measured results for the exponential horn. Also, the predictions for the tractrix horn compare reasonably well to their respective measured results. The comparisons are certainly close enough for the purposes of calculating theoretical power responses (to an acceptable degree of accuracy).
If the Hornresp predictions for an equivalently-dimensioned conical horn are anything to go by, then the above statement could probably be justifiably questioned :-).
Kind regards,
David |
|
|
|
| David McBean |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jmmlc
Thanks also for the impedance measurements (is it possible for you to indicate where did the measured curves of the acoustical impedance were published). |
Hi Jean-Michel,
The measured acoustical impedance results were taken from the dissertation by John Theodore Post titled: “A Modeling and Measurement Study of Acoustic Horns”. The dissertation was presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of the University of Texas at Austin in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. The document is copyrighted, and is dated May 1994.
Kind regards,
David |
|
|
| David McBean |
Hi Everyone,
Just letting you know that the Hornresp Tapped Horn Wizard tool has been further enhanced. Throat and mouth areas can now be adjusted from within the tool. Version 19.20 refers.
Please note that each time one of the area sliders is moved to the far right-hand side, the range of all area sliders is automatically increased by 1000 sq cm. The range is also automatically decreased as appropriate to maintain maximum control sensitivity.
THREE SEGMENT TAPPED HORNS
Before selecting the TH Wizard:
1. Set L12 + L23 + L34 to the required overall tapped horn length.
2. Set L23 to the required tapped horn flare (Con or Exp).
Note that the operation of L34 slider has been reversed with the new release. The minimum value is now on the right-hand rather than the left-hand side of the slide control.
FOUR SEGMENT TAPPED HORNS
Before selecting the TH Wizard:
1. Set L12 + L23 + L34 + L45 to the required overall tapped horn length. Note that the position of S3 is specified by L12 + L23 and L34 + L45 and is fixed relative to S1 and S5.
2. Set L23 and L34 to the two required tapped horn flares (Con and/or Exp).
Note that the operation of L45 slider has been reversed with the new release. The minimum value is now on the right-hand rather than the left-hand side of the slide control.
As always, please do not hesitate to advise me either by e-mail or by posting to this forum, if you find any bugs in Hornresp (no matter how trivial they may seem to you).
My thanks go to Erik (‘Volvotreter’) for encouraging me to include this new feature.
Kind regards,
David |
|
|
| revintage |
| quote: | | To complete the picture, I have also included Hornresp-predicted results for the above exponential and tractrix horns (Ang = 2.0 x Pi, S1 = 20.27, S2 = 2307.22 and L12 (Exp and Tra) = 55.90). The Hornresp data was exported to Excel and converted to show values of ka (2 x Pi x f / 34400 x 27.1) rather than frequency along the x-axis, to make it easier to directly compare the predicted and measured results. |
Hello David,
As we are into midrangehorns do you have a working model for a 2"-driver? Jean-Michel has kindly supported with a 1" TAD 2001 but I am not sure that my attempt to convert it to JBL 375/2441 is reliable .
Saw you also have a new version up, will install and enjoy!
Greetings from Sweden! |
|
|
| David McBean |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jmmlc
I can see that we agree on a possible questionning about Earl's sentence ;-) |
Hi Jean-Michel,
The attachment below compares Hornresp predictions for the throat acoustical impedance of the tractrix horn measured by John Post against the throat acoustical impedance of a conical horn having the same throat area, mouth area and axial length as the measured tractrix horn. The red and black traces apply to the conical horn, the pink and grey traces apply to the tractrix horn.
We already know that predicted and measured results for the tractrix horn compare quite favourably. The same outcome is likely to be the case for the conical horn.
This means that there will be a noticeable difference at lower frequencies between the throat acoustical impedance of a conical horn when compared to a tractrix horn of similar dimensions. This lends support to the contention that the statement in question does not hold up in all situations :-).
Kind regards,
David |
|
|
| Kolbrek |
Hi Jean-Michel,
| quote: | | I can see that we agree on a possible questionning about Earl's sentence ;-) |
I had a discussion with Earl on loading, efficiency and displacement a while ago here.
Earl's experience seems to be (from what I can see from the AES papers he has published) with mid/high frequency horns, and the exponential horns he has inverstigated seems to have been poorly executed designs. He does not seem to have much experiencie (if any) with bass horns.
One point that I didn't make in the thread linked to above, is that the effects that loading has on displacement does not depend on efficiency, which Earl seems to believe. The relation is like this: Power radiated equals the squared magnitude of the throat volume velocity times the resistive part of the acoustic load impedance (Ra):
Pout = |U|^2 * Ra
Since the volume velocity U equals the diaphragm velocity times the diaphragm area, and diaphragm displacement equals diaphragm velocity divided by 2*Pi*f, we get the relation for peak displacement:
d = sqrt(2*Pout/[(2*Pi*f)^2 * Ra])
So for a given power output, displacement increases as 1/sqrt(Ra).
In the thread linked to, I also show the difference between a big hyperbolic (T=0.65) horn (post #95), and a conical horn of the exact same length and mouth/throat areas. The difference is obvious.
Also note that when using horns with different loading properties on the same driver, just comparing SPL response and diaphragm displacement with the same input to the system does not show the real difference. Different acoustic loading translates to differences in power drawn from the amplifier, and differences in efficiency. The horns should really be equalized to the same power response to truly see the how the changes affect performance.
In the frequency range where Earl uses horns/waveguides (above 800Hz), the differences will be less than for bass horns, since the driver will mostly work in its mass-controlled range. The horns are also usually quite small and rapidly flaring. Directivity also gets increasingly more pronounced.
That there is a difference in loading between different profiles is easily measured. That the differences does not translate to a difference great enought for Earl to consider them important (in the frequency range he is concerned about) does not change that fact. Neither that the Webster horn equation is not 100% accurate. The physical fact is that slower flaring horns do present a high resistive impedance down to a lower frequency than a rapidly flaring horn.
An example: Many years ago I built a clone of the Unity horn. The measured throat impedance of this horn (where the HF driver attaches) was exactly as Hornresp predicted, and started to fall below about 10kHz. Later I reworked the horn, so it now has an about 20 cm long exponential section before the conical section. Loading is now high down to about 5-600Hz. This by adding a slow flaring throat part.
Attached is the measured and simulated throat impedance of a similar horn.
Best regards,
Bjørn |
|
|
| Kolbrek |
Here is the profile of the horn.
Best Regards,
Bjørn |
|
|
| David McBean |
| quote: | Originally posted by revintage
Hello David,
As we are into midrangehorns do you have a working model for a 2"-driver? Jean-Michel has kindly supported with a 1" TAD 2001 but I am not sure that my attempt to convert it to JBL 375/2441 is reliable .
Saw you also have a new version up, will install and enjoy!
Greetings from Sweden! |
Hi Lars,
Sorry - I do not have the input parameter values for a 2" compression driver.
Kind regards,
David |
|
|
| iand |
| quote: | Originally posted by David McBean
Hi Everyone,
Just letting you know that the Hornresp Tapped Horn Wizard tool has been further enhanced. Throat and mouth areas can now be adjusted from within the tool. Version 19.20 refers.
[snip]
As always, please do not hesitate to advise me either by e-mail or by posting to this forum, if you find any bugs in Hornresp (no matter how trivial they may seem to you).
My thanks go to Erik (‘Volvotreter’) for encouraging me to include this new feature.
Kind regards,
David |
Hi David
Now that the areas can be changed as well as tap points, it would be really helpful if a window showed the total system volume as the sliders are dragged.
Cheers
Ian |
|
|
| paulspencer |
Fantastic to see the new changes to hornresp. I had a look at the tapped horn wizard. I notice that it now has a max spl feature which is very handy. I also notice that it appears to predict a greater SPL than before.
I entered in a big 20 Hz horn with two older AE speakers AV12s. It's telling me it can hit almost 150 db in the midbass with the Behringer EP2500 amp! Two drivers. 2.7m high x 0.5m mouth.
If I put it in the tapped horn I can squeeze out more like 130 db.
In a vented box with WinISD I get 120 db.
I thought a TH only gets more output than vented due to being able to feed in more power, since excursion is roughly halved but efficiency isn't improved. Or am I mistaken?
If this is the case, then a TH should only get more output where the driver is able to handle more power thermally.
This would suggest that to really get the benefit, a typical sub driver won't be suitable. It will be thermally limited. A typical pro driver with very high thermal power handling and high efficiency and not so high excursion would seem ideal. Say a 7mm xmax driver. |
|
|
| MikeHunt79 |
| quote: | Originally posted by paulspencer
This would suggest that to really get the benefit, a typical sub driver won't be suitable. It will be thermally limited. A typical pro driver with very high thermal power handling and high efficiency and not so high excursion would seem ideal. Say a 7mm xmax driver. |
I'm using a Eminence magnum12ho in a th. It only has an xmax of 4.8mm but it is thermally rated for 600W RMS and works very well in a TH enclosure.
David, I'm loving the new version, keep up the good work. :) |
|
|
| David McBean |
| quote: | Originally posted by Kolbrek
Many years ago I built a clone of the Unity horn. The measured throat impedance of this horn (where the HF driver attaches) was exactly as Hornresp predicted, and started to fall below about 10kHz. |
Hi Bjørn,
Many thanks for confirming that the Hornresp prediction for the throat impedance of a conical horn is reasonably accurate.
Kind regards,
David |
|
|
| David McBean |
| quote: | Originally posted by iand
Now that the areas can be changed as well as tap points, it would be really helpful if a window showed the total system volume as the sliders are dragged. |
Hi Ian,
Comment noted - stay tuned :-).
Kind regards,
David |
|
|
| David McBean |
| quote: | Originally posted by MikeHunt79
David, I'm loving the new version, keep up the good work. :) |
Thanks Mike, I'll try to :-).
Kind regards,
David |
|
|
| Sabbelbacke |
| quote: | Originally posted by paulspencer
[B]Fantastic to see the new changes to hornresp. I had a look at the tapped horn wizard. I notice that it now has a max spl feature which is very handy. |
Can´t find it in the wizards dialog. Is it hidden? Just downloaded the recent build.
Maybe I need more coffee :) |
|
|
| David McBean |
| quote: | Originally posted by Sabbelbacke
Can´t find it in the wizards dialog. Is it hidden? Just downloaded the recent build.
Maybe I need more coffee :) |
Hi Sabbelbacke,
I can't find it in the Tapped Horn Wizard either :-).
I think that Paul is probably just using the Maximum SPL tool in conjunction with the TH Wizard tool.
Perhaps he could do with some of your coffee :-).
Kind regards,
David |
|
|
| cowanaudio |
G'day Paul
That's the conclusion I have come to as well. I recently built a pair of 32Hz tapped horns using Peerless XLS 12" drivers for a friend. When pushed you could smell the voice coils, yet excusion was less than half what these drivers are capable of. The extra excursion does buy you quite a bit of protection below cut off.
I'm going to have a play with some 4" coil pro drivers with a lower x-max and see how they go.
David, your little program keeps getting better and better. I'm so glad the goup has been able to keep you motivated!
Cheers
William Cowan |
|
|
| paulspencer |
Yes, Paul was using both tools, it was quite clever of him don't you think?! After you have run calcs, the max SPL option comes up. I used to just keep increasing the input until I went beyond what my amp could do or max excursion was predicted. Now I reach that point much quicker.
William,
This makes me wonder what driver is best for a sub tapped horn. I start to think of a pro driver with 7mm xmax and 95db sensitivity. If you look at Danley's tower of power, 1000 watts at 95 db sensitivity gets 125 db down to 18 Hz. If the horn itself does not boost sensitivity, how do you get a 12" driver which would normally only go to about 40 Hz to reach down to 18 Hz?
I've had a play with a pro driver - Beyma 12" SM212 with 7mm xmax and it can pump out 125db but it won't go below 30 Hz. It only needs 50w to hit that level in a corner. While that sounds decent, I can get more output out of an AV12 drivers and deeper extension with more power.
I'm having a look at this again since I'm looking at how I can squeeze the most out of that pair of AV12 drivers for a home theatre for a friend. If my friend is happy with the idea, he might actually go for that huge 20 Hz bass horn that I was hoping to build in the past but didn't when I found the room really wasn't big enough, and I have neighbour issues! My friend could actually use the thing. So it's a choice between vented, tapped or horn. But now I'm getting off topic! |
|
|
| MikeHunt79 |
| quote: | Originally posted by cowanaudio
I'm going to have a play with some 4" coil pro drivers with a lower x-max and see how they go. |
Try modeling the Eminence Definimax 4012 in your 30Hz TH. I found it works rather well, it only really runs low on xmax below 30Hz and maybe around 40Hz also. It also has a 4" voicecoil, and it doesn't get hot when pushed, but I didn't put more than 300W into mine.
In fact I've been playing around with the "Active EQ"on my DCX2496, and found it can limit different amounts at different frequencies.
I've been using Hornresp with various voltages to find where my driver will run out of xmax at different frequencies... I was thinking it would be really to have a voltage plot on the "Max SPL" curve. Would this be possible?
So I put in say 5mm xmax, 300W power, and hornresp would produce a voltage curve as well as an SPL one. Perhaps the scale for voltage could be on the right have side and the curve itseld could be a different colour so it won't get mixed up with the SPL curve?
I'm not sure if this is possible as I'm not really sure quite how all the maths behind this works... but if it is that would be a great feature IMO. :) |
|
|
| iand |
| quote: | Originally posted by MikeHunt79
Try modeling the Eminence Definimax 4012 in your 30Hz TH. I found it works rather well, it only really runs low on xmax below 30Hz and maybe around 40Hz also. It also has a 4" voicecoil, and it doesn't get hot when pushed, but I didn't put more than 300W into mine.
In fact I've been playing around with the "Active EQ"on my DCX2496, and found it can limit different amounts at different frequencies.
I've been using Hornresp with various voltages to find where my driver will run out of xmax at different frequencies... I was thinking it would be really to have a voltage plot on the "Max SPL" curve. Would this be possible?
So I put in say 5mm xmax, 300W power, and hornresp would produce a voltage curve as well as an SPL one. Perhaps the scale for voltage could be on the right have side and the curve itseld could be a different colour so it won't get mixed up with the SPL curve?
I'm not sure if this is possible as I'm not really sure quite how all the maths behind this works... but if it is that would be a great feature IMO. :) |
If a 15" driver will fit try the BMS 15N850, this doesn't run out of Xmax even at 1200W input.
Ian |
|
|
| David McBean |
| quote: | Originally posted by cowanaudio
David, your little program keeps getting better and better. I'm so glad the group has been able to keep you motivated! |
Hi William,
If you like the current Tapped Horn Wizard tool, then I think you are probably going to love the next enhancement :-). It is most likely about a week or so away, if all goes according to plan.
I am not sure that I would describe Hornresp as a "little" program though - the source code for Version 19.20 fills over 500 A4 pages when printed out :-).
Kind regards,
David |
|
|
|
